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

As someone with a knowledge of universities and a relative who is a midwife, I can say that the OP is NBU

Universities are very careful to state in their midwifery course literature, open days, conventions etc that midwifery will involve things like abortion and miscarriage. Its also mentioned at interview stage - so all midwifery course applicants KNOW what to expect.

I see no point in becoming a midwife unless you are prepared to carry out all the duties.

I dont know if anything was said or done around the pregnant woman but I have a suspicion the answer to that would be yes - its likely the midwife in question refused to tend to the woman. How horrible.

What's the alternative to having the ability to opt out for religious reasons though? Catholics not becoming midwives and doctors because they may have to perform/assist in an abortion some day?

Redrosette, there's a bit of a difference between a miscarriage and an abortion.

what I meant was upsetting things. I know there is a difference.

absolutely, bubbleymummy. if your religion interferes with the law of the land then you shouldn't expect to go into an affected profession. otherwise, you could potentially have fundamentalist male doctors refusing to treat female patients (think of Afghanistan where women struggle to get proper medical care), strict catholics family planning nurses refusing to prescribe birth controls, JW nurses refusing to carry out blood transfusions etc. the NHS would be a mess.

Scroobius, the vast majority of solicitors aren't duty solicitors though. And the ca rank rule does get flouted. I don't think this is quite the same as the midwife supervisors example though, since the midwives concerned weren't being asked to actually do the work themselves. So a closer analogy might be a supervisor in a firm not wanting to pass work they didn't morally agree with to other members of staff?

I'm glad you posted this though, because a lot of people have been saying that there isn't any other job where you're allowed to choose who you assist, and that's not quite true.

I doubt anyone would who is against abortion could take part in the procedure even if ordered ( religion based belief or not) However a nurse should be able to care for someone before or after the procedure, otherwise they are not really being a good nurse are they ??

My friend had an abortion some years ago and the GP she first consulted was Catholic and anti abortion so he would not arrange anything, however, after he explained his reasons he did tell her to see one of the other GPS in the practice if she was determined to go ahead.

My answer to bumbleymummy would be "yes". If catholics cannot fulfil the job spec, of a particular job then they shouldn't apply for it and should do something else. As a doctor you only have to perform and assist in abortions if you are a gynaecologist. I do think people who refuse to get involved in terminations should not be allowed to become gynaecologists. Picking the bits of a job you like and leaving other bits shouldn't be tolerated. Similarly if a catholic is unwilling to provide nursing care to a woman pre and post termination she shouldn't become a nurse on a gyne ward or a midwife. There are thousands of jobs where you don't have to get involved with women having terminations, choose one of those.

I agree with you and, I dont. If there is a gynaecologist who is willing then the one who isnt can refer you to him/her. As I said earlier, for many years in my town there was not one that would perform an abortion, this has only changed in very recent years. I do think that they have their own "speciality" therfore can pass patients on. Nurses, on the other hand, have the choice where they work. I have never seen or heard of anyone being ordered to be in theatre during an abortion but, providing care before and after is surely part of their role otherwise, they are in the wrong job. I would be surprised if even students can opt out of caring for these women.

Unbelievable that people think you should not be allowed to enter a profession because their personal beliefs are in conflict with a small aspect of it. 2rebecca, they couldn't be a GP either because they might have to refer someone for an abortion. What a waste of good doctors and midwives.

yes, that's probably a better analogy, FB - which makes it even more appalling.

it's true that most of us aren't duty solicitors (thankfully) but i do believe it's important in a civilised society that for 'serious' events like where a person needs medical treatment or has criminal charges laid against them, the laws and relevant codes of conduct do (or should) ensure that everyone has access to the professional services that they need. and, as a professional, if you can't subscribe to that principle, then you really shouldn't be doing the job.

differentname

Your father not 'allowing' your mother a termination is not the same as her not receiving one because healthworkers did not want to care for her because of their personal beliefs.

I think that if you are a single handed GP in an area with no family planning clinics then you shouldn't be allowed to opt out of referring women for terminations. The NHS has decided that this is a service it offers. Anyone working for the NHS in this area should therefore be willing to offer this service. If you are a GP in a large group practice with family planning clinics nearby then it doesn't matter if you won't refer women for terminations as they have other options.
The needs of the patients (which includes the want/need for a termination) should always come first. If appointing a health worker with particular beliefs disadvantages the services available to patients then that person should not get the job. You shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which bits of a job you want to do. If you refuse to do any part of a job then that is not the job for you and you choose a different job.

so, bubbleymummy, do you believe that a strict muslim doctor (or insert other relevant religion - others are equally strict) should be allowed to refuse to treat men/women because of their religious beliefs? should a catholic GP (again insert other relevant religion) be able to refuse advice to an unmarried woman about the contraceptive pill? or refuse to refer a teenage girl for a termination? should a specialist plastic surgeon refuse to do gender reassignment surgery because of her religious beliefs?

if the professional can't put the patient first at all times then they are in the wrong job.

x-posts 2rebecca - you put it better.

How many midwives are on duty in any given hospital at any time?

If the on duty midwives happen to be catholic or any other form of conscientious objector where would that leave the woman in distress if these midwives refused to help with her medical care?

What branches of other emergency service have these get out clauses?

Refusing to treat a patient because of religious beliefs is bigotry and I can't seem to distance myself from that opinion...it's preachy wrong and very very dangerous.

No foglike - current I would not want to be involved with starting off a termination but I would never refuse care once that process was underway. Doctors start the process off in any case - as a midwife I would provide care afterwards. I have never met any midwife who had a problem with this care - I am Catholic and fairly pro-life but I don't judge anyone who isn't and would care for them the same as anyone else.

I think these two midwives in the OP's link are an oddity tbh - it's definitely not usual.

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

You implied that the midwives were expected to actually take part in the terminations, when they are not. I read what you said, quite clearly!

Dillydaydreaming good points and I wasn't inferring that all catholics would do this....if it came out like that then I apologise.

But they are probably more guilty than someone accused of religious bigotry because one of them "On t' sick" is milking the system using her faith as an excuse via the convenience of stress/illness over the situation.

In short she was overcome with the victorian vapours expecting a lump sum and early pay off.

A muslim dentist was struck off because he asked a muslim woman to wear a headscarf whilst eh treated her and quoted the Koran to back up his point, yet he would not have been struck off for refusing to give a woman life saving treatment if that involved a termination or care of someone who had had a termination. How is that fair, and why is it always women who are targeted. I have never heard of a man being refused a vastectomy, and as soon as people bring up discrimination against other groups, people claim that would be wrong, but someone how things involving only women are fair game. It seems that every other equality trumps women's equality.

Why take a job when you refuse to do part of it (yet demand the same wages.)?

Bumbley,
No one says they cannot enter a profession because of their personal beliefs. they said they cannot enter the profession if they refuse to do part of their job. If a jehovahs witness nurse said she would refuse to give blood transfusions she would not be allowed to work anywhere where this might be required, so why make an exception for those against terminations. If you do nto want to work with something then do not train to work in a field that involves it.

What I would like to know is how these two women square up being paid by an organisation that performs abortion.

They are able to opt out of terminations because you always have, they worked on the labour ward, if a women came in to have a late termination and had to give birth she could be allocated another mw

If the mw in question are in charge of allocation then they should be demoted and someone else put in charge

Since when do they extract and dismember the foetus in situations where the women gives birth, maybe for earlier terminations in theatre, which mw can opt out of but I doubt in the labour ward

differentnameforthis, clearly you didn't read it properly because it was me who said that not edam. Also supervising and stand and watch do not imply that the midwives are doing it themselves although if they are supervising and a implication occured they would have to step in. In any case, let me repeat that the post was in response to another poster and was not directly related to this particular case.

Moomins, if you want to visit the BPAS or Marie stopes website you can read about dilation and extraction with forceps/suction for abortions carried out from 15-24 weeks. I think it is post 24 weeks that women actually have to go through labour.