To hope this very sad case stops them giving out abortion medication without scanning

[Greenmascara]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10711221/Baby-died-doctors-gave-30-week-pregnant-mother-abortion-pill-thinking-12-weeks.html

Extremely sad for mother and baby, mother is likely completely traumatised by this.

This isn't an anti abortion thread. Whilst never desirable, abortion needs to remain a safe, legal, NHS funded option so women aren't forced into buying illeagal/ dangerous pills online or having dangerous/ unsanitary abortions from backsttreet "doctors."

But I have been really, really concerned how at the start of covid, any safeguarding/ care in abortion went out the window. Pills posted out with no safeguarding concerns, and no scans to confirm pregnancy is within the legal limit.

Am I right in saying tragic, traumatic cases like this happen when you don't scan to check the gestation of pregnancy before handing out this medication ?

@SW1amp

And as your reading comprehension seems incredibly poor, I’ll repeat it

It’s not about me having expertise in all those areas. But I’m willing to bet the thousands of people working in those fields via all the organisations signed up to tjr various open letters know their stuff

And they all think you are wrong. They all want telemedicine to continue

Im not claiming to be an expert. Im just fully backing them as being right

Which means by default, you are wrong.

Again… in one corner, every Royal College working in sexual health, pregnancy, reproduction
Every charity working with DV and Rape victims, many charities working with immigrants, low income families
All of them ALL of them saying the evidence says telemedicine should continue because it helps women, and especially vulnerable women

In the blue corner - you. Can barely string a coherent sentence together and can’t make a case that doesn’t require a daily Mail article as it’s basis

So yeah, as long as you keep trying to claim your opinion is equal to all those lobbying to keep it, I’ll strongly suspect you are narcissistic or delusional

"Can barely string a coherent sentence together " think that might be an issue with your ( poor) reading and comprehension skills. Now maybe take a break from this thread and go back to getting your posts deleted for saying all women who report being spiked are imagining it

How you can post such crap and then come on and take the moral high ground r.e. women's rights is shocking.

I think people are forgetting the point made so many times that the cases quoted by OP did not involve telemedical abortions and are therefore completely irrelevant to the argument being made.

There's also the old saying that hard cases make bad law.

This story has no link to telemedicine. In fact, another way you could interpret this story is - this was a massive screw up by a hospital. So maybe it would be safer if no abortions were done in hospitals. They should only be done at home via telemedicine. That makes as much sense as what you are saying.

Also you are going off the DM article which as usual is like a piece of Swiss cheese. The patient might (?) has been scanned but it was done poorly (?). This makes no sense at all, the real story is obviously completely different.

Haven’t lost the argument but my jaw is quite on the floor at how much weirder you sound with each additional post

Not to mention that you still haven’t addressed why you think you know more than all the experts beyond your sub-teenage answer of ‘experts once thought the Earth was flat’

Either way, I’m tapping out now

As the saying goes, you can’t argue with stupid

LimeSegment believing the Daily Mail, an alleged newspaper with a clear anti-abortion agenda was the first mistake OP made. Since then we have had others come on with 'supporting evidence' which included Kevin Duffy, claimed to be neutral, in fact a man linked to the anti-abortion movement. The evidence in favour of telemedicine hasn't been addressed once. The agenda is clear.

In 2019 NICE, that is the body set up to review evidence and give guidance on best practice in safe & quality care, recommended that abortion without ultrasound is considered as long as women have access to 24/7 emergency advice and are warned about the small risk of ectopic pregnancy.

There will always be risks in healthcare and people who have a not normal experience. We have to deliver the healthcare that is safest for the population as a whole.

This isn't about ignoring women's needs, it's about 1) making the service accessible to women who can't or won't access clinic based services (including victims of reproductive coercion) 2) reducing the stigma and giving women as much control as possible and yes 3) ensuring best use can be made of the limited nursing staff, which is something that needs to be considered across healthcare.

@pointythings

I think people are forgetting the point made so many times that the cases quoted by OP did not involve telemedical abortions and are therefore completely irrelevant to the argument being made.

There's also the old saying that hard cases make bad law.

The second link, ( with the 28 week home stillbirth), did involve telemedicine.

And the link, ( the women in the first article wasn't scanned and telemedicine doesn't involve scanning), was very clear.

But as Eskarina has pointed out (as have others), telemedicine can include scans being offered if as part of the conversation it is considered necessary. Research has shown that telemedical abortions are both safe and appreciated by women. The fact that in rare cases they have gone wrong is really neither here nor there - rare errors happen in hospital settings as well. It is not possible to have a perfect system, but the answer is not to go back to a previous system which was not working for very many women - including women in abusive relationships who would have been forced into continuing unwanted pregnancies without the telemedicine option.

@pointythings

But as Eskarina has pointed out (as have others), telemedicine can include scans being offered if as part of the conversation it is considered necessary. Research has shown that telemedical abortions are both safe and appreciated by women. The fact that in rare cases they have gone wrong is really neither here nor there - rare errors happen in hospital settings as well. It is not possible to have a perfect system, but the answer is not to go back to a previous system which was not working for very many women - including women in abusive relationships who would have been forced into continuing unwanted pregnancies without the telemedicine option.

That's totally valid. What if you had to come in for a scan but take pills at home? (A big reason I didn't terminate was fear of having to take the pills on public transport and bleed out).

Scans are definitely important to do because you can't (or they don't recommend) medical past 9 weeks. Go in, get tablets same day or schedule surgical.

If we're being honest, an abusive partner can just as easily check phone calls or mail. My parent found stuff related to it from me, so telephone consultations can never completely prevent that, if at all.

I've changed my mind on the strength of the OP's arguments. I posted earlier that a woman wanting an abortion shouldn't have to have a scan. I now think that for women's health and safety, it should be done.

And the more I think about it, I don't believe that just because rape crisis centres, doctors etc advocate this method of abortion means it's right or they know better. These are the same people that advocate men being in women's spaces. Soooo, it doesn't make them right or that their care and concern for women is genuine. They just want less people using the NHS.

@TalkingCat

I've changed my mind on the strength of the OP's arguments. I posted earlier that a woman wanting an abortion shouldn't have to have a scan. I now think that for women's health and safety, it should be done.

And the more I think about it, I don't believe that just because rape crisis centres, doctors etc advocate this method of abortion means it's right or they know better. These are the same people that advocate men being in women's spaces. Soooo, it doesn't make them right or that their care and concern for women is genuine. They just want less people using the NHS.

Yes, because the cases highlighted in the articles above were clearly the least trauma inducing/ most compassionate method of care that could be provided to women at a stressful and traumatic time

I'm sure the women in the articles above are really glad they weren't scanned now

Two women. Out of tens of thousands. One of which is confirmed to not be related to telemedical abortion, and it’s not even clarified whether she did in fact have a scan or not.

There is no medical procedure, or medication, that does not pose a level or risk. You can buy medications over the counter that can kill you. Incidentally, when I pick up a prescription I’m asked if I have allergies or if I’m pregnant or nursing, and i’m trusted to self report. I’m not forced to submit to tests to determine if I’m telling the truth.

When it comes to medicine we balance risk to benefit. Telemedical abortion, at this point in time with the information we have available, is far more beneficial to women than the old system. More beneficial does not mean, and never has meant, ‘perfect’. If we refuse to accept anything other than perfect then you can kiss goodbye to any and all medical treatments.

Does the telemedical system protect all vulnerable women? Sadly not. Nor did the old system, which saw thousands of women buy the pills they needed online because they couldn’t access in person care, either at all or in a timely fashion. You’re not actually advocating protecting women, you’re advocating protecting one group of vulnerable women whose needs you think matter, whilst pretending another, larger, group of vulnerable women don’t even exist because they’re inconvenient to your narrative. Is it even established that the old system was in fact better for this group of women? Because you’re stating it was like it’s unquestionable fact, yet you’re providing nothing in the way of supporting evidence.

You’re also overlooking the fact that a man intending to force a woman to abort is unlikely to force her to access a system that has safeguards (and no, not making it a requirement to have a scan does not equal a removal of all safeguards) when he can order the pills online with no questions asked.

Do we actually have statistics or evidence that actually supports the opinion that in person appointments prevent women from being coerced into abortion? I would genuinely like to see it, if we do. I also think there’s something else to consider here, and that is if someone (and actually it’s not just men, female family members of victims have been known for this too) is intent on forcing a woman to have an abortion I imagine they’re unlikely to be dissuaded by her having to attend a clinic in person. If that is preventative, if she can’t be spiked with an abortion pill, she can be spiked with rat poison or anything else available. She can be beaten until she miscarries. In light of those dark, awful realities, is it better or worse to be spiked with an abortion pill that is at least not going to severely injure or kill her, comparative to other more grisly methods?

The ideal outcome to such a situation is that the woman concerned gets help and is able to remove herself from the abusive circumstances that she’s in, but the reality is that not all can do so, so in light of this, we need to ask to what degree the legal system of accessing abortion impacts these women? If we can determine whether it does have an impact, what system causes less harm? This is something that shouldn’t be guessed imo, I would like to see evidence.

“While some eight per cent of women have experienced pressure to become pregnant, seven per cent of women have been pushed into having an abortion, the research by polling company D-Cyfor concluded.”

“Experts warn the proportion of women who have experienced such coercion will be significantly higher than 14 per cent because that figure does not include those who have had birth control pills hidden or stolen, condoms sabotaged or removed during sex, or a partner lie to them about having a vasectomy.”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pregnancy-coercion-reproduction-abortion-a8834306.html?amp

One study one reproductive coercion. Women coerced into abortion as well as women coerced into pregnancy. It’s seems the latter group is larger.

@whumpthereitis

“While some eight per cent of women have experienced pressure to become pregnant, seven per cent of women have been pushed into having an abortion, the research by polling company D-Cyfor concluded.”

“Experts warn the proportion of women who have experienced such coercion will be significantly higher than 14 per cent because that figure does not include those who have had birth control pills hidden or stolen, condoms sabotaged or removed during sex, or a partner lie to them about having a vasectomy.”

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/pregnancy-coercion-reproduction-abortion-a8834306.html?amp

One study one reproductive coercion. Women coerced into abortion as well as women coerced into pregnancy. It’s seems the latter group is larger.

And yet it is only the ones who are coerced into terminating who matter to some people. Both are equally wrong, the group experiencing coerced pregnancy is larger and so there is a choice to be made here. Fortunately the government has chosen to keep telemedical abortion available for the larger group of women experiencing reproductive coercion.

We cannot make law based on a tiny % of cases going wrong - because as said above, no medical procedure is 100% risk free.

Safeguarding is based on Worst Case Scenario. We don't say 'oh, only a few women were assaulted by men in toilets out of several hundred thousand, so lets allow all men in'. Laws ARE made on the Worse Case Scenario principle. They ARE indeed, made on the possibility, even once, of something going wrong. Even one case is unacceptable. Prevention and safeguarding should come first.

Exactly. You can’t reasonably claim to care about vulnerable women and ignore an entire group of them because they’re inconvenient.

As far as equating experts, who do actually have to meet strict standards according to a scientific method we haven’t actually bettered, to flat earthers? Fucking hell. I’m all for questioning, but the whole point of experts is that they know more than a layperson in their field. I respect expert opinion for this reason, because reading a few opinion pieces and watching YouTube videos does not mean I have done research, or that my opinion is equally as valid as that of someone who has spent their career in research and scientific method.

Can expert opinion change? Yes, of course. Science is constantly challenged, our understanding naturally deepens and evolves as we discover more and more. That’s the point, science is not dogmatic. Does that mean though that we should ignore what we currently know and anticipate an unknown future (that always seem to be one where an opposing narrative is suddenly found to be correct)? Fuck no.

@TalkingCat

Safeguarding is based on Worst Case Scenario. We don't say 'oh, only a few women were assaulted by men in toilets out of several hundred thousand, so lets allow all men in'. Laws ARE made on the Worse Case Scenario principle. They ARE indeed, made on the possibility, even once, of something going wrong. Even one case is unacceptable. Prevention and safeguarding should come first.

We aren't talking about safeguarding, we are talking about medical procedures. And there is not one that is 100% safe and risk free. So by your logic, we should not carry out any medical procedures.

Law is not medical procedure. Laws are made to decide what is and is not acceptable and legal conduct, and coercive control is already a criminal offence. We do not need to block an avenue to safe legal termination for that to be the case, we need more prosecutions. This isn't a zero sum game.

Other than that it's a personal choice. For each women coerced into ending a pregnancy, there is approximately 1.1 women coerced into keeping a pregnancy they do not want, thereby bringing a baby into a household where there is abuse. This is about harm reduction. And I will always stand with the woman who is already here, who may have other children.

@TalkingCat

Safeguarding is based on Worst Case Scenario. We don't say 'oh, only a few women were assaulted by men in toilets out of several hundred thousand, so lets allow all men in'. Laws ARE made on the Worse Case Scenario principle. They ARE indeed, made on the possibility, even once, of something going wrong. Even one case is unacceptable. Prevention and safeguarding should come first.

No, it’s not. It’s made on balancing risk. You’ll always find a worst case scenario. So the worst case scenario is the woman will be coerced into abortion under the telemedicine system (evidence for this?), but what about the worst case scenario of the old system? We can actually point to what those were: a minimum of 10,000 women buying unlicensed pills online, accessing clinic service later than they would have liked, and not being able to access abortion at all.

So then, either way you have to accept a worst case scenario, so how do you judge? By risk/benefit, surely?

If we accept nothing less than zero medical risk then we no longer have a medical system at all.

Someone with an allergy unknown to them can walk into pretty much any pharmacy/ gas station/ supermarket and buy some paracetamol because they have a headache. They can pop two, have an anaphylactoid reaction, and die. That’s a risk that isn’t zero percent, so is that unacceptable? Should we have to be tested before we take an over the counter drug? Should we only take it as inpatients so we can be monitored for any adverse effects?

And once again, not requiring scanning in all cases (because no, they haven’t done away with scans full stop), is not the removal of all safeguards. It’s not a binary of scans = safeguarding and no scans = no safeguarding.

cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/benefit-risk.pdf

Here’s the guidelines on risk/benefit. This is what we work with, not ‘only approve if zero risk’.

Of course there is risk for everything, but we don't do away with all safeguarding.

As I previously mentioned, I sadly, no longer trust any of these organisations, because all of them put being 'woke' first regardless of the risk to women. So no, I do not believe these places. If they can ignore safeguarding for women in women's spaces (and these organisations support men in womens spaces), then what else will they approve? They're slowly but inexorably chipping away at the safety and rights as women. I will never, never 'believe the experts' when they advocate removing safe spaces from women, so I am not going to believe them when it comes to this. I don't care how many 'respected' organisations join the list (as they have done with allowing men in womens spaces, sports teams etc), my trust in these organisations has been irretrievably broken. I might be jaded but I no longer believe any of these organisations have womens best interests at heart. If the same organisation says there is 'no risk' to women having men invade their spaces, I sure as shit am not going to believe them on this either.

Sadly, unless things do a 180 and quickly, I don't think I'll ever believe these organisations again. My trust has been irretrievably broken, for good. I don't know what their reasoning is for joining with Stonewall and advocating men in women's spaces, and I don't know what their reasoning is for suggesting we do away with scans. On both, it's nefarious reasoning, imo. On their stance with this, I believe it's cheaper for the NHS. It's cost-cutting. And that's what they push for it. I don't believe for one split second any of them give a shiny shit about women. It's all about cost-cutting, that's all.