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 ?

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.

That's a completely irrational way of thinking. It's like me saying that if the mechanic who fixes my car is a devoted QAnon follower who believes in The Great Reset and thinks the earth is flat, he shouldn't be allowed to work on my car - which he is an expert on, and I'm not.

This sort of polarised thinking is what's wrong with the world right now.

@pointythings

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.

That's a completely irrational way of thinking. It's like me saying that if the mechanic who fixes my car is a devoted QAnon follower who believes in The Great Reset and thinks the earth is flat, he shouldn't be allowed to work on my car - which he is an expert on, and I'm not.

This sort of polarised thinking is what's wrong with the world right now.

The difference is that mechanic is not head of an organisation that creates policy.

That's not the case here. These organisations write and create and effect policy. That affects every woman. A mechanic only affects the customer he sees.

Okay, so experts aren’t to be trusted. Who is then? Who should create policy, and on what evidence? Or on no evidence at all? Why should scans be required? I mean if the experts that say they aren’t necessary can’t be trusted, then neither can those that say they are.

Again, scans not being required in all cases is not the same as no safeguarding being implemented at all.

The difference is that mechanic is not head of an organisation that creates policy.

Yes, based on the evidence they have in front of them. On peer reviewed studies and stringent risk/benefit analysis. If they aren’t to be trusted, on what basis should anyone else be?

There's also the zero sum thinking that's going on here. It is perfectly possible for someone to be wrong on one thing and yet be a fully valid expert acting on evidence on another. People aren't 100% risk free either.

I agree that there should always be safe spaces for women, tbw. The polarisation around the trans debate does my head in - and I have a trans man in my household.

@pointythings

There's also the zero sum thinking that's going on here. It is perfectly possible for someone to be wrong on one thing and yet be a fully valid expert acting on evidence on another. People aren't 100% risk free either.

I agree that there should always be safe spaces for women, tbw. The polarisation around the trans debate does my head in - and I have a trans man in my household.

This.

I’m trying to figure out what the trustworthy authority should be, and why. Okay so we can’t trust experts, but we can trust greenmasacara and talking cat? Apparently both are taking it for granted that what they believe it based on trustworthy sources, and that they themselves can be considered trustworthy?

Why? Who are they getting their information from?

And if they’re claiming to have access to better evidence, well that sounds suspiciously like they consider themselves to have something approaching expertise, so of course they can be dismissed as untrustworthy.

It’s a logical death spiral.

@TalkingCat

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.

100% correct. And NUPAS/ MSI / BPAS are advocating for a system where they spend less money on treating client's, ( they are not clear whether they will require less payment from the NHS despite providing less work), and the public are being gaslit into thinking this is about women's safety.

Oh, and Stonewall are part of the "list of expert organisations," that have signed to say telemedicine/ termination without scans should continue. I don't regard Stonewall as experts in anything. and wonder why on earth they think lesbian and bisexual women, ( who presumably would be a very small minority needing terminations), would be disadvantaged by needing a scan ?

@whumpthereitis you don't think many of the "experts," who have signed that letter, e.g. NUPAS/ BPAS/ MSI / International Planned Parenthood Association might just not have a vested interest in providing cheaper services ?

Stonewall provided a corporate signature to that letter as experts,, What expertise do you think Stonewall have in termination safety, ( or biology at all, frankly).

So what’s your agenda? If those experts can’t be trusted, on what basis should you be? Because you seem to take it for granted that you have superior insight to those that spend their lives working and studying in this field. You say you want to protect women, but of course those bodies you’ve maligned also claim they want to do that, so that’s not good enough reasoning is it?

So go on, WHY are you better informed? WHY should you be trusted?

@whumpthereitis

So what’s your agenda? If those experts can’t be trusted, on what basis should you be? Because you seem to take it for granted that you have superior insight to those that spend their lives working and studying in this field. You say you want to protect women, but of course those bodies you’ve maligned also claim they want to do that, so that’s not good enough reasoning is it?

So go on, WHY are you better informed? WHY should you be trusted?

So you think Stonewall, ( a leading signatory to making telemedicine permanent), have spent their lives studying safe and least harmful termination practices ?

[quote Greenmascara]@whumpthereitis you don't think many of the "experts," who have signed that letter, e.g. NUPAS/ BPAS/ MSI / International Planned Parenthood Association might just not have a vested interest in providing cheaper services ?

Stonewall provided a corporate signature to that letter as experts,, What expertise do you think Stonewall have in termination safety, ( or biology at all, frankly).[/quote]
Nice dodge. I haven’t mentioned stonewall at all in this thread, or referred to them having expertise.

Please explain why you are better informed than these medical bodies that have supported telemedical abortion, and on what basis you are trustworthy?

@whumpthereitis

So what’s your agenda? If those experts can’t be trusted, on what basis should you be? Because you seem to take it for granted that you have superior insight to those that spend their lives working and studying in this field. You say you want to protect women, but of course those bodies you’ve maligned also claim they want to do that, so that’s not good enough reasoning is it?

So go on, WHY are you better informed? WHY should you be trusted?

I don't have an agenda. I'm pro women. I don't want termination to be banned, I want us to stop cutting cash on safeguards and invest more in the system so it is safe for women.

Again, at no point have I referenced stonewall as an authority. None of the evidence I have provided has been from Stonewall. As you well know.

Perhaps you can direct your energy to addressing what I’ve actually said, because you’re wasting it in setting up strawmen.

I don't have an agenda. I'm pro women. I don't want termination to be banned, I want us to stop cutting cash on safeguards and invest more in the system so it is safe for women.

Well i can’t trust that, can I? I mean, the RCOG and FSHR claim to be pro woman and support telemedical abortion, but they’re not trustworthy are they? So why are you?

I absolutely believe that women should be able to access safe methods, but I also think there should be adequate follow up. My daughter nearly lost her life. Got unexpectedly pregnant without knowing as she went for morning after pill. She then arrived at my house with unbearable pain, correctly diagnosed by out of hours locum GP, immediate admission to hospital, delay while tests done, ectopic pregnancy confirmed, suddenly burst , bleeding into abdomen, only just saved her in time. For that reason some medical oversight is surely in the woman’s interests? I am concerned that women who don’t always recognise what is happening in their body will be at risk of considerable harm. Especially as it seems health care in Uk is so compromised. This is why we have specialists. In my own case , my GP ob/gyn could tell I was pregnant before I had symptoms or knew myself.

@Monitaurus

The telemedicine service comes with follow ups as standard. Phone call checks in from a nurse and admission if required

But as an aside… How did you Ob/gyn tell you that you were pregnant before you had any symptoms? Did they do a test, or are you suggesting they are somehow psychic?

[quote Sparechange]@Monitaurus

The telemedicine service comes with follow ups as standard. Phone call checks in from a nurse and admission if required

But as an aside… How did you Ob/gyn tell you that you were pregnant before you had any symptoms? Did they do a test, or are you suggesting they are somehow psychic?[/quote]
The telemedicine system does not come with a standard follow up call from a nurse. Read any of the many, many "my medical abortion," experience stories/ threads on here, and not one mentions a standard follow up call from a nurse to check things have progressed medically as they should have done.

Sparechange. It was a long time ago ...the GP examined me but I was very early I think. Knew immediately because I suppose he had had a lot of experience. Interestingly the locum who saw my daughter said that he had been told when training that if women or girls had a range of symptoms, pregnancy was usually the first reason. Both men, but I owe them a lot. Daughter never received a follow up call, but it was a while ago.

@Monitaurus your daughter had an ectopic pregnancy after taking the morning after pill? Or after taking the at home abortion pill?

I was immediately suspicious of this story. The abortion pill is only licensed for use in pregnancies up to 63 days gestation (7weeks). If the woman had been seen by her GP at 12 weeks the abortion pill would not have been prescribed.
However she got hold of the drug was illegal.
In this case a full hands on exam would have quickly reviewed that the pregnancy was much more advanced whether 12 weeks or 30weeks and a scan would automatically been prescribed.
My take on this is that she sourced the abortion with the aid of a third party.
Any medical professional involved in the procurement would be implicit in illegal abortion. However, if the prescription was sought by a third party who was pregnant but under 7 weeks and the drug sold/ given to the woman in the article I don’t think that the medical professional should be blamed. To correctly administer the pill the first pill is taken at the abortion clinics/ surgery so it is witnessed.
Again it is possible, with the pandemic, that there has been illegal trading in the abortion pill.
So I agree this is likely to come under the umbrella of illegal abortion but not because the drug is available but because it has become a black market drug.

@Angrymum22

I was immediately suspicious of this story. The abortion pill is only licensed for use in pregnancies up to 63 days gestation (7weeks). If the woman had been seen by her GP at 12 weeks the abortion pill would not have been prescribed. However she got hold of the drug was illegal. In this case a full hands on exam would have quickly reviewed that the pregnancy was much more advanced whether 12 weeks or 30weeks and a scan would automatically been prescribed. My take on this is that she sourced the abortion with the aid of a third party. Any medical professional involved in the procurement would be implicit in illegal abortion. However, if the prescription was sought by a third party who was pregnant but under 7 weeks and the drug sold/ given to the woman in the article I don’t think that the medical professional should be blamed. To correctly administer the pill the first pill is taken at the abortion clinics/ surgery so it is witnessed. Again it is possible, with the pandemic, that there has been illegal trading in the abortion pill. So I agree this is likely to come under the umbrella of illegal abortion but not because the drug is available but because it has become a black market drug.

@Angrymum22, abortion pills for home use are licenced up to 10 weeks, ( nine weeks six days), prescription, after a routine telephone call, ( www.msichoices.org.uk/abortion-services/online-medical-abortion/) as opposed to seven weeks, ( link below).

The first pill, ( mifepristone), also does not have to be taken in clinic as, since the covid-19 pandemic started in March 2020, all pills have been licenced to be posted/ taken home. Therefore it is perfectly possible this poor women legally obtained abortion medication without any physical examination/ scan/ face to face consultation, leading to these very traumatic results.

Therefore it is perfectly possible this poor women legally obtained abortion medication without any physical examination/ scan/ face to face consultation, leading to these very traumatic results.

...leading to these tragic but incredibly rare traumatic results

There, fixed that for you. Context is everything.

I dont think telemedicine service should be stopped. Used it myself and it was absolutely great service during such stressful and sad time. I think people need to take some responsibility for themselves. I know these rare things happen but individual responsibility also plays a role. For example e.g I received Codeine painkillers together with my medicine even though I have informed them I was breastfeeding. But I read the leaflet before taking it. We cannot blame NHS for every single little thing.

But she was 12 weeks!

Still 14 days over the legal limit. I hadn’t factored in the pandemic since most areas of urgent NHS medicine have been operating normally throughout the pandemic.
The article does NOT say how she obtained the meds only that the inquest was focused on the lack of care she received while in hospital that contributed to the death of her baby. The article is quick to point out that the hospital has no part in the procurement of the meds.
The article is reporting on the inquest into the death of the baby.
It is very likely that there are ongoing criminal enquiries into the abortion aspect of the case. It’s compl x since the hospital played a part in the babies death but were not involved in the prescription of drugs that induced early labour.
If the woman hadn’t induced the abortion then the baby may have survived, but the hospital failed in its duty of care to fully assess her when she presented.
If she maintained that she was only 12 weeks (for whatever reason ) then her condition would have been completely mismanaged. It’s easy to point the finger at the professionals. But if the patient withholds be information it has a cascading effect.