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

Given that the women were midwifery sisters and therefore in essence managers, and that their objection was to 'delegate, supervise and support staff' who were involved with terminations in any way surely the closer equivalent is to being a restaurant manager, refusing to work with any staff that handle meat, and on being told that wasn't on to then claim that your human rights had been abused?

I think that the only time it is ethically OK to opt not to be involved in care related in any way to an abortion is when you know that the woman's care will be in no way affected. In my book it is therefore more acceptable for a practicing midwife to opt not to assist with a termination procedure (provided that there are enough staff immediately available to perform the procedure) than for a GP to refuse to refer.

My GP once gave me the most ridiculous lecture when I went to get the MAP. If I had known he had the views he did I would never have accepted the appointment with him. I don't really think it is for the partners in the practice to make the choice as to whether it's OK to have someone anti-contraception, abortion etc, as fundamentally they aren't the ones affected by that choice, unless the practice has clear and accessible information stating that Dr x will not refer or prescribe abortants/emergency contraception and then patients needing such care can steer well clear.

It's very easy to get caught up in agreeing that abortion is a right for women who are in emergency situations or when the foetus is malformed. All women can choose to abort, no matter the circumstances, within the timeframe dictated by law.

Isnt it a bit hypocritical that these women feel they have the right to choose not to enable abortion at all, to the point that they are unable to arrange care, yet they're quite happy to take their salary from an organisation who carried out abortions. If they truly do not want to enable abortion they should conscientiously object to working for an organisation who does them.

Rational, you've made that point several times but who do you suggest they work for instead? Or do you just think we should increase the midwife shortage further? Actually, I'd be quite happy for them all to come over to NI. We'd appreciate the standard of cars they provide without expecting them to be involved with something they disagree with.

nooka, they aren't refusing to work with the staff that are performing the abortions.

I don't suppose women will be going to gps that dont want to refere for terminations anymore, you can't even see a gp in this area without going through the triage nurse, who would no doubt book you an appointment with a gp who would refer you

Agree, Rational. In this case it is hypocritical. TBH, I think it looks more like the midwives are looking for early retirement and a nice little nest egg. The organisation which is sponsoring them is after something else entirely.

Taking their stance to its logical conclusion you will wind up with thousands of HCPs picking and choosing what procedures they will be involved with and patients being shunted from pillar to post.

bugsy that is interesting about lists of GPs who won't refer for termination, and a good idea.

I still think it is wrong: it still means that patients in a vulnerable, perhaps frightening situation, need to stop and negotiate the HCPs' private moral codes in their minds. I really don't think we should need to do that before we access state provided, fully legal healthcare. I think it helps to create an atmosphere of shamefulness around abortion which is inappropriate in a democratic country where we've decided it's legal.

nooka yes I have had the same from a GP when I was younger. I needed the MAP because a condom had split and she wouldn't prescribe it till I had listened her (very nice and polite) chat about how I shouldn't 'sleep around without protection'. It was so degrading.

Professionalism should be about detaching your private feelings from a work situation. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I feel less strongly about the MWs if their scruples will never become more apparent to patients, and others can take up the slack, and more about GPs obstructing patients' care.

Can I also ask, why isn't this a slippery slope?

People keep saying termination is different becaue it's about 'ending a life' - but surely the religious POV is that it's a damnable sin. And lots of things are damnable sins potentially, such as suicide, blood transfusions if you are a JW, etc - all the e.g.s that have already been wheeled out.

From a religious POV aren't these things in fact in the same box, because it's not about ending a life but committing a sin?

Termination is the only procedure hcps are able to opt out of

Just because someone doesn't want to be any part of a procedure themselves doesn't mean they want to campaign to stop the company they work for doing them all togeather, as you are legally able to opt out that might be enough for some staff

Moomins I know, just mulling over whether they should be able to or not.

Anyhow will stop killing this thread and go do some work

Am actually amazed by how (mostly) civilised and thought-provoking this has been.

Yes, mommin. In fact it goes along with what an earlier poster said about her devout Catholic family simply saying that they wouldn't have one themselves but they don't judge others. Same with the midwives - they don't want to be involved but they aren't stopping/ refusing to work with others who do.

I think it's worth noting rational that even non- religious people may choose to opt out of abortion.

"I think it's worth noting rational that even non- religious people may choose to opt out of abortion."

Absolutely, they too should leave their personal morals out of their workplace and provide the care they're paid to provide.

"Just because someone doesn't want to be any part of a procedure themselves doesn't mean they want to campaign to stop the company they work for doing them all togeather, as you are legally able to opt out that might be enough for some staff"

Then that is hypocritical, they either think abortion is wrong and want no part of it, or they don't. These two are going as far as not even willing to organise other staff to provide care, they obviously hold their principles very close to their hearts. Just not close enough to opt for the unemployment queue.

They are legally able to opt out, the same as a women is legally able to have a termination so they don't need to leave their personal morals out of anything

As long as it doesn't affect patient care then it should be fine, people do it all the time and the patient is non the wiser.

There are lots of times they do have to leave personal morals at home because they are legally obligated to look after a person. As the law stands terminations arnt one of those times

And no one, apart from Jux and one or two others, sees this as complete hypocrisy? Not only on the part of the midwives in question but in regard to the law as it stands?

Rational - some of the people who opt out may actually be pro-choice, don't think abortion is 'wrong' but just don't want to do the procedure themselves. (not talking about the specifics of the midwife case here). Many people are prochoice but wouldnt have an abortion themselves. Can you not understand that the procedure itself could be quite disturbing to carry out? We're not just talking about flossing someone's teeth or cutting their toenails here!

I don't think it's hypocritical at all.

bumbley, once again: by refusing to supervise/delegate other staff, they ARE stopping others from doing the work. These midwives have NOT been asked to be involved in terminations, but they are seeking to extend the definition of 'involvement' to a degree that will create real problems for OTHERS to carry out the termination. And if they win this, then lots of other senior midwives will follow. And you can't have junior midwives working without supervision.

Can't you see? It's a tactic designed to make it harder for the NHS to provide abortion care for the small number of women who desperately need late termination.

I should add that 'supervision' in this case does not mean supervising the termination. It means managing the deployment of all staff on the ward, being there to handle an emergency etc. So these midwives are being asked to run a ward where, in one private room, a woman is undergoing termination. They are not being asked to go in and assist with the termination. But if they refuse to supervise the staff that are, that means that they cannot manage the ward that day. If all the senior midwives take the same stance (and IME the number of midwives with a conscientious objection is very high) then you have a service that cannot cope with termination of pregnancy. And nowhere else for those women to go.

These midwives are using their rights to undermine womens rights.

If they lose their appeal they'll get hush money and they will be retired.

I just empathise with all the other midwives/health professionals who have to take up the slack for these self serving bigots.

Harsh I know but I can't see it any other way.

bumbley, once again: by refusing to supervise/delegate other staff, they ARE stopping others from doing the work. These midwives have NOT been asked to be involved in terminations, but they are seeking to extend the definition of 'involvement' to a degree that will create real problems for OTHERS to carry out the termination. And if they win this, then lots of other senior midwives will follow. And you can't have junior midwives working without supervision. Can't you see? It's a tactic designed to make it harder for the NHS to provide abortion care for the small number of women who desperately need late termination.

This is the crux of it, isn't it? It isn't about their own individual refusal to be involved in providing terminations; it's about their refusal to work with/supervise others who don't share their objections, hence creating problems in the delivery of a service that the NHS should and does legally provide.

I agree with all the posters who have said that if their moral objections are so strong these women should not work for, or accept a salary from, an organisation that provides legal abortions.

foglike - not harsh at all. The first line of your post is spot on.

"These midwives are using their rights to undermine womens rights."

Rubbish - you are prioritising one person's rights over another by saying that.
A woman has a right to an abortion inmost of the UK, just as a doctor/ midwife has the right to optboutvof involvement in the procedure. That is fair and just. If you think a woman should not be forced to carry on a pregnancy that she does not want then someone should not be forced to participate in a procedure.

Renee - what we be involved in 'handling an emergency' though. Also, re delegation, they must feel that delegation is involvement.

bumbleymummy perhaps you think that religious bigots should have the right to ride roughshod over the rights women have fought for?

They wont even delegate?

Of you were an animal rights activist would you apply to work at a mink farm or a bernard mathews factory even in the offices?

Look at the organisation that's backing them and then explain why they are backing them.

I bet there are loads (Technical term) of catholic midwives looking after vulnerable women as we speak and the issues these two have are nothing short of scandalous.

They are not 'being forced to participate in a procedure'. They are "seeking a finding that their entitlement to conscientious objection to taking part in abortions in terms of the 1967 Abortion Act includes the right to refuse to delegate, supervise and support staff involved in such work."

How broad should the definition of 'support' or 'supervise' be? By refusing to 'support' other staff involvement in these procedures they could effectively be preventing the procedure from going ahead. No doubt this is their aim.

They are already permitted not to participate in the procedure, so I wish, bumblemummy, you'd stop implying that this is what their case is about. They already have this right. They are seeking to go way beyond that and foist their so-called moral objections onto other people.

McQueasy in answer to your question yes I do think all medical staff should be able to opt out of being involved in care for a patient while undergoing euthanasia (which I hope becomes legal very soon)

how can you have staff around who feel they themselves are committing a crime, how can they not project that feeling onto the family of the patient and maybe the patient themselves and the medical staff involved it is more for their protection that those who choose to opt out.

I think the comparisons are a little daft regarding vegetarian chefs being able to opt out or not opt out of cooking meat; we are not talking about objects we are talking about people, their beliefs and emotions and also a muslim surgeon refusing to operate on a patient due to their drinking. it is they who cannot drink others can make that choice tough of course some may feel it is wrong (and i do not think it would only be muslim doctors who would have little empathy for an alcoholic needing a liver transplant). they are not assisting a patient to drink

that is not suggesting muslim doctors are not empathic towards an alcoholic patiend needing a liver transpant