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

Fog, it's not just Catholics who object to abortion though is it?

Read the link provided bumbley.....it's in there.

You have read it haven't you?

Bumbley.

The question I posed was about these catholic midwives who are using their religion in this political case.

So my points about catholics do stand.

Ms Doogan, from Glasgow, has been absent through ill health since 2010 as a result of the dispute.

I haven't given my idea of what level of involvement is acceptable RV. I have said that it's up to a judge to decide whether they are right or wrong but I can see how it could be a a grey area wrt delegation in relation to the analogy I gave. I don't see the same grey area in relation to making someone a cup of tea and bringing them a piece of toast. I can see how the former could be perceived as indirect involvement but not the latter.

I didn't specifically say that late term abortions could/should be passed over to the NHS, it was a hypothetical reponse to someones suggestion that there would end up being no abortion services in the UK which simply wouldn't be the case. I can appreciate that it build not be easy t outsource late term abortions due to facilities required - perhaps in those situations it would (-and once again I am just offering hypotheticals here not just saying what I think should happen - although I don't hold out much hope for anyone actually paying attention to this disclaimer)be more a case of contracted doctors and nurses being brought in from clinics to perform the abortion in the appropriate setting.

Yes fog I read it - do you want to point it where it says she was signed off with 'the vapours', all I can see is 'ill health' so unless y ou have access to her medical records then you don't really know any specifics do you dear?

Let's just call it the vapours or an illness of convenience in modern parlance.

But thanks for patronising me with the word dear much appreciated.

I'll put my faith in the opinions of other posters on this thread who actually know what they are talking about.

RV, I've been focussing on delegation for my last few posts because you gave that specific example. Could you clarify what exactly is involved in 'supervisoon' of these procedures? My own (unmedical) experience and definition of super vision would require someone to be actually overseeing the person they are supervising and stepping in if required. Is it different for midwifery? I'm pretty sure that my friend who is a midwife was supervised for a number of births when she was training/newly qualified and that required the midwife tobe in with her for the actual birth. How can you supervise someone from outside a closed door?

:) fog. You're welcome. I think I'll put my faith in the people who don't make ridiculous assumptions about people's health based on their own opinions and prejudice.

Who would actually want these people looking after them anyway? I'd much rather they had no evolvement

I've got another caller bumble I hope you don't mind if I put you on hold :)

Not at all my dear :)

edith,
there is no opt out at the moment, but if people can opt out of contraceptions and terminations, there is no reason why they should not be able to opt out of other things. It cannot be argued that refusing condoms, or terminations is OK, but refusing certain drugs is not.

Bumbley,
Are you saying doctors are committing criminal acts by signing people off to have a termination for no good reason? Or are you saying anti-abortionists should eb able to access private medical records to decide if the treatment was carrie dout for what they belive were the right reasons.

Cleft palate is used as a marker for other conditions that are fatal and life threatening. Plus cleft palates themselves can in actual fact be fatal. In a few extreme cases it is not a case of surgery to repair it, but a case of the foetus will unlikely survive the pregnancy and if they do they will not live for very long. The fact that most babies born with just a cleft palate will survive does not mean that is the same for every case which is what anti-abortionists try to claim. Which is why when that curate claimed a baby had been aborted simply for cosmetic reasons her case was thrown out as this was simply not the case (it turned out she had never seen the woman's medical records and so had no idea why the termination was carried out other than it was for cleft palate)

Moomim,
Unless of course all the staff happen to be antiabortionists.

bum
But you make assumptions about health based on your own prejudice - your claim that cleft palate is not life threatening or fatal is just one example.

"Are you saying doctors are committing criminal acts by signing people off to have a termination for no good reason? Or are you saying anti-abortionists should eb able to access private medical records to decide if the treatment was carrie dout for what they belive were the right reasons."

Eh? Where on earth have I said that? I'm talking about fog's assumption that the midwife is on sick leave for 'an illness of convenience'

ah OK

"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!"

Nonsense! They need to get on with it! I'm sure amputations or removing someone's cancerous eyes, for example, is disturbing too but there isn't an opt out for that.

When I worked in the theatre the worst worst worst op I had to assist on,was the removal of a man's gangrenous toes. In fact, no one actually wanted to assist on that one, or be in or near that theatre for that one. I had to as I was the most junior staff member in the place, and the others needed were present really simply on the basis of doing their job properly and reliably. I don't think even the surgeon wanted to do it. I'm pretty sure most of the staff would have opted out if they'd been allowed.

Then we would all have been there for the eventual removal of the poor man's gangrenous leg instead, which would have been a much less disturbing op, and no one would have worried.

Just to illustrate Rational's point.

I think thats a little flippant Rational.
I have been in the situation where a baby born through termination survived, a 22 weeker. He was gasping for breath (sorry if this upsets anyone) and the parents wanted him removed from the room. It was agreed he wasn't to be resuscitated. It was me who held that baby for the 3 hours it took for his heart to stop beating.
Give me the removal of a cancerous organ, any day.

And you know that that baby died in kind and loving arms, giving him the kindest death you could.

BadDayAtTheOrifice

And thank goodness for caring nurses like you who will put their personal feelings aside to do their job in a professional manner.

Jux You are guilty of making me leave my kids eating their meatballs to go and have a sob in the downstairs toilet. Thank you.

Thanks, but I'm a midwife.

Ok, caring midwives then.