NHS Fife suspended student midwife over religious belief

I agree Tempest. The idea that people can disagree with whatever the 'right-think' is on a topic, but that they cannot express it is really dangerous. It is important that people can vocalise or write their thoughts. Free speech (but not including incitement of violence) is a vital part of democracy IMO.

I would want this midwife over AshKeys cousin's* *team because they imo were not pro-choice but pro-abortion in a eugenics way so not what a woman with child with a possible prebirth issue needs.

Diagnosing that a pregnancy has become a threat to the mother is part of the job.

Thats not usually an issue as the death of the mother kills the child anyway. And a midwife would should) refer that onto a wider medical team.

Counseling a woman who is considering a termination by choice and signposting her to services is part of the job.

Is imo is a management problem. Its unlikely the counseling is fundemental part of the job as in the UK it still has to be routed through the "specialist" service. So unless the employee is not willing to signpost the employer just needs to have a standing instruction that the employee calls in their manager or appropiate staff.

Well said. The midwife in this case has gone out of her way to say she would not impose her beliefs on patients. There is no reason to disbelieve her. The question is are there any aspects of the job she can opt out of - if not, then the job isn't for her but it seems in this case she can opt out of actually performing abortions herself? It's not the primary role of a midwife I don't think? There is no suggestion she wouldn't signpost women needing an abortion elsewhere.

I think it's fine for people with prochoice or prolife views to do these jobs, where those beliefs affect the patient (as in AshKeys example) is where a problem arises.

Likewise someone who is very pro-choice could be said to be unable to appropriately counsel a women who is pro-life. My cousin is generally pro-life in her personal belief relating to her own pregnancies. The midwife/doctor involved in her care were very pro-choice and their attitude towards her on diagnosing Down’s left my cousin hugely distressed. There was no way she would abort a baby for being Down’s and was incredibly offended by the suggestions that she should or that it was even an option.

It undermined her trust in her whole care team during a high risk pregnancy with a neonate in need of a higher level of care.

Diagnosing that a pregnancy has become a threat to the mother is part of the job. Counseling a woman who is considering a termination by choice and signposting her to services is part of the job. A midwife might not personally need to perform a termination, but I don’t see how someone can be pro-life and perform the job adequately.

sometimes our personal beliefs mean we simply aren’t capable of doing a job. We all have lines we won’t cross. A vegan wouldn’t take a job at a meat processing plant or a butcher shop. This is a place where I think laws carving out special provisions for certain beliefs are wrong.

I do think that all of us that have experienced the grim consequences of being vocally gender critical would be wise to ensure that we do not impose the same consequences on anyone who, in good faith, takes an opposing view to us on any other important issue.

You would think, but I don't think many have. They take it that gender ideology is an aberration - it's fine to impose right-belief, as long as you have the right beliefs being imposed. Unfortunately they happened to be mistaken about gender beliefs being true.

I'm not sure how much young people really learn now about the importance of free speech and free public discourse in education. It seems like for about 20 years - maybe more but that's where I first started to notice this - what they are taught in school is that being careful to not saying the wrong things is paramount, and making mistakes will result in disapline or reeducation.

Obviously proselytising to patients is a different thing but it doesn’t sound like she was doing that.

Unlike Dr Upton who as BonfireLady points out has shown clear intent to impose his belief he's female on patients regardless of their beliefs.

👏Well, quite.

Expecting consistency from NHS Fife is rather assuming they're capable of logical thinking though. It is very disturbing this organisation supposedly delivers healthcare (although according to some accounts not very well).

Ah! Edinburgh Napier. Unless I'm much mistaken it was there where they were teaching student midwives how to insert a urinary catheter into a penis person, in case they should be required to look after one in labour.

Words fail.

When I was training as a midwife we discussed abortion and conscientious objection to it. We were told that if such was our view, we'd have to let the senior management know but the only thing we could legally opt out of was administration the abortifacient drugs. Apart from that bit, we'd have to provide care, same as to anyone else.

Great post. Instead of abortion you could substitute 'sex-realism', 'assisted dying', 'gender-affirming care', 'surrogacy'..... we all have to talk about this stuff in a democracy. You cannot exclude a particular group of professionals from discussing an important societal issue, even if some of them are going to say things you might disagree with. Free speech is the cornerstone of democracy. Surely we have learnt that lesson from the stealthy introduction of gender ideology?

Regardless of what you personally think about abortion, if you believe in freedom of expression you should be outraged by this. A midwife should be free to have any belief she likes about abortion and to express it in a private capacity. Indeed it is vital to encourage a plurality of belief among professionals in this business. It does not help us reach a consensus ethical position if the people at the top decide what the right answer is and persecute anyone who disagrees.

Obviously proselytising to patients is a different thing but it doesn’t sound like she was doing that.

I would find it extremely difficult to ‘kill an unborn child’. It would be hard to do, for me, even in extremis where failing to act would result in the death of both.

As PP says, all sides should be free to contribute to a debate, and a plurality of opinion within maternity services should result in a better, more sensitive service where all women’s positions are understood and respected.

This authoritarian imposition of ideas is very dangerous as it allows people to carry out more and more extreme acts without having to offer any justification.

In the UK most people are against abortion at full term or in the last trimester and the law reflects this. All sides in the debate must be able to argue whether this is appropriate, and that includes professionals caring for women and babies. There is a big difference between arguing on Facebook, in a political hustings, or a meeting, and doing so with a patient at the point of care.

I feel the same was as I do about Dr Upton.

She is entitled to her beliefs. She is entitled to not have an abortion.
As long as she doesn’t inflect her views on her patients and colleagues.

Midwives are often involved in the actual care - most commonly this would be terminations of pregnancy for foetal anomaly. E.g anencephaly, chromosomal issues ect.

Typically, the patients are cared for on the delivery suite (as the gestation tends to be later than most other terminations, so it needs to be here) in the bereavement area.

They would be doing tasks such as monitoring the patient, giving pain relief, and also giving the medications that cause the abortion.

I feel that there is more and more this sentiment that does not allow people who have beliefs about issues of this kind to work in any public capacity if they even express them. By that, I mean any kind of belief like, personhood begins at conception, or, killing someone, even if they consent, is immoral.

Which are obviously not factual kinds of beliefs, like "sex is immutable in mammals." They are philosophical or spiritual beliefs.

The idea seems to be that unless a person toes the line in terms of these kinds of ideas they should be marginalized.

The RCM are pretty clear on their position that midwives can concientiously object to being involved in abortions (as is the law)

As far as i can ascertain midwives are only involved in the care of women who are considering an abortion, and are not involved in anyway involved in the actual abortion process or aftercare.

As the aforementioned ruling reflects upon this

I personally have no wish to support a midwife who is expressly, anti abortion, because she is in a position, which puts women at a risk of her prothlitising her beliefs upon others she may come across in her professional life.

The RCM are pretty clear on the position, and I for one cannot stand anti abortionists, they should just mind their own, nobody is asking them to have an abortion.

So no sympathy from me.

This Glasgow case ended up going to the Supreme Court, but they didn't even want to supervise other staff who were caring for women having abortions.

It was fine for them to not be involved in conducting abortions though.

I was very against the midwives involved in this case and am dubious about the concept of conscienous objection when caring for patients undergoing legal procedures, but it sounds like NHS Fife have indeed fucked up again.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-30514054

I would have assumed that NHS Fife should of had a process of anticipating that some staff involved in medical care would opt out.

That will be another fail in their nonexisting equality impact assessment

Oh FFS NHS Fife 🤦‍♀️. Is there some sort of competition going on between the managers on who can get involved in the most Employment Tribunals?

As long as she isn't using her position to discourage women from having abortions (which she says she wouldn't) surely she is allowed to believe this?

Here's the NMC's conscientious objection page. It's not obvious to me that the behaviour alleged violates the social media code. https://www.nmc.org.uk/standards/code/conscientious-objection-by-nurses-and-midwives/

A quick google finds this case which appears superficially similar: https://righttolife.org.uk/news/midwifery-student-wins-apology-and-settlement-from-university-after-facing-suspension-for-being-pro-life