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

i will probably get flamed for this....

in my previous life i was a theatre sister in a Gynae theatre. We had a regular VTOP list. All staff were given the choice to work in my theatre on those days....they did have a choice. No one person ever said no. I was involved in the ops and i made sure all the women who were wheeled into my theatre were treated with great respect and dignity. I ensured a nurse with lots of experience and love was there to bring them into the anaesthetic room etc.

i am very very pro choice....but i also respected the views of my staff.

Differentiating is not judging. I have not attached any judgement to the things I have differentiated between.

If people want to see it that way that's their hang up.

I respect and support the choice of women to abort if they wish to whatever the reason.

This has gone way off topic - clothes* it's about abortion!

The thing is it's not just about medical needs, is it? It's about the care and support patients need - it would surely be crazy to expect a catholic anti-abortionist to care for a woman who has just had an abortion. Hardly a supportive approach conducive to good recovery.

Would any of you really want to be cared for by an anti abortionist if you had just had an abortion?

I think you can be looked after by an anti abortionist, yes. Nursing staff are capable of being professional. I had to care for teens on the day surgery unit and I can't say I ever treated them with anything other than care and respect. I didn't like being in theatre though, but lacked the courage to speak up.

No - hairy - but I would argue that if a catholic anti-abortionist cannot provide appropriate, kind, professional care for women pre and post op then perhaps she would be better off in a different job.

As a pro choicer, this really concerns me. I worry about it being the thin end of the wedge- just because it hasn't previously been, doesn't mean it won't be. And what impact on access might this have for women in remote areas? Those of us in cities with several hospitals are alright. But what would a woman in the Hebrides or Highlands do, are there provisions for them?

However, people need to stop implying that abortion is in any way comparable to anything that doesn't involve ending a life. I don't think abortion is murder, and would defend the right to legal NHS abortion with my last breath. But whether I like it or not there are others who disagree. None of the other issues mentioned in this thread, aside from euthanasia (which I don't oppose either) involve action that directly ends a life. Alcohol, gay marriage, drug use etc are not the same thing- something that offends one's beliefs about appropriate personal conduct does not have the same significance as killing. So including them in the arguments isn't helping.

electricalbanana, why will you get flamed? You sound lovely

Flangelina - in years past this HAS been a very serious problem in parts of the UK. When i worked for an abortion charity we had women coming down the length of the country to access abortion services because they couldn't get them provided locally. That is why the NHS started contracting out to non-NHS providers. It shouldn't have to, but it has undoubtedly improved access and quality of care.

Thanks for that ReneeVivien. But are there non-NHS providers available everywhere? Women who already live in remote areas and have a long trek to the nearest provider really don't need to have that journey made even more lengthy and expensive.

flangelina,
You could say that all medical issues end up with being about someones life. If you refuse to give medical treatment to someone who got HIv through homosexual or premarital sex they could die, the same if you refused them sexual health advice or condoms. Refusing to give soemone a blood transfusion could kill them. Refusing to give someone a termination could kill them. Why should medical staff be able to put themselves in a position where they can use their beliefs to disadvantage the health, and even hasten the death of someone for no other reason than they object to it morally. If in childbirth there was a choic ebetween saving the mother or the baby, woudl ti be OK for the doctor to suddenly refuse to carry on treating the woman because she made the decision to save herself.

Can I also just point out that late abortions are only allowed int he Uk for very serious reasons, and the woman shoudl nto therefore be treated as if she is choosing to have an abortion, and it is beyond wrong to refuse to treat her. If a woman has to stay in hospital for an abortion the chances are that she is having a late abortion for a medical reason, and by refusing to treta her they are putting he rhealth in danger.

I would be surprised if women weren't still having to make long journeys, Flangelina. But I'm not up to date enough to know.

As long as they refer you to someone who is willing to care for you then they can refuse.

An alcoholic would be lucky to be offered a liver transplant, they'd have to prove they didn't drink any more

Where I am terminations are carried out in a different clinic, therefore mw wouldn't go for a job there if they were against terminations

Have only just been able to get onto the link, as they work on the labour ward I'd assume it's late terminations they would have to be involved with.

I don't think these should be done on normal labour wards, there should be somewhere mothers can go without comming in contact with new babys and happy new mothers.

Kelly, first of all I'm pro choice. So the stuff about late abortions was preaching to the choir.

Secondly, the use of the word 'direct' in my post was key. Not giving someone contraception is not taking an action that directly ends their life. It just isn't. It therefore does not remotely compare to performing a termination. Not all medical issues end up being about someone's life, not by any stretch of the imagination. Some are about minor ailments which will go away with no long term effects if left untreated, but which cause short term discomfort. I agree with your other examples though- there are certainly some occasions when a medical professional's choice ends the life of either the mother or the foetus.

Sorry I should clarify that I don't necessarily mean the medical professional is always the one doing the choosing. A woman who needs treatment that would also end her pregnancy is obviously the one who should choose whether to have it or not. When I said a medical professional's choice, I was thinking more of refusing to perform a termination when the effect will be the death of the mother.

I agree with you flangelina to a certain extent, but refusing to give out condoms can kill. Look at parts of Africa where there is a high rate of HIV, but the church is in control of aid and so stops the promotion of condoms, and even tells people condoms do not help. this has increased the spread of HIV.

But it does beg the question when can a person be refused treatment. If someone belives they will go to hell if they give a blood transfusion does that mean they can refuse to do so?

At the moment doctors can refuse to refer a woman for an abortion based on their religious beliefs (not the woman's) They can be obstructive, making it extremely difficult for the woman to seek a referral from another GP.

This leaves a woman in a crisis pregnancy with the option of either possibly leaving it too late for a safe, legal abortion on the NHS, or paying privately.

I speak from bitter, bitter personal experience.

Refusing to give people access to things that may save their lives is still not the same as directly ending one, though. It is possible for a person who is refused contraception to live on afterwards, it is not possible for a person who has been killed to do so- which is what some people think abortion is. And yes, I realise abortion isn't always successful and the foetus occasionally survives.

I'd be as worried about eg Jehovah's Witness medical staff refusing to do blood transfusions as I am about these nurses. Both would particularly concern me in remote geographical areas.

Am pro-choice but I feel that no-one should be required to administer any treatment if they have deeply held religious views which are against. The problem in this instance is because women undergoing terminations in that hospital are being nursed in labour wards. This is completely inappropriate - if they were nursed in a separate ward (which they should be), nurses like these could more easily be excused those duties.

But where, Moomins? The reality of hospital resources and staffing means that, basically, the women have to go to where the midwives are. Remember there are very few of these late abortions - certainly not enough to justify a dedicated ward, unless you centralised into just two or three units to serve the whole country.

slug, I agree: they have every motivation (which some give into) to give women misleading or partial information so they don't quickly and easily access abortion elsewhere.

It's not strictly relevant to the thread, but just raising awareness. As a Northern Irish woman (and so a British citizen) I cannot access abortion on the NHS. If I want or need an abortion, I have to travel to the mainland and pay. For many women, the cost runs to thousands of £.

Archaic and discriminatory - and entirely religion based. Not just RC either, the Protestants are just as fundamentalist.

It's true that women who've undergone late terminations need to be kept separate from women who've given birth to live babies. Putting them together is inhumane, it would probably upset just about everyone. But I think that's a separate issue to whether midwives ought to be able to opt out.

I suppose I wouldn't particularly want my post-termination care to come from someone who thought I'd just had my baby murdered. But then I live in a big city where I could go somewhere else, and have enough money to get to the other side of the city and back if needs be. Not all women in the UK can say that.

I am a Catholic and pro-choice. I do think these women have the right to not be involved in abortions if that is their belief. At our hospital (as I used to work there) staff are given a choice whether to be involved or not in theatre and after care - I think it is important to respect people's choices and that runs both ways - both for the women involved and the staff who care for them.

Midwifes are employed to deliver babies and keep them and mum safe as possible.

Not kill or termanate a child that is not their doctors and nurses are takes with saving lives

Do no harm is their motto

Any nurse or doctor that dose not want to termarnate or euthanise somone if if became legal is well with in their rights

I spent a week on the labour ward in sept loosing my son at 20 weeks, I would much rather have been in a separate ward, as we have such a high percentage of stillborns in this country and most of the late terminations are due to medical reasons they should fund for somewhere more private, even if it's not in every maternity unit

Also at our hospital and women undergoing later termination or stillbirth are put in a private room that although is on the labour ward area is out of the way, they can stay in that room and use it until they leave and are not mixed up with ladies who have just had their babies on the post natal ward. I only know one member of staff (a Midwife and Irish Roman Catholic) who did not want to be involved in termination and post termination care and everyone she worked with respected her and her point of view and made sure she was never put in that position.

Dead babies are hard enough when is not at the request of the mother in question why should a midwife who's job it is to promote life with mum and baby made to deliver babies at term and either let then die or deal with the after effects of self inflicted situation