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 type of thread only attracts prolifers or people who have strong feelings about abortion, they then masquerade as caring about women but what they really want is to use very unusual cases to cause panic and sway perception.

This issue has been politicized in a way that means best care practices are being neglected with the excuse that it's better for women. Yes, it goes as expected for many, but that does not make it ok to forgo basic checks. You don't necessarily even need a scan, it's possible to get a general sense of the stage of pregnancy from a manual exam as well.

"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."

To add to this, even the clinics in the larger towns and cities are mostly not held every day so let's say that twice a week could be a generous estimate.

If someone is over a certain number of weeks, beyond what will be acceptable for an abortion by pills, then the default is for a surgical abortion, an operation. If the pill version does not work as it should then this is also where you must end up. This does require a GP (2 GP)/ more specialist route and presumably it is a major undertaking on both the patient and the medical side. The GP element is still very restricted in most areas now.

During the pandemic, you have a pile of factors that meant that the hospital and GP route became much more inaccessible - if you couldn't get cancer treatment or theatre space for other operations, or a GP appointment where you might have been examined while the clock was ticking, then what chance do you have for abortion services? Could you get transport at times when the rule was to 'stay at home?' and rely on being fine to use it to get back too, when you may then be feeling unwell or distressed? Or get childcare for your other child/ren, who would not be permitted to come with you? Or have a reason to be out alone for the afternoon if you were being controlled by someone you lived with and who was there 24/7? I think that you would certainly endanger people's health one way or another if you made them play dice with a short time period in which to access a series of medical appointments or go for a major op further and further into a pregnancy when that system is not reliable.

Well we can never completely eliminate the risk of abusers getting hold of these pills, pills by post makes it a lot easier.

Does it though? In real life, not just in your vivid imagination..?

And if it does, why are DV charities such as Women’s Aid and Refuge not concerned?
Because they are vocal supporters of pills by post which would suggest that her again, you’re making up weird scenarios that don’t exist to justify your very weak argument

@Glamora

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.

I think I read this on your last attempt to stop women accessing abortions

I was pregnant by my stepfather at 12 years old. He couldn't access abortion pills so made me drink a bottle of sherry and gave me an abortion with some home made devices. Sadly this isn't an uncommon story. I have spoken to many like me who had abortions forced on them, some of those women are infertile and have health conditions due to it. It's obviously not a great place to be even to have pills forced on you, but given the alternative I would much rather have had them.

So if Brian is intent on aborting Lindas baby, he's going to do it - he doesnt need to get pills over the phone.

Compelling evidence from 52,142 women shows no-test telemedicine abortion is safe, effective and improves care.

So 2 very sad cases against over fifty thousand safe and effective abortions - I still think that this is the right way

I don't want women not to be able to access abortion.

I think abortion should be NHS funded.
I think all U.K women should be able to self-refer for NHS abortion care without any need for a GP referral, ( in the same way you can self-refer for IAPT or STI services).
I don't think the parents of under16's should be informed/ need to consent for their daughter to have an abortion.
I don't think the biological father should need to be informed/ consent.
I think, if necessary, a woman should be able to request a notification of the abortion is not sent to her GP to preserve confidentiality.
I think protestors should be banned from outside clinics.

I'm really not quite sure with how any of that conflicts with wanting to "restrict vulnerable women's access to abortion."

I can hold all those opinions and still think the government favour the current telemedicine / no scan option cos it's significantly cheaper, and that the current system puts vulnerable women at serious risk of abuse, as well as allowing tragic cases like these to happen.

I don't really understand how anything I've said makes it clear I want to restrict access to abortion, rather than ensure the service is adequately funded to prevent the abuse of women and girls.

I'm not sure why people are so certain that this is such a rare case. I understand that BPAS have been putting a lot of pressure on the media to not report these cases, which have been becoming increasingly common. So this could be why people are so ignorant of the actual situation.

Because the evidence we have demonstrates that it is. A case such as this one is not a common occurrence.‘You understand’… what? Pro life conspiracy theories? Because a quick google on this one took me straight to Christian Concern. They’ve made an allegation, but that in itself is meaningless. What matters is what evidence they have to prove it, and the evidence apparently is a statement from a pro lifer. Said pro lifer happens to be Kevin Duffy, who is politically active in opposing abortion.

You’ve posted raw data. The same raw data that was bought up in the thread about telemedical abortion not too long ago. Raw data tells part of a story, not the whole story. That is why studies need to be done to analyse said data, and why said studies need to undergo the stringent peer review process before they’re published in medical journals. Studies like the one recently in fact, the largest and most comprehensive one ever one conducted on the subject of telemedical abortion, the one that supported the continuation of the service.

@SW1amp

Well we can never completely eliminate the risk of abusers getting hold of these pills, pills by post makes it a lot easier.

Does it though? In real life, not just in your vivid imagination..?

And if it does, why are DV charities such as Women’s Aid and Refuge not concerned?
Because they are vocal supporters of pills by post which would suggest that her again, you’re making up weird scenarios that don’t exist to justify your very weak argument

I don't know why Women's Aid aren't concerned. I have a colleague who was pressured into an abortion in these circumstances, she went via MSI telemedicine. Her partner wouldn't give her any private space to make the phone call.

So yeah, maybe they should be concerned.

I can hold all those opinions and still think the government favour the current telemedicine / no scan option cos it's significantly cheaper, and that the current system puts vulnerable women at serious risk of abuse, as well as allowing tragic cases like these to happen.

But the story you linked to isn’t about telemedicine
The story you linked to isn’t a ‘no scan’ case
The story you linked to makes no mention of whether the woman was vulnerable

And the government has already signalled its intention to end telemedicine in august much to the absolute dismay of all those with a real interest in helping and protecting women

What are you actually trying to do with this thread? You’re comparing apples and pears and making up ridiculous scenarios

@SW1amp

I can hold all those opinions and still think the government favour the current telemedicine / no scan option cos it's significantly cheaper, and that the current system puts vulnerable women at serious risk of abuse, as well as allowing tragic cases like these to happen.

But the story you linked to isn’t about telemedicine
The story you linked to isn’t a ‘no scan’ case
The story you linked to makes no mention of whether the woman was vulnerable

And the government has already signalled its intention to end telemedicine in august much to the absolute dismay of all those with a real interest in helping and protecting women

What are you actually trying to do with this thread? You’re comparing apples and pears and making up ridiculous scenarios

www.swlondoner.co.uk/news/31032022-at-home-abortion-services-to-be-made-permanent-after-commons-vote

Don't worry. The government has backtracked and now voted to make telemedicine/ pills by post permanent.

The relevance to this story is that the women in the hospital, ( who thought she was 12 weeks), was prescribed abortion medication without a scan, leading to tragic results. And in the second link, ( where pills by post medication caused a 28 week abortion, this was also prescribed without a scan. It clearly highlights the dangers of the "no scan," route via telemedicine.

I agree with your arguments OP. I am resoundingly pro-choice but the solution here should be more investment in clinics rather than removal of all safe guards. The posting was a good temporary measure during covid but surely there another solution that ensures timely termination for anyone that wants/needs one, without the risk here to vulnerable women.

I don't really understand how anything I've said makes it clear I want to restrict access to abortion, rather than ensure the service is adequately funded to prevent the abuse of women and girls.

Because you’ve taken one case and used it to attack a service that wasn’t even involved.

Because it’s been shown that what you’re proposing doesn’t help women at all, it does the opposite. You want to deny women access to a service that has been demonstrated to be far more beneficial to them than the service it replaced. You want to do this in the name of ‘safeguarding’ a minority of women, while significantly disadvantaging the vast majority, a good number of whom are going to vulnerable to abuse as a result of this (but those vulnerable women apparently don’t matter).

You’re also employing common pro life tactics. Pretending to be pro choice but wanting to limit abortion access in the name of ‘protecting women’, except of course it’s never about protecting women.

@Allsorts1

I agree with your arguments OP. I am resoundingly pro-choice but the solution here should be more investment in clinics rather than removal of all safe guards. The posting was a good temporary measure during covid but surely there another solution that ensures timely termination for anyone that wants/needs one, without the risk here to vulnerable women.

Thank you. I would argue the government should be investing in more clinics/ staff to ensure women get the best care/ vulnerable women and girls are protected; rather than gaslighting the public into thinking that removing any safeguards is in the best interest of women.

@whumpthereitis

I don't really understand how anything I've said makes it clear I want to restrict access to abortion, rather than ensure the service is adequately funded to prevent the abuse of women and girls.

Because you’ve taken one case and used it to attack a service that wasn’t even involved.

Because it’s been shown that what you’re proposing doesn’t help women at all, it does the opposite. You want to deny women access to a service that has been demonstrated to be far more beneficial to them than the service it replaced. You want to do this in the name of ‘safeguarding’ a minority of women, while significantly disadvantaging the vast majority, a good number of whom are going to vulnerable to abuse as a result of this (but those vulnerable women apparently don’t matter).

You’re also employing common pro life tactics. Pretending to be pro choice but wanting to limit abortion access in the name of ‘protecting women’, except of course it’s never about protecting women.

Are there many statistics on u.k women, ( say in 2019), who weren't able to access termination before the pills by post service came in ?

This is sad, but it doesn’t change my opinion that women should have the right to end a pregnancy at any stage, no matter how far along she is or what the reason is.

Definitely not, what happened there was extremely rare. The risk to a woman being pressured to carry a child is far, far, far greater than the rarity of this case.

Has it become harder for men to access prostate or testicular health checks since covid? I don’t have a clue, but I’m guessing the answer is no.

@Fraaahnces

Has it become harder for men to access prostate or testicular health checks since covid? I don’t have a clue, but I’m guessing the answer is no.

Actually yes. My brother's prostate cancer follow up got delayed by covid. My dad's was switched to over the phone. That's two different regions.

@Masterblasterjammin

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.

All of this.

Are there many statistics on u.k women, ( say in 2019), who weren't able to access termination before the pills by post service came in ?

Here’s one from 2018:

oar.princeton.edu/jspui/bitstream/88435/pr1vt95/1/Barriers.pdf

“The most common reason for seeking abortion services from WoW was experiencing barriers to accessing in-clinic abortion care, representing almost half of all reported reasons (49%). Among these barriers, the most prevalent was experiencing delays in accessing services, including waiting times of several weeks.”

@Allsorts1

I agree with your arguments OP. I am resoundingly pro-choice but the solution here should be more investment in clinics rather than removal of all safe guards. The posting was a good temporary measure during covid but surely there another solution that ensures timely termination for anyone that wants/needs one, without the risk here to vulnerable women.

So you also believe that hundreds of highly-specialised doctors, experts in the support of rape victims, experienced supporters of abuse victims, sexual health experts are ALL wrong

And you and OP are the only ones who have seen the real issue here?

The spectacular arrogance of thinking you are superior to hundreds if not thousands of actual experts based on your quick skim of an internet article is breathtaking!
I would love to go through life with your blinkered confidence

@SW1amp, if you have been reading the thread you will see it's abundantly clear that @Allsorts1 and I are not the only posters who have an issue with this; indeed the vote is currently 51 % in our favour.

The world would be a very sad and depressing place if no one was able to challenge experts on policy. Just over 50 years ago "expert" wisdom was termination should be illegal in the U.K Good job that was challenged.....

If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant for any reason, there is no good reason to delay her access to safe abortion

The majority of pregnant women do know how far along they are.

I'm not pregnant, I've never needed or had an abortion- but I will stand next to and fight for the right for any woman to end her pregnancy how she wants and/or needs to

I don't really understand how anything I've said makes it clear I want to restrict access to abortion, rather than ensure the service is adequately funded to prevent the abuse of women and girls

Because you are using the tragic death of somebody's baby to further your views of a service that wasn't involved in that death. And while you have gone into great detail giving reasons for your views on telemedicine in response to posters pointing out its pros, you do seem to have ignored the posters pointing out that this wasn't a telemedicine abortion it was a face to face one in a medical setting.

It isn't too difficult to see why some posters might think you are arguing in bad faith.

[quote Greenmascara]**@SW1amp, if you have been reading the thread you will see it's abundantly clear that @Allsorts1 and I are not the only posters who have an issue with this; indeed the vote is currently 51 % in our favour.

The world would be a very sad and depressing place if no one was able to challenge experts on policy. Just over 50 years ago "expert" wisdom was termination should be illegal in the U.K Good job that was challenged.....[/quote]
There’s a difference between having an opinion based on belief, and opinion based on evidence.

Challenge experts all you like. That’s rather the point of scientific and social progress, isn’t it? Not all opinions are made equal though, and ones that are based on actual evidence do count for more than ones that dismiss said evidence because they would prefer to see a different conclusion.

There is a very strict algorithm used by all abortion providers when booking telemedicine for women. This alongside the ethos of ‘trusting women to know their bodies and to decide’. If a woman mentions irregular periods, any pain or bleeding, they are not able to receive pills by post and must have a scan prior to medication. Ectopic pregnancies, under 18’s, safeguarding concerns, are all taken very seriously and an appropriate pathway is in place for these women alongside telemedicine with no scan.
The above story is very rare, and unfortunately will happen despite all safeguarding and risk assessments put in place.
Still safer than abortions taking place prior to 1967, a human history of ‘back street abortions’.