Royal College of Midwives backs abolition of abortion law that could see women terminate unborn child at any point

[ThatsMyStapler]

Surely the majority of people needing/wanting a medical abortion do so for very good reasons, and also as quickly as is possible.

Royal College of Midwives backs abolition of abortion law that could see women terminate unborn child at any point

Telegraph Link

he Royal College of Midwives (RCM) is facing criticism after calling for abortion to be decriminalised, without consulting its members on the issue.
The union, which represents almost 30,000 midwives and health workers, has said it gives its “full support” to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the UK’s biggest abortion provider, in its campaign for abortion to be removed from criminal law.
Prof Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the RCM, is also chairman of the board of trustees of BPAS.
It is currently against the law for women to terminate a foetus after 24 weeks unless there is a medical reason to do so, while abortions earlier in a pregnancy are only legal if two doctors agree to it.
But the RCM is backing calls for the legal limits to be scrapped and abortion to instead be regulated in the same way as other medical procedures, at the discretion of doctors.

There is a petition to stop this, and they say;

"Your campaign is severely out of touch with what women actually think and want. A ComRes poll in March 2014 found that 88% of women favoured a total and explicit ban on sex-selective abortion, whilst another in October that year registered a similar figure of 85%. The March poll also found 92% of women agreeing that a woman requesting an abortion should always be seen in person by a qualified doctor. Whilst in 2006, a Guardian / MORI poll found that 47% of women wanted a reduction in the upper time limit, a 2012 Angus Reid poll found this number had increased to 59% of women."

And yes, you are making it out to be no big deal - you're simplifying it greatly, minimising what severly disabled people go through

No I'm not. I'm saying their lives have just as much value as someone able bodied.

Women who are able to get themselves to doctors and do not wish to have the babies "because they want to party at the weekends" or simply do not want them are already having them done well before the deadline. No one is going to want the bloating, nausea etc of being pregnant for no reason. So we can take all those out of the question.

As we get to and past the deadline, people who desperately want an abortion and havent had one are for sadder and sadder reasons - they are not mentally capable of arranging it and have no access to mental health services that could help them, they are in DV situations etc. What criminalising abortion does is to say to those women "You no longer have the option to ask for this done in a safe way by medical professionals. And if you try and do it yourself in the horrific and dangerous back-street ways that are left WE WILL PUT YOU IN PRISON FOR LIFE. (if you survive)"

Does everyone think that this is the way things should be?

storm I'm saying that at a certain point in gestation, there are other rights to think about. Have the baby and give it up. Abortion of a healthy foetus past a certain stage is utterly horrific.

That's not the way it is stormtreader. If a woman's mental health is at risk then a doctor can still authorise an abortion post-24 weeks.

We were also earlier discussing the option of induction at that stage rather than abortion - why does it it have to be abortion when the foetus is viable?

mini but say if everyone was in a wheelchair

I agree that many of the disadvantages of being disabled come from being in a minority. If you took that away, and made most people disabled in the same way, then yes many of the disadvantages would disappear.

But (1) that is never going to happen and (2) even in that scenario there would be some disadvantages that would still exist. For example the pain that comes with some disabilities. Or just sadness from not being able to do certain physical things (in our example - walking, running, jumping, dancing).

Future I'm curious as to why you don't think the same where the condition is life limiting.

Is a life which ends after a few days, weeks, months worth less than a life which continues for years?

Whether it's going to happen or not isn't the point, it's abstract but it demonstrates that disability is cultural. Sadness about not walking/jumping would only be an issue if culturally it was normal to do those things. If it isn't, there won't be sadness. Are you sad about not using a wheelchair?

Pain is different, and more of a side effect than a condition in itself, and can usually be treated adequately. I say this as someone with several chronic pain issues.

mini because that life doesn't have a chance to be lived. Even if you have the child, it will definitely die before it has a chance to live it's life.

I think you've made some really interesting points Future but I disagree with the idea that having a short life means it hasn't lived its life at all. We could get into a big philosophical conversation about what 'living life' really is but I think that will take the thread off on a complete tangent! Some people could argue that people with certain disabilities aren't 'living life' by their definition but I don't think that makes their life less worthy.

Well it demonstrates that in a society where most people were disabled, disability would be far less of a disability (if that makes sense). BUT that doesn't translate into saying "we can therefore eradicate the problems of disability by changing our own society" because we are stuck with the unchangeable fact that in our society most people are not disabled.

Am I sad about not using a wheelchair? No because I could do if I wanted to

future it does have a chance to live its life though - it will just be a very short life.

Where do you draw the line? What if a child would live to 2 months? Is that a "life"? What about 6 months? etc...

I'll reply to the others in a bit but

so you think children who die (as a child obviously) never had a life?

They died before their life had really begun.

RCM, or more accurately Cathy Warwick, is the latest to join the "death to all inconvenient people" brigade and dress it up as a "right". It's totally wrong IMO.

Interesting article by a midwife irt to this here

RCM, or more accurately Cathy Warwick, is the latest to join the "death to all inconvenient people" brigade and dress it up as a "right". It's totally wrong IMO

What a cheap, untrue, and frankly dickish comment to make.

Most of the people on this thread didn't understand the statement, or the position, or the law. The level of ignorance shown here is staggering.

"If a woman's mental health is at risk then a doctor can still authorise an abortion post-24 weeks."

Does that count for situations where, for example, the woman has been raped and is in crushing depression, meaning that she cant manage to arrange help? Or is in some other mental health difficulty? Im genuinely unsure what the details are that determine "mental health at risk", isnt that just "is actually suicidal over it"?

If this campaign were successful:

• women in NI (and in mainland Britain) would not be at risk of prosecution if they ended their pregnancies using medicines bought online. The current maximum sentence for this is life.

• women who caused their own abortions would not be afraid to seek help if things went wrong. This would save lives.

• we could get rid of the 'two doctors' bollox. This would mean women could access abortion earlier. It would also mean that nurses and midwives could handle straightforward abortions, freeing doctors' time to better support more complex cases, i.e. women who are later in pregnancy where the decisions and options are not so easy.

• early abortion could be something requiring minimal input from medical professionals. It could be done on a GP prescription or OTC at the pharmacy, like MAP.

• The money saved from not having to have multiple appts. and two doctors involved in every case could be much better targeted at support (MH, social and medical, but based on skilled clinical decisions - not a moralistic one-size-fits-all law) for the small number of women who seek late abortions.

Most of the people on this thread didn't understand the statement, or the position, or the law. The level of ignorance shown here is staggering.

Isn't it just?

I'm grateful the handful of people who understand for stopping me questioning whether I was reading the same thing as anyone else.

I am sadly all too familiar with ideological belief over professional medicinal practice. Or evidence.

And a hell of a lot of utterly appalling attitudes to mental health across the board.

Plenty, I doubt it would be extended to NI.

The very rare situation of a baby growing outside the womb might be a case for sacrificing the baby to save the mother.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1050942/Miracle-baby-Billy-grew-outside-mothers-womb.html

I suppose a mental health risk could be psychosis that requires drugs harmful to the foetus.

I think that English law on abortion is fair and there is no mood among the general public to change it.

I think that English law on abortion is fair

Yes very fair to women who are mentally ill criminals.

If a woman is mentally ill then she has the defence if diminished responsiblity. Sometimes women commit infanticide because of mental illness. Do you think infanticide should be legal? Should women who aren't mentally ill be allowed to kill their newborn because having a baby is a nuisance?

Abortion had been discussed by MPs several times in the past. There is no mood to make access to abortion easier.

red we do understand the issue. I acnowledge the mental health aspects.

I just happen to think mental illness is no excuse for killing a viable foetus

"I just happen to think mental illness is no excuse for killing a viable foetus"

Thankfully many UK judges disagree with you.

English law does allow the defence of diminished responsiblity for murder of anyone. However mental illness has to be severe and the courts may force the person to have treatment in a secure unit.

I think it's highly likely that an eight month pregnant woman who seeks a late abortion of a healthy foetus might not be mentally competent to make such a decision.