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

A midwife is not there just to see to the needs of the mother, she is there to make sure both mother and baby go through the process of labour and birth with an outcome of both surviving, if you can't see that it would be difficult for a mw to terminate a late pg then that is your problem, it is not just a mw responsibility to make sure the mother is ok, she is there to help bring baby's safely into the world and I for one am glad that's what they are trained for

I wouldn't sign up to do a job that included parts that were "anathema" to me spiderslegs.

Obviously.

BadDayAtTheOrifice

I'm here because my father refused to let my mother have a termination. She couldn't love me. I knew most of my life that she didn't love me. We (my mother & I ) no longer have a relationship & haven't since I left home 20yrs ago. She didn't want me, but my father convinced her it would be ok. He left when I was 5, leaving the burden of an unwanted child on the person who didn't want it.

You have NO idea how it affected my life.

yellowraincoat: neither have any health professionals. The conscience-based regulation has been in place since the Abortion Act (and before, for contraception services, from when first provided on NHS). It's not the individual who is picking and choosing - it is long standing NHS policy.

No one is taking about people who need to have abortions but the ones who want to

Yeah, I REALLY wanted my termination! Was really excited about it, couldn't wait!

FFS, maypole, you make it sound like purposely get pregnant just to have a termination.

sound like women purposely

YANBU

Read the article - they are not taking part in the termination, they are being asked to supervise staff looking after women pre and post abortin,

So Miss A has a miscarriage - student nurse asks her supervisor if she can make her a cup of tea or give pain relief and her supervisor says yes or no.

Miss B has a termination - - student nurse asks her supervisor if she can make her a cup of tea or give pain relief and her supervisor says - that woman had an abortion I'm having nothing to do with her.

Are they going to refuse to supervise a delivery where the parents used contraception between baby one and two?

Are they going to refuse to deliver an IVF baby - IVF is also against catholic teachings.

sassh: they cannot refuse to deliver an IVF baby. It's not included in the contraception/termination regulation. Not are other reasons for admission for those who use contraception. So I think you're introducing straw arguments here.

I don't have a problem with people avoiding duties that are anathema to them when this can be accommodated without disrupting the service and the care offered to women. The problem is that allowing HCP to refuse to be involved in any way with women having terminations DOES disrupt the service. I and others have already explained on this thread how difficult it is to get round this problem, and I'm slightly frustrated that some posters are just ignoring that side of it. Put simply: there is no empty ward with its own midwives where you can send women having late terminations!

The other message that is not getting through: this is NOT new. This has been an ongoing issue since 1967. These midwives would have started their careers knowing that they could be called upon to be indirectly involved with women undergoing termination. The fact that they are raising it now does possibly suggest a wider agenda and the involvement of an external organisation.

edam - does 'supervising' those junior staff involve them sitting on the termination and stepping in should any problems arise? Do you know what is involved in those late term terminations? I'm not sure it is fair to expect someone who finds abortion morally wrong to stand and watch as a foetus is dismembered and extracted with forceps

bumbleymummy

READ THE BLOODY ARTICLE!!!!

THEY ARE NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN THE TERMINATIONS. THEY ARE INVOLVED IN DELEGATING (i.e telling staff what to do) NURSES AS TO WHAT THEY SHOULD BE DOING WITH REGARDS TO THE PRE & POST OP CARE OF WOMEN WHO HAVE HAD TERMINATIONS. THEY DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN THE ACTUAL ACT OF THE TERMINATION ITSELF.

Loud enough? Sorry to shout, but I thought that perhaps people would actually understand what the midwives are supposed to be doing if I shouted it as loud as I could, as there are an awful lot of people who are seemingly too busy/lazy/inept to read the actual article or to read the previous posts.

PLEASE if you want to debate a point, be fully aware of the facts first.

I think the job description should clearly state that if a midwife was to provide care to women terminating then that is part of the job when these jobs are advertised and contracts signed. Midwives not wanting to provide care to these women then don't apply for and don't get these jobs.
To me for many midwifery jobs it is part of the job.
As others have said they aren't actually doing the terminations (although again I think that jobs for gynaecologists where terminations are part of the job should clearly say this with doctors unable to opt out, there are pleanty of medical and nursing jobs where you don't have to get involved in terminations) just caring for women who have had them.
The NHS either provides a humane termination service or it doesn't.
If a student nurse refused to take a cup of tea to a woman who has had a termination then she is an uncaring judgy pants who should look at another career, and definitely not have the obstetric and gynaecology part of her training signed off.

Honestly, no midwives are being forced to participate in termination, meaning they do not administer drugs, forceps or anything else in the process of termination.

This is about indirect involvement e.g. managing a ward where termination is taking place (but without direct involvement), providing meals to a woman post-abortion, making up beds for termination patients, being the line manager of staff involved in termination.

Basically, if you say HCP do not have to have even indirect involvement then it rapidly becomes impossible to provide NHS abortion services. And the abortions that would be affected would be those that cannot be contracted out i.e. the very late medical abortions or those where care is very complex (e.g. abortion on a woman who has cancer and needs oncology involvement, or is very ill and may need quick access to intensive care facilities).

Alconleigh And how many weeks does that add to the process, especially if you're a patient at a small surgery or a surgery which is packed with thousands of patients like my inner-London one? Or if they all decide they don't fancy it much? Or is the idea that silly women will change their minds if it's all put off till more complicated?

In my case, the first dr I saw (because I liked her & she was always very nice & pleasant) told me she wouldn't refer me because of her faith (although to give her credit she was very sympathetic & actually told me she admired me for sticking to my guns) and she made sure I was booked in the next day with another doctor who was very helpful. I know this isn't always the case, but you would hope it would be.

2rebecca - all student midwives have the conscientious objection clause explained to them as part of their training. They know this issue may come up in their career.

differentnameforthis - sadly, that is definitely not always the case. In many parts of the country, there are still overlong delays. It was a long time ago now, but you know how long I waited to get a second doctor's signature for abortion? Six weeks! Meaning that I had to wait until it was too late to get an early abortion. And I was still at school so you might have thought I'd get some kind of priority.

How vile for a HCP professional to refuse to offer care to a patient based on their religious ideals.

If you work in A&E you will come across all manner of people including drug dealers, peadophiles, rapists, child abusers etc etc.

I imagine that the vast majority of atheists would find what these people havd done abbhorrant.

If they are HCPs they are still required to treat them and give them proper care.

Why should it be different for someone who calls themselve a Catholic?

That MW should be ashamed. Oh for a time machine so we could send her back to the pre legal abortion days and she could see how much of her job would involve dealing with the aftermath.

Ironically many mw/nurses in pre NHS days were NUNS and they would have been the ones trying to deliver babies to mothers whose insides were butchered by back street abortionists.

When you sign up for a caring role you have to put your personal stuff aside or you cannot work properly. I would question whether this person should be in this role at all.

lots of us have to do things that are anathaema to us in our jobs. lawyers aren't allowed to turn down work because of the risk that some people wouldn't get a fair hearing. doctors and medical staff shouldn't be allowed to turn down any legal medical procedures because otherwise there is a risk that eventually some people won't get the medical treatment they need.

This thread is reminding me of a senior midwife I once worked with - lovely woman, but inflexible was her middle name. She was very strongly religious, and her conscientious objections extended way beyond termination into a very strict code for how 'my ladies' were permitted to give birth. NO SWEARING! She told me that if she heard any bad language whatsoever, she would stand back from the bed and tell the woman, "There is NO need to use words that offend the Lord's ears! And if I hear any more of that, I am leaving this room and not coming back until you apologise!"

She was no nice in so many ways. And I am so very relieved I didn't have to give birth with her.

Actually ScroobiousPip, that's not quite true about lawyers. Barristers are supposed to observe what's called the 'cab rank rule'. They're not meant to refuse a case that's within their area of expertise and their usual renumeration rates. The rule isn't necessarily always followed 100% though. Solicitors have a bit more control over what they take on, although there are restrictions on the permissible reasons to turn down a case.

Kellamity, surely you been as students you weren't obliged to participate in pre or post abortion care? I doubt as a qualified midwive on the payroll you could opt out. I would be appalled as that would be neglecting a patient. You can opt out of being in the theatre and that's always been the case. Same as a gp can refuse to refer or a sugeon can refuse to carry out abortions. I remember at one point in my home city, not one obstetrician would do abortions and for years women had to travel to the next city. I think this may have changed since a female surgeon started there who is very pro and, I thank God for that.

ReneeVivien

:( That's just awful!

And I imagine that midwife will stay off sick now until she can take early retirement and get her lump sum. Then she will work as and when she pleases. I've seen it all before.

you are right FB but generally if it's in your area of expertise then, as a barrister at least, you shouldn't be flouting the cab rank rule (unless you're in house of course). likewise if you are a duty solicitor. of course if it's a different area of law you can decline on expertise grounds but then that's a bit like comparing a midwife with a paramedic - if you decide to work in a particular field you have to take what comes along.

Differentnameforthis, I HAVE READ THE ARTICLE. I WAS RESPONDING TO A PP WHO SAID THAT THEY SHOULD STILL BE ABLE TO SUPERVISE JUNIOR STAFF IF REQUIRED TO REGARDLESS OF THEIR BELIEFS. Maybe you should take some of your own advice and READ THE BLOODY THREAD before you start shouting at people.

I worked for a short time in the op theatre of a large hospital, in the 70s. All staff had the right to opt out of abortion on religious grounds. That is, the abortion itself, in the theatre. Not pre- or post-op care though.

This is not new. This has been in place probably since the 60s. No change has taken place.

I do think that our system via a vis the relation between religion and the state should be overhauled. The 'official' religion in this country is Church of England and the monarch is not just the Head of State but also Defender of the Faith. We either observe that, and allow the law to reflect it, or we separate religion (any religion) from law entirely (much the best option imo).

At the moment we live in the worst of both worlds. This probably stemmed from the efforts to ensure we became more tolerant of other religions after the horrible acts committed under Bloody Mary, and similar.

We have an official religion, which fewer observe every generation; we have certain things exempted on religious grounds but not others of a comparable nature. The whole thing's a mess and it's about time we sorted it out.