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 ?

This isn;t a story about aboortion pills being available by post though is it.

The termination happened in a hospital.

The vast majority of women that have used the telemedical service have found it to be overwhelmingly beneficial. Rare cases such as this shouldn’t be used as justification to deny women options.

Agree.

@speakout

This isn;t a story about aboortion pills being available by post though is it.

The termination happened in a hospital.

Yup.

“And the other positives are it’s much cheaper for the nhs …….no in person appt…….no scan ….and people are just lapping it up and saying it’s great when it’s just removing care not making things better for women”

Yes, you’re right. All the evidence that supports it being better for women is just wrong. The women themselves who personally benefited from it are wrong too. The RCOG? Wrong. FSRH? Wrong. Rape crisis? Wrong.

It’s only those criticizing the service, who absolutely have no agenda whatsoever, that are right. Of course.

Interesting first post from a brand new OP that is totally pro choice, by the way.

@Greenmascara

Exactly *@Piper22*.

My concerns with that are:

1. As the need for scans have been dispensed with, BPAS et al do not seem bothered about identifying ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy or pregnancies over the 10 week limit for home abortion, causing a very significant risk to the health/ safety of vulnerable women.

2. No check the person obtaining medication is actually pregnant at all, and is not obtaining the medication to either administer by stealth or force/ coerce/ pressure a vulnerable person, ( often child), into taking.

3. The ease this gives for abusive parents, families, partners, ex-partners to bully women into abortion; the provider has no idea whether the women has someone in the room with her during a telephone consultation preventing her from talking freely.

4. The ease at which this system allows the mass cover up of trafficking and the abuse of underage girls , women wit mental health problems, learning disabilities etc.

Brian might quite like having sex with his learning disabled neighbour Linda, but knows he may get arrested for abuse if this becomes public knowledge due to the extent of Linda's learning disability/ lack of capacity. If Linda has to visit BPAS face to face, some serious questions about who got her pregnant would be asked and she would likely be safeguarded. But now pills by post exist, Brian can get his girlfriend Louise, ( whom he also abuses), to ring BPAS and request pills by post for herself. Regardless as to whether Linda is past the 10 week gestation or has other medical conditions that make this completely unsuitable for her.

‘1) As the need for scans have been dispensed with, BPAS et al do not seem bothered about identifying ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy or pregnancies over the 10 week limit for home abortion, causing a very significant risk to the health/ safety of vulnerable women.‘

On just this first point I called BPAS and had the initial telephone call, from talking and answering the comprehensive questions to the person dealing with me on the phone, she said she was concerned that I could have an ectopic pregnancy so she booked me an emergency appointment for the next day at the hospital. Had i wanted to continue the pregnancy I wouldn’t have gone. I was diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy. She could have saved my life. So I don’t think it is a fair comment for you to make with no experience and just reading a DM article. This is about choice and is a calculated risk.

@SW1amp

So *@Greenmascara* what is your experience/involvement with this that makes you more qualified than pretty much every women’s organisation on this topic?

Because when everyone actually working on the frontline is in unified agreement on this, you surely have to question if you’re just wrong..?

This thread.

@whumpthereitis

“And the other positives are it’s much cheaper for the nhs …….no in person appt…….no scan ….and people are just lapping it up and saying it’s great when it’s just removing care not making things better for women”

Yes, you’re right. All the evidence that supports it being better for women is just wrong. The women themselves who personally benefited from it are wrong too. The RCOG? Wrong. FSRH? Wrong. Rape crisis? Wrong.

It’s only those criticizing the service, who absolutely have no agenda whatsoever, that are right. Of course.

Interesting first post from a brand new OP that is totally pro choice, by the way.

I have no agenda

I am totally pro choice but it has to be safe

@LuluBlakey1

I think the NHS has brought about its own demise with its ridiculously over-drawn response to Covid- after years of underfunding and the Tories will be whooping with delight and making plans to sell it off to American insurance.

You do realise the ‘guidelines’ come from the government and the NHS has to implement them?

@SW1amp

So *@Greenmascara* what is your experience/involvement with this that makes you more qualified than pretty much every women’s organisation on this topic?

Because when everyone actually working on the frontline is in unified agreement on this, you surely have to question if you’re just wrong..?

Unfortunately @SW1amp, I can disagree with several other decisions the charities supporting pills by post have made.

I disagree with Rape Crisis r.e. pills by post, I also disagree with them appointing a transwoman ceo, ( and I say that as a rape survivor).

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/protests-over-trans-woman-heading-rape-crisis-centre-wp7hwbv09

It's okay to disagree with the organisations backing this on various points.

You have to assume most people are relatively sane and intelligent and provide adequate services for those who aren’t. The vast majority of people wouldn’t take abortion causing medication at 30 weeks.

@whumpthereitis the experts used to think the world was flat

The idea that we're going to be able to suddenly fix the system so all women can get access to early scans, in the middle of a pandemic and a colossal NHS staffing crisis, and when there were problems even pre covid is completely and totally fanciful. It's not going to happen.

I can’t argue with that really because you’re right that it’s never going to happen, but I can’t comfortably agree that I’m ok with women being allowed to have abortions at home with nothing but a phone call to support them or check that it’s safe. I can see what everyone’s saying, but it seems so wrong.

I posted this on another thread, but it seems equally as valid here.

Telemedicine abortions are proven to be safe and effective, and the overwhelming majority of women who accessed the service preferred it. There is still discussion with a healthcare professional, and should that professional feel that the woman needs closer monitoring and supervision in person, then that is still the case. But there is still monitoring and supervision.

What it removes is the decades old requirement for a woman to require the permission of two doctors to have an abortion. And the decades old requirement for abortions to take place on licensed premises. These requirements were put into place to redress the problem of ‘backstreet abortions’, which was one of the largest causes of mortality in females of child bearing age. Obviously developments in medicine have rendered these requirements largely redundant.

Telemedicine abortions have also been proven to facilitate earlier abortions, which are proven to be safer for women. Telemedicine abortions have made it easier for women who were previously buying abortion pills illegally online, perhaps due to an inability to visit their doctor due to fear of domestic violence from their partner, to access safe and regulated abortions from home. These women then have access to counselling and safeguarding services, making it even safer for women.

Even without the obvious safety benefits, telemedicine abortions are incredibly cost effective, and are cheaper than the traditional model.

RCOG, Marie Stopes, and BPAS are all calling for telemedicine provision to continue.

To use the example you used - abortion pills are available to purchase online, without any safeguarding. Without any oversight. If someone wanted to sneakily obtain medication to slip to their wife/girlfriend, they easily could without going through the correct channels. In fact, by making telemedicine abortion permissible, legal, accessible, regulated, and safe, you remove the need for these websites to exist in the first place.

Also - the story that you’re posting about, however sad, wasn’t a telemedicine abortion.

It’s negligent. Doesn’t matter how rare it is. Two babies have been illegally and horrifically killed

Of course you can disagree with them, but to be honest, it makes you look pretty bloody stupid when you do

All opinions are not created equal…

In the blue corner, robust scientific evidence, case studies, surveys from women who have used the service, evidence from organisations working with DV victims, immigrants, low income women, rural women, women with MH problems - all in total agreement that the service should continue and lobbying hard to allow it to

In the red corner “oooh I read something in the daily Mail and me no likey cos some scenarios I just made up”

You can see how it looks, right..?

Surely the viability of the foetus at 30 weeks is the real tragedy here not simply the fact that she wanted an abortion and that was what she got.

no scans to confirm pregnancy is within the legal limit.

Did that usually happen then? I had a termination thirty three years ago. I didn't have a scan.

Interesting that both those stories were reported by the Daily Mail

In terms of safety and accessibility to abortion, it cuts both ways. If a woman has a family or partner who don’t want her to access a termination, a telephone conversation and home procedure is going to be a lot easier for her to access.

So I think women have to be given the choice - scans should be available if people want them, but certainly not mandatory.

It would be extremely rare to mistake an early pregnancy for a 30 week pregnancy, and women in general shouldn’t have open access to abortion limited because of rare cases like this.

I understand that you aren’t entirely anti abortion OP, but I do get the impression you’d like it restricted, which I think is influencing your take on this case, alongside what I’m sure is a genuine concern for women’s well being.

[quote Greenmascara]@whumpthereitis the experts used to think the world was flat [/quote]
Yes, because the bar then was exactly the same as it is now. Totally comparable.

We work on the basis of information we have now. Not information that may or may not become available in a future we are incapable of looking into. So yes, funnily enough the educated opinions of experts in the actual field, who have collected a wealth actual evidence in support of said opinions, count for far more than the opinions of a poster on mumsnet who thinks they’re wrong.

And if you’re going to try and discredit Rape Crisis, at least get the basic facts right

It’s the Edinburgh rape crisis centre (stand alone Centre in erm Edinburgh) which appointed a trans woman as CEO

It’s Rape Crisis, national organisation working at grass roots and policy level which co-signed the letter
But sure, you know more than them on how best to help Rape victims, definitely

As someone who accessed the pills by collection via the nhs in lockdown, I honestly can say I was grateful and it wasn’t a slap dash agreement with the nurses. It involved lengthy phone calls , offers of in-hospital treatment if necessary. Had I not been 100% confidently certain that I was in early pregnancy they wouldn’t have given me the pills. I was supported so, so well by the team , they regularly checked up on me and afterwards ensured I was safe, and had further follow up for my thoughts on the procedure at home.

This story is , devastating, but indeed rare.

It's not clear , from the article, what situation the woman was in.

It's really difficult to make assumptions but , ideally, this shouldn't have happened.

Many women, particularly young women, find it hard to approach their GP and it would be great if there was a free-for-all womens clinic that was easily available for every woman.

The reality is that such clinics are only available in bigger towns and cities and, only then, need to be searched... they're often tucked away in quiet and out of the way areas.

Rural communities would not be providing these services.

Really sad but somewhat inevitable.

To use the example you used - abortion pills are available to purchase online, without any safeguarding. Without any oversight. If someone wanted to sneakily obtain medication to slip to their wife/girlfriend, they easily could without going through the correct channels.

Yeah, the reality is that now this medication exists, abusers can get hold of it and unconsensually administer it to a woman. The NHS not offering telemedical abortion won't prevent that. There isn't an option available to us that will.