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

And what is it with so many people being against contraception Sardine ?
( I know it's partly a Catholic thing )

But if there was a more positive promotion of contraception in our society then fewer people would face the dilemma of termination.

I hope if we're going to have adverts for abortion clinics on telly then there'll be ten times as many public information programmes and/or adverts about the different contraception choices available to us all ( or which should be freely and easily accessible to all as any right minded person can see) Surely even the most religious could see it as "the lesser of two evils" ( Though I can't understand the objection to contraception at all really )

Juggling, one doesn't have to be religious to have morals.

For me, it's nothing to do with religion, it's purely a personal view,
Anyway this will go on forever! Just wanted to put my point across, and a little thought for the ladies who, for whatever reason, have a termination, it is hard enough to decide, without people on their moral/ religious high horses intefering.
Now, let's all have a

And where did I say anything in that ball park Jux ?

Where did that come from ?

People make so many assumptions on here !

My DH for example isn't at all religious but has very strong morals relating to animal welfare, pacifism, honesty, justice, and standing up for the rights of the oppressed. He's also pro contraception and somewhat pro-life.

I have similar views on many issues (but not identical - that would be weird)
And I'm more interested in spirituality, religion, and the importance of story in people's lives.

One difference is I tend to think more about the welfare of people and especially women and children than he does. Whereas he is strongly protective of the natural and animal world.

Neutrino ghost said we should leave religion at home.
Your response about leaving morals at home implied that religion and morals were dependent upon each other. If I misread your intention, sorry.

To reiterate, there is a world of difference between the two.

Juggling - I inferred the same thing from your post as Jux did and was also getting ready with the indignation! You were responding to Neutrinoghost who said religion should stay at home by saying "personally I think it would be a poorer world if we all left our morals at home." Implicit in that IS a suggestion that religion and morals are the same thing! I don't think you can really accuse Jux of making the wrong assumption - I read your post the same...

I agree with Neutrinoghost that religion should be left out of the workplace!

Sorry - cross post!

Juggling,
So where does it stop. If a doctor is morally against animal testing is it ok for him to refuse to prescribe your child medicines? And who decides which morals are ok? Some people think homosexuality is immoral, some people think interacial relationships are immoral, belonging to another religion or not having religion, so do you think people should be allowed to use their "morals" to discriminate against these people by refusing to treat them, marry them etc? using the moral arguement is a slippery slope, and provides easy grounds for discrimination.
I think refusing contraception and terminations are immoral, so do I get to act on my morals and refusing to deal with those who are against contraceptions and terminations?

I think it's fair to say some people's morals are related to their religion

• to those of their faith community and to the faith story (if you like) by which they may try to live their life.

But there's a big jump in my mind to the comment

"Juggling, one doesn't have to be religious to have morals"

I still don't think I said you did - but thanks for helping me see where that huge leap might have come from

Good questions kelly

It's a tricky area isn't it !

Did I say I have all the answers ?

Perhaps I'll get back to you all later on some of those

I think things are about right at the moment if I understand things correctly.

That is I think nurses and doctors should be able to opt out of being involved in terminations according to conscience (not necessarily religiously based)

But actually I think it's a bit lame and short-sighted for any doctor to refuse to offer contraceptive advice or prescribe contraception.

Basically I think genuine and reasonable moral standpoints should be allowed for, but not those which anyone can see are more about discrimination of others.
(Such as some of the scenarios mentioned by kelly)

Obviously, like most people I imagine, I feel my own views are a good bench mark of what is reasonable ! ( I'm joking a little )

so in principle what a lot of posters have said is you choose a job then say which parts of jobs you do not wish to do based on religious/moral grounds?

i think they shouldnt opt for jobs where it conflicts with their beliefs. It is a slippery sloap.

As a formet teacher i dont agree with holidays during term time before gcses but didnt refusr to accommodate catch up sessipns for such students. i knoe its not a deeply moral issue but same principle.

i would have thought when joining professiom they have a duty of care, and to treat, respect all impartially. what would happen if a service uset refused treatmemt by a certain professional they would be labelled a bigot.

think about the women if they knew who would ferl judged if they were aware, not the qualities of a caring professional at a v vilmetablr time.

slippery slope too.

just read kellys post,

im buggered then, a fallen catholic pregnant at time of wedding in a mixed race martaige, one termination where actually a doctor refused to sign off and led to a delay and latet termination, i was 20 at the time and didnt question complain.

im due to have a elcs soon, use ready meals and dont iron, im doomed

I don't see how and why caring for a person, when part of your job profile, can be even seen as optional. Someone's choices should not allow you to discriminate how too would deal with them.
Ethics, morals and personal beliefs are fine, but if your primary duty is of care...then you have to do so.
Too many allowances are made here. Would she care if the termination was that of a pregnancy caused by sexual abuse?
Would she provide care if the pregnancy would have ended itself before completion anyway?
Am getting lost in the strength of my feelings here. If I am principally paid to provide care I can't discriminate!

well put mamoo

I think there could be quite a few nurses (and doctors) who might want to join a caring profession (such as nursing) but not be involved in carrying out terminations. ( Like me, I trained as a nurse once, but the issue never came up for me )

I think making provision for them to opt out is hardly the same as allowing/ not allowing holidays in term time for teachers ( Incidentally another profession in which I've worked myself )

BTW - Enjoyed your slightly crazy post bigeyes - I don't iron either. Well, as someone said on another thread, only Hama beads

Oh, I'm sorry bigeyes I see in my response I've slightly misrepresented your earlier post ( as you were talking about providing catch-up sessions for students absent through holiday in term time, not teachers themselves taking holiday in term time )

Ah well, it happens to the best of us ! HaHa

juggling i didt intend it as a direct comparison just the principle of opting out. teachers actially do sometimes opt out of teacjing violemt students who have attacked them come to think of it.

i suppose im speaking as a service user thats been thru it and who is pro choice.

ultimately its what morals are/would be considered grounds for opting out.

incidentally just read on other thread re call the midwife about two mnetters husbands who are policeman that found it v difficult to remove a baby in each case from there mother even though they knew it was for best. this relates to a character on program.

are you serious its only now im out i do term time hols with ds who is in yr1 and always with excellent attendance amd school approval but thanks amyway

juggling,
You stated quite clearly that you thought it was better if people took their morals to work. Then you state that the morals should be ones that are reasonable and genuine, but not discriminatory. Seeing as we allow male vasectomies at the drop of a hat, but religion (and what certain people describe as morals, but others describe as lack of) encourages preventing women from having autonomy over their own fertility refusing to aid temrinations or contraception is discrimination.
But this is the thing, people are quite happy preventing women having terminations (regardless of why she is having a termination), yet as soon as someone asks if they agree to morals being used against them they start trying to come up with various scenarios that mean they deserve treatment and the morals of the caregiver shoudl be ignored, whilst claiming that this cannot apply to women seeking terminations. Its hypocritical, either you support someone's right to choose a job and then refuse to do it based on their own opinions, or you do not.

I work as a midwife and I am able to be a conscientious objector and not administer drugs that act as abortifacients. However, I cannot refuse to care for a woman pre or post procedure and give care or support. As midwives, we often have to do this.

If as a midwife we look after a woman undergoing a termination though, it is always for a medical reason- a fetal abnormality and we do not look after women who have terminations for 'social reasons'. These women would be on a gynaecology ward and cared for by nurses, not midwives.

These are two totally separate scenarios.As a midwife I expect to care for pregnant women who sometimes need to terminate for abnormailty, but I would never ever be expected to be involved in a social termination. I am not a gynaecology nurse and just because I work for the NHS it does not mean that I am qualified or expected to work in other fields.

What other exemptions are there?

Abortion
Contraception

Are people allowed to refuse to treat people who have been convicted of crimes?
Are people allowed to refuse to treat people who work as prostitutes, or have sex out of wedlock?
Are people allowed to refuse to treat people who are the opposite sex?

I am interested. Are there other exemptions, or is it just abortion / contraception?

Sardinequeen, I don't think you examples are quite the same as abortions.

I trained as a midwife to help bring new life into the world and care for women and babies after. It is a predominately 'happy' job.

Occasionally, things go wrong in pregnancy and a woman who very much wants this baby is forced to make a difficult decision to terminate. The situations are horrific and It is my role to care for these women and support them. Though I am able to object to actually administering the drugs( i do in fact, give them).

I would not be happy being involved in a social TOP. That is not part of my role and I would object on moral grounds

If i was a gynaecology nurse though, It would be part of my role as a nurse.

Nothing I've said is hypocritical, kelly.

It's just a different view from your own.

You say "either you support someone's right to choose a job and then refuse to do it based on their own opinions, or you do not"

I don't think it has to be that simplistic, kelly.

Like I said earlier there are complex issues involved.

Basically though I do support people's right to abide by their own genuine moral concerns.

I also support women's right to access contraceptive advice and provision, and think this should be promoted and publicised much more widely.

It is in everyone's interests I would have thought that those abortions that are carried out be performed at the earliest possible opportunity.

Thoughts are with those for whom this is a sensitive thread, and wishing well to all - Interesting to read your post carmen

carmenelectra

The two scenarios are not different. You're almost outrage that they could be compared is outrageous in it's self. I highly doubt that women who are having terminations for 'social reasons' are treated separately from other women. If you mean that terminations due to abnormality are usually later in the pregnancy and early abortions are treated in the gynae ward then you should clarify this. You should also clarify that this outrageous situation if it is true only applies to your place of work. I had an early abortion in a maternity ward with the drugs administered by a midwife and care provided my midwives.

"As a midwife I expect to care for pregnant women who sometimes need to terminate for abnormailty, but I would never ever be expected to be involved in a social termination."

And what level of abnormality would you consider unreasonable to abort? Is someone who chooses to abort a downs baby doing it for 'social reasons'? People with downs can live full and even productive lives after all. There will be plenty of people who are outraged that you support women who choose to abort purely because of abnormality, don't those babies deserve you're protection like all other babies? (Not me I might add, I'm pro choice without judgmental bollocks colouring my view)

Women who have 'social terminations', by which I believe you mean aborting a healthy foetus, are entitled to the same level of care and courtesy as anyone else. It angers me that some think it's not deserved.