Savita's case

  Savita Halappanavar was a 31-year-old woman who moved from India to Ireland 4 years ago. She spent a week in the University Hospital Galway before dying from blood poisoning. During the time she was hospitalized, she, who was 17 weeks pregnant, was informed that she was miscarrying. She went through a lot of pain and suffering during the 7 days of her stay in the Hospital and repeatedly asked doctor to finish her pregnancy.  However, the Hospital refused her request arguing that the fetus still had a heartbeat and because “this is a Catholic country.”

  Savita was allowed to have an abortion almost 3 days after the fetus’ heartbeat stopped, but it was too late. She was moved to an intensive care unit, but she died of septicemia.

   Although abortion is illegal in Ireland, the Supreme Court of the country commanded to do it in case the mother’s life is in danger during pregnancy; unfortunately, governments in Ireland have refused to make that command legal, so hospitals rarely obey this order.

   I think it is really unfair for women to not have the right to decide for their own lives, especially when the fetus has no chance whatsoever to survive and puts in danger the mother’s life. Moreover, I believe it is not fair to argue that because of religious reasons Savita was not allowed to end her fetus’ life. Why, if not everybody in the world shares the same religion, do societies have to be so influenced by one?

 What do you think of Savita’s case? 

Embryonic Stem Cells Research: Abortion or Scientific Progress?

You probably have heard the term “stem cells”. Nowadays, it is mentioned on TV, newspapers and internet quite often since this kind of cells are said to be the possible “cure” for many diseases. For the ones who do not know, a stem cell is a “neutral” cell which is able to grow within any other specialized cell. So, when a specialized cell, e.g. a skin cell, is damaged or missing, a stem cell could repair or replace it. 

Two categories of stem cells can be identified: “embryonic” and “adult”. Basically, the “embryonic” are the ones found in an embryo when it is just a few days old. The “adult” stem cells are neutral cells found in tissues and organs. The problem is that this type of cells is not as versatile and obtainable as embryonic stem cells; therefore, they may not be really helpful for research.

Although most of embryonic stem cells are obtained from embryos that develop from eggs fertilized “in vitro” (and donated for research purposes), religious groups are against their use since they maintain that human life begins at the moment of conception; therefore, scientists would be killing potential human lives.

Groups in favor allege that life starts just when there’s activity registered in the brain (20 weeks approximately after conception).  Furthermore, embryos need to be transferred into a woman’s uterus in order to develop into a person.

Is an early embryo a real person?  Or should we care more about the possible treatments that could be developed from this kind of research?

                                                                                                                                                                                             

Blood Transfusion Vs. Religion

 Blood transfusion, as you may know, is the process of transferring blood from one person to another through an intravenous manner. This process, not as simple as it sounds, has given the possibility of saving thousands of lives.

 Lots of investigations needed to take place to learn about more blood, all this in order to succeed in blood transfusion. After running lots of tests, investigators discovered that it was possible to store blood and soon after, blood banks were a viable choice.

 After it is donated, blood goes through specific tests before it gets to the patient’s bodies, to assure that there is no danger of transmitting infections or diseases, like AIDS, among others. In spite of this, some people refuse blood transfusions not just because of reasons that have to do with fear of catching a disease, but also with religion.

 We have been able to see some specific groups within our society strongly rejecting blood transfusion. It is similar to what happens with organ donation in the sense that people usually think it is unnatural to remove someone’s organs from their –dead or alive- bodies to put them into a person who needs it, but they say it’s because of biblical reasons. I wonder though, what is wrong with medicine improving so much that can save people’s lives? What would you do if it was your mother, or brother, or son is in the need of blood transfusion and your religion forbids it?

   When talking about blood transfusion, would you stop from saving your beloved ones just because your religion says it’s not a right thing to do?