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

That's really kind of you, RP. Sadly I am no longer involved in maternity services, though I miss it terribly and hope one day to get back in there

The ban on advertising abortion services on tv has been lifted.

I haven't read the whole thread but as far as I'm aware Jesus would care for anyone and if Jesus guides the midwife then surely she should do the same.

What ReneeVivian said - I agree with every word of her posts.

Renee, we already established that there could be direct involvement if we don't know (as you have confirmed) what 'supervision' may entail. I also explained how potentially delegation of someone else to do the abortion could still be considered involvement (see earlier hitman analogy). Does anyone disagree that in the hitman analogy the man who gives the hitman the job is involved in the other man's death? Is it that difficult to see how someone can then perceive delegation of someone else to perform an abortion as them being involved in that abortion themselves? Given that they are allowed by law, and not due to their religion, to opt out of the procedure I think it is well within their rights to object to something which they perceive to be involvement. Whether they are right or not is up to a judge to decide. Thank goodness it is not in the hands of MNers or a large proportion of medical professionals would be out of a job and I'm pretty sure the NHS would be screwed.

Bumbley, from reading the link again, it appears to me these midwives were employed as labour ward co-ordinators. This means they are responsible for managing the workload and the staff by allocating/delegating appropriately. In this capacity they would not be directly involved with termination care, but working alongside those individuals who do.
If they were to withdraw their responsibilities doing this aspect of their job they would be affecting the provision of the service they are employed by. It would also piss off their colleagues mightily.
Your analogy of the hitman is not quite the same as the person seeking the services of said hitman would be guilty of the intent to kill whereas a shift co-ordinator (hopefully) would not.
The 'opt out' clause involves direct care only and I believe that is the way it should remain. If these particular staff had remained as 'regular' midwives and not shift co-ordinators, they would have been able to opt out of direct care. When applying for the job of co-ordinators they would have known what their duties would have included delegation of this kind and they should not have applied for the job if they could not fulfill their role.

YANBU. In fact no one is asking them to perform/be present at the abortion, but to provide pre/after care.

It shouldn't be up to nurses to pick and chose what surgical procedure they will take part in. If someone won't undertake a clinical procedure that is sanctioned by law and provided by the NHS, they should think long and hard about their choice to become a nurse/midwife.

How much shrift would (an atheist) teetotal nurse get if she refused to treat someone injured as a result of drinking?

Or a vegetarian nurse who refused to treat someone who'd got food poisoning from eating dodgy meat?

Both of which are moral judgements, based on personal beliefs, but I'd imagine they'd get short shrift.

However If someone claims to base their objections on superstitious religious mumbo jumbo more often than not get an automatic get out clause.

Well done NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde for taking a stand!

Badday - they would be accused of intent to kill because obviously abortion is legal. It was more to illustrate how involvement can be perceived even if if it is not direct. These women could feel involved because they are delegating someone to commit an act which they do not agree with.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that they are labour ward coordinators and not involved in other aspects. I have reread it again and it does specifically mention supervision which, because we don't know for sure would not involve attending a junior member of staff who is performing the procedure, could involve more direct involvement. I have already covered the delegation aspect. I just think there is currently a bit of a grey area there and they have every right to seek clarification of it if it something that they feel uncomfortable with.

They're not willing to be involved by association, yet they are when they claim their pay packet every month. Fucking hypocrites.

Doesn't working in the NHS already make them 'involved by association'? As many others have said, they were happy to take the job, knowing full well what was expected of them, and are happy to continue to take the salary. Perhaps it's time for them to re-think their career choice if they're not happy. They are indeed hypocrites.

I would have expected this to have been gone into at interview, tbh. Having been given their jobs, presumably it was thrashed out satisfactorily enough - on both sides - for the women to be offered the positions and them to accept.

You'd have thought so wouldn't you Jux. But this is the NHS and the management are fucking shit

No bumbley, we have not established that. I said that I didn't know for sure - being honest about the limits of my knowledge - not that the people involved in the case do not know. It is not clear from the link whether they are using the term 'supervision' to indicate the duties of a Supervisor of Midwives (which are clear and distinct) or ward management or direct supervision of the TOP.

As woolly says, there are ALREADY indirectly involved, just by working in the NHS; they are trying to extend their right of objection to cover indirect involvement which, I am sure we can all agree, could have a very destabilising effect.

Like this?:

Interviewer: Mrs Dugan, you currently exercise your right to opt out of TOP. Do you see this as likely to present a problem in fulfilling the new role?
Ms D: No.
I: Alright then.

Ha ha ah!
I think you've got that spot on!
I hope the management have learnt their lesson by leaving themselves open to these challenges when thay fail to vet their staff appropriately before employing them.

"It is not clear from the link whether they are using the term 'supervision' to indicate the duties of a Supervisor of Midwives (which are clear and distinct) or ward management or direct supervision of the TOP."

Yes, exactly, which is why we can't really speculate and say that they definitely wouldn't have to directly supervise the abortion. There is obviously a reason why they are objecting to it. I very much doubt they would go to court over having to make a woman a cup of tea after her abortion!

I don't see anything hypocritical about working for the NHS either. They don't seem to be objecting to abortions being carried out (in their ward or by the NHS in general) they are just exercising their right not to be involved. If there was a grey area about what things like 'supervision' and 'delegation' meant and it has resulted in them having duties that they feel bring them too close to the procedure that they have exercised their legal right to opt out of then I don't see any problem in them seeking that that grey area is made more black and white. I think it is a big jump to assume that this is going to have a major knock on effect on the NHS. It is a very small area and, as someone pointed out earlier, the ability to 'opt out' of abortions has been around for a while without impacting on other services.

No, I disagree. It is inconceivable that they would be trying to force the midwives into direct involvement with the termination. The right to conscientious objection has been well established for over 30 years. There is no legal uncertainty there to work out.

YOU are suggesting that this NHS Trust is trying to change legal precedent by forcing direct involvement. There is nothing in the link that supports that suggestion.

Your last paragraph suggests you are wilfully not understanding the explanations on this thread. Opting out of direct involvement in abortion HAS had a major impact, but the NHS has managed to find a way to manage it (by contracting out, mainly). Opting out of indirect involvement is a much larger threat because it potentially involves much larger numbers of staff.

And now I am going to retire from this thread. I have explained all I can, it's making absolutely no impact, and I can hear myself coming over all pompous, so time to call it a day.

I am a nurse and often care for ladies who have terminations.

I wasn't sure how I'd feel before I encountered it, and I am totally fine with the pre and post op care (which is what I do), to me the lady is my patient and I have her best interests at heart, however I would not want to be in theatre while the procedure is being undertaken.

I am glad that there is a clause that lets Healthcare professionals opt out of the actual act of aborting the foetus.

You sound like a lovely person HippyMum - I can imagine if I'd carried on in nursing I might well have been in your shoes.

"YOU are suggesting that this NHS Trust is trying to change legal precedent by forcing direct involvement."

No, I'm not. I'm saying that 'supervision' could involve supervising an abortion i.e. being in the same room. You have said yourself that you don't know for sure that that isn't the case. I'm not sure how you think you can possibly argue a point that you have already said you dont have exact knowledge of.

Well argued Renee, I think your points stand. These arguments can become circular can't they?

Badday & HippyMum you both sound like wonderful nurses/midwives. BadDay, I would like to think I could have done the same as you.

Yes, they can. Particularly when people assume things that they don't know and argue them as facts.... That's MN for you though!

RELIGION SHOULD STAY AT HOME AND NOT BE BOUGHT TO WORK....EVER

Sorry to shout but I f**king despise religion.
It's nothing but forced hatred on people who don't share the same imaginary freind.

YANBU when you decide to do a job you can't then pick and choose which bits you do and which bits you don't do.

A while back (I don't know if it's still the case) there was a bit of a problem with a shortage of doctors to carry out terminations as many were coming from overseas and objected on religious grounds.

I also think it is disgusting when GPs announce that they personally are not prepared to issue you with contraception but will get one of their colleagues to do it. They usually deliver this message in a terribly smug and superior manner.

All of this is wrong. You sign up to do a job, you know what it involves, you do it. These women refusing to care for women who have had a termination is just awful.

If you're going to use capitals it's BROUGHT in this context my friend.

And personally I think it would be a poorer world if we all left our morals at home.
The workplace can be a heartless enough place as it is already.