To expect a midwife to carry out termination duties?

[foglike]

To think a midwife has to carry out these duties and not claim religious discrimination because she's catholic?

bbc link

None of the things you list would result in ending a life tho.
There is no other area that medics/ nurses are allowed/ expected to participate in something that would cause or hasten a death...first do no harm.
I think this is where some professionals struggle.

Everyone should have the right to choose which includes the staff.

I think the actual point of this thread has been missed and has become more about people's personal opinions on terminations.

"Opting out of treating someone because you disapprove of their lifestyle/choices is different than refusing to commit a mortal sin yourself, surely?"

There was no suggestion at any point that those who "disapprove" are forced "to commit a mortal sin". Just expected to carry out their duties to in respect to pre- and post- op.

zzzzzzz my point is that they can't preach a la carte morality.
And their first duty should be to the patient, always.

If the patient went into cardiac arrest due to complications, would they refuse to save them?

It's all a bit fucked up.

I think it's a very complex issue and it hugely different to terminate a pregnancy where the baby is likely to have complex medical needs and very little quality of life or a future life of abject pain or indeed if the mother has been raped and cannot cope with the consequent pregnancy than to help terminate a baby or foetus when the mother has conceived for the nth time even though contraceptives have been offered.

Ultimately I believe doctors and any other health care professionals enter the medical world to try to save lives or to provide palliative care when it is impossible to do so. Personally I believe they have the right to decline their services for procedures that they believe to be morally wrong but I think there should be a caveat when they are appointed when they are able to state whether they would be prepared or not to be involved and this is something they need to consider carefully when going into that branch of medicine.

I have a very dear neighbour who has been on anti-abortion marches whom I know requested not to be cared for by any one involved in abortion when she was pregnant. I also know her obstetrician - he was mine also and has become a personal friend because we have got know his children and grandchildren, who understands that many midwives and young doctors would prefer not to be involved but do so because they feel they have to because of their careers; the same elderly gentleman recalls when abortion was not legal and the "carnage" he had on occasion to sort out

I am on the fence on this one; I think the doctors/hcps should have a choice, I think women should have a choice; I think it is a tragedy that so many needless abortions are performed when effective contraception is readily available. I really do not think the choice to abort a planned pregnancy is ever one that is taken lightly or without great pain and the need for much care and I am not convinced if the required care can possibly be given by someone who helps as a contractual duty rather than because they want to.

gives up

"....than to help terminate a baby or foetus when the mother has conceived for the nth time even though contraceptives have been offered."

And part of a medical practitioners job is to judge? Since when?

What about the woman forced into a pregnancy she doesn't want? And what happens after the birth, to both her and the child? You think she should be made to have it to teach her a lesson?

"to a Catholic, as life is deemed to start and be sacred from conception"

"The termination act states that no health care prof has to be involved if they object.

I have met GPs who won't refer women for a termination, and anaesthetists who won't do the anaesthetic.

It's absolutely normal. They find another member of staff instead. It's not just Catholics who may object to this."

But surely that is all that the Health Trust is asking these sisters to do?

Forgive me if this point has already been made as I have only skimmed parts of the thread. People have sated that the midwives are only repsonsible for pre and post termination care. This is not the case, these are late medical terminations performed in labour ward in which a labour in induced and the fetus delivered by a midwife. A labour ward sister must be able to supervise their junior colleagues in case of emergency - emergency care is never optional.

PeanutButterCupCake, I call my foetus a foetus. That reflects my pro choice beliefs of course, but no more so than a pro lifer calling theirs a baby.

This thread needs to not become an excuse for bigotry either. Whoever said Catholics don't follow their own consciences needs to go and fuck her prejudiced self. I'm Catholic and I follow mine. I followed it enough to temp in a family planning clinic for a year, and part of this was assisting in termination referrals. The fact is that this is a wider issue than Catholics anyway. We are a small percentage of the UK population- about 12% I think- and plenty of us, like me, are pro choice. Pro-life beliefs are certainly not exclusive to one group comprising no more than an eighth of the population.

My list of possible opt-outs is to make the point that if something is legal, which termination is, as well as all the other things I listed, then medical staff should be prepared to work with this or find another job. The ability to opt out is anachronistic IMO.

On the point of "first do no harm" this applies to the pregnant woman, surely? It is harmful to women to make them continue pregnancies against their will, regardless of any physical, mental or emotional problems this may bring.

Then it's time this law was changed IMHO. It's part of medical care in a few different jobs, and people shouldn't do these jobs if they want to pick and choose which parts they do.

"The termination act states that no health care prof has to be involved if they object."

I come at this from a different angle. The nhs, we are now told, is a business and is to be run as such.

If a service deemed necessary and is commissioned (by the local authorities or gp's or whoever) that contract is awarded to the successful tender. It is their contractual duty to fulfill this service and provide appropriate staff to provide care.

If a staff member is unable to do this then they should be redeployed. Not providing care is not acceptable. Most staff contracts have a clause in them indicatingthey can be moved to meet the demands of a service. I don't think you can decline to care or treat someone on the patients religious or cultural grounds and it works vica versa.

why change the law when the current position works? If one midwife refuses to care for a woman, another midwife will be assigned to her. Why force someone to do something they find morally acceptable? Especially as it is likely to affect the care given.
I wouldn't mind a bit if one of my colleagues felt unable to do this, for whatever reason. I'm talking about direct care around the termination and not aftercare, supervised care or emergency care of course.

*unacceptable

garlicheesechips the NMC code which was linked several pages ago is explicit about the issue of a medical emergency a nod the registered practitioner's responsibility.

The answer to your question is No.

I don't agree that it works.

I don't think it's acceptable for a medical professional to be able to (in as many words) say to a patient, for whatever reason, that they find their - perfectly legal - medical request objectionable, sinful etc.

"why change the law when the current position works"

Why don't you think its acceptable? They won't be saying anything to the patient?

The patient will never know, they'll just have someone else assigned to care for them.

It will still be obvious to the patient that this person was judging them and felt they were medically "untouchable".

How will it be obvious if they never come into contact with them?
Surely better than being forced into caring for them and having direct contact?

Ultimately a patient probably wouldn't know.

But you could argue that if you take it back to a business model, staff are paid to provide a service or level of care. It could be argued if you are not able to fulfill that role then you shouldn't be there.

This is not necessarily my personal view but this is how health services are being considered/measured against.

It wouldn't be obvious at all, the patient would have no idea.