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

Edith, you are right in saying that contracting out NHS abortions happened under new Labour partly to reduce costs and improve efficiency.

But it also happened because pro-choice activists had for years been lobbying Labour politicians about the horrendous provision of NHS abortion care. NHS termination was a postcode lottery - in many parts of the country it just wasn't available, and women (young, desperate women, sometimes schoolgirls with no independent income) were having to scrape together the money to get themselves across counties to pay for abortions in the private sector. Once Labour got into power, a group of (mainly female) MPs lobbied for this to change, and got us to where we are today, where most abortions are at least financed by the NHS, wherever they take place.

No Kelly, it is not what I implied - it is what you decided to (incorrectly) interpret it as.

I hope the court does NOT rule in their favour - so wrong. Nobody can make them take part but it's wrong that they should say "we won't deploy anyone else".

They don't even start the procedure off - a doctor does that -all they have to do is support the Mum through it - and women need that support and care. No way should they be able to refuse a mother that care.

Who is judging them filibear? Someone can be prochoice bit not want to participate in an abortion - would that mean they are judging the person for having one? An earlier poster mentioned that her devout catholic family, while saying that they would not have an abortion themselves, do not judge others who do.

Come on we have pills now that work up to five days after, I'm sure you would be able to find a chemist open by then

Late abortions are booked in, those who do the booking in are able to look at what staff are on if needs be. If there was an emergancy it would take more than one mw refusing to help for there to be a problem

When was the last time you heard of a 24 week foetus surviving an abortion, you don't because they make sure the heart is stopped before the procedure takes place , any time before that the feotus is not viable so no life saving procedures take place so all staff would not be expected to try and save the baby

Ok, well if we look at another analogy (probably no sillier than others that have been put forward....) A man wants another man killed, he pays a hit man to do it and gives him the gun. Even though that first man did not commit the act himself, he was involved and was partially responsible for that person's death and they would be held accountable in a court of law. Perhaps the midwives feel that by delegating someone to perform the abortion and telling them how to administer the drugs etc then they are also responsible for the death of the foetus.

Moomins,I linked to articles earlier. In 2008 there were around 60 foetuses (babies?) that survived abortion. Babies have and do survive under 24 weeks, some as early as 22 weeks. Even foetuses with abnormalities have survived for a few hours after abortion. Some of the conditions that they can be aborted for are not necessarily life threatening eg. Downs syndrome and cleft palate.

From the DM,

"A baby born alive after a botched abortion at 21 weeks is among the worst cases reported in the UK.
The little girl, who had Down's Syndrome, lived for three hours after being delivered.
Her parents claim they were "coerced" into a termination by staff at Macclesfield District General Hospital.
They were later told that their baby had not "really" been alive, even though she was clearly breathing.
The couple, who do not wish to be named, already had a toddler, a teenager and a 12-year-old with learning difficulties and felt unable to cope with another special needs child.
The 44-year-old mother said: "If I had been given any idea that the baby would be born alive after an abortion I would never have gone through with it. They coerced me.
"I have seen how society treats children with disabilities and it frightened me to bring another special needs child into the world, but somehow we would have coped with it."
Two days before the abortion in March 2004, the woman was given tablets which she was told would kill the baby in the womb.
But to their distress the baby was still clearly moving.
They went back to hospital and were assured that the baby would die during labour.
Soon after birth, however, both parents saw it gasping for air."

"Those who do the booking in are able to look at what staff are on" - no they are not, this is done in completely different departments and by different staff.

"If there was an emergency it would take more than one mw refusing to help for there to be a problem" - in a real clinical emergency, one midwife refusing to help can = fucking catastrophe.

Honestly, bumbley and Moomin, I am completely unfazed by your pro-life views (which I do understand, even though i don't share) but I am staggered by your complete certainty in an area where you clearly do lack knowledge, and by your refusal to take on any of the information offered to you.

Where have I shown complete certainty about the area or refusal to take on board what you've said. I responded to yr post about delegation with the above analogy and how the midwives may interpret it as being involved...

It's not how they interpret it that matters it's how their terms of contract does.

Hence the legal move they're pushing the envelope.

Fog, their terms of contract allow them to refuse involvement. I guess all this establishes just how 'involvement' can be defined. In the above analogy there would be no question that the man who delegated someone else to kill another man and gave them the weapon was involved in that killing.

You may think that delegating someone to perform an abortion isn't classed as involvement but they may feel differently (based on the idea for the above analogy) and they have the right to object to that. A judge can decide whether or not they are right.

renee at least read my posts, I'm not pro life, bumbley which link did I miss, I've not seen one where the baby has survived more than a few days

And like I said I know they can be born alive, we were told my son might have been but that no attempt would be made to save him as he was under 23 weeks

renee have you ever been on the receiving end of a medical emergancy during labour? I've had a hemorrage with ds1 and a cord prolapse with ds3, the number of staff that decend on you once that emergancy bell is pulled mean it wouldn't have made the blindest bit of difference if one mw refused to treat me, after all they still need mw to look after the other patients. All the mw bar one were sent away. I had paediatric doctors, consultant, registrar, aneasthetist and a few people that I have no clue who they were, I'm sure they'd cope

Either you are just playing devils advocate or being purposely obtuse i'm not cynical enough to decide.

But reading through the thread it looks like common sense might win through and stop these activists for what they are.

This is a simple case of two midwives using a religious based anti-abortion stance to get a quick retirement and a pay off.

They're morally corrupt.

Sorry, that was confusing in my last post Moomins - I didn't mean that the aborted foetuses(babies? Hazy crossover!) survived more than two days, I meant that babies born under the age of viability have survived.

Pro-choice?? is that where you are for abortions rather than against them?? if so then im Pro-choice

BUT i dont think anyone should be forced to help with a termination.

Fog, based on your last comment I would say you are pretty cynical.

And every ward I've worked on the rota has been done by a staff member on the ward

One of the midwives is on sick leave suffering from the vapours though bumbley.

Since 2010 no less.

You don't have to be cynical to understand that do you?

Let's think about the impact that not allowing people who have religious/other objections to abortion to become doctors and midwives would have on maternity services in general and all those poor vulnerable women who just want to give birth in a hospital that is adequately staffed shall we?

For an example...

If a woman went in to have a termination and said she didn't want to be treated by a catholic midwife...what would the response be from medical staff?

The request would be unfair on catholic midwives because the patients bigoted views on catholics would be dismissed.

So to allow these midwives to have their views/beliefs listened to is just plain wrong.

You have access to her medical records, do you fog? I wasn't aware we could just randomly determine whether someone was signed off by a doctor for a good enough reason....

Moomin, apologies for posting in a hurry. Yes, I have been on the receiving end of a medical emergency during labour. I've also been on labour wards that were hideously overstretched, and the consequences of coping with an emergency where one or more staff members suddenly start saying, "I'm not part of this" could be truly awful.

bumbley, I've explained to you how extending the 'right to refuse' to indirect involvement could seriously jeopardise the NHS' ability to provide late medical abortions. I've explained to you why it is not an option to simply pass this over to non-NHS providers. I've explained to you how an individual deciding for themselves to put their own new interpretation on 'involvement' could lead to compromising women's safety. None of your responses have taken this on at all, you carry on blithely assuming that all we need is a bit of mutual respect for each others' rights and the NHS can carry on as before.

Whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, there is a real issue to be dealt with (and this is not me hysterically hypothesising; ask anyone who works in abortion or maternity care). My stance is: if HCP's views on abortion could be endlessly accommodated without damaging clinical care, then fine. But they can't, so it makes sense to maintain the distinction between direct and indirect involvement. Is your stance that you don't accept indirect involvement can't be accommodated (in which case please explain to me how you would manage the very late medical abortions that can't be referred out)? Or is it that you think that compromising those women's care is a price worth paying in order not to force a HCP to act against their conscience? Or is it that you think making it impossible to perform abortions is a good end in itself, so the wider the interpretation of 'involvement' the better?