Such a sad story in the news - baby mistakenly terminated.

[Christmascack]

www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/royal-womens-hospital-investigates-accidental-termination-of-wrong-twin-in-surgery-error/story-e6frg6nf-1226204303788

sardine, apart from anything else, the article states that they had opted to terminate the pregnancy on medical advice.

But aside from that, overwhelmingly the attitude of the medical profession is one that leans towards termination in the case of severe disability.

I know of one person who was told that she had a 1 in 132 risk for downs and was told to go home and consider termination; another person who when pregnant with her third child was told that she needed to consider the issues that having a baby with downs would involve, while her eldest child, who has downs, was sitting in the room.

The woman on this morning last week who was basically told she would have a termination because it was what everyone did.

Even the fact that dee has posted above that she was offered termination on countless occasions up to days before her babies were born is clear evidence that there is an element of pressure within the medical profession.

SQ my view is that there is a moral middle ground. I cannot support, under any circumstances bar mother's threat to life, of abortions past 30 weeks.

In fact, I'd probably have a cut off at 24 for all abortions.

I would always, always defend a woman's right to choose, whatever her personal circumstances are. And am positive this would have been a heart-breaking decision. Wannabe, from your argument it just seems that you are anti-abortion full stop, or have I got that wrong?
And yes, of course it's different terminating a very sick foetus who may or may not survive birth, and faces a life full of operations if he does survive, to terminating a healthy baby at 32 weeks. Two v different things. If you choose to have an abortion for other reasons I would imagine you could make that decision earlier than 32 weeks, but this was for medical reasons.

I just don't think that anyone can claim to know with certainty what has happened in a situation unless they actually know. It is possible that she was pressurised - sure. It is equally possible that she was led in one direction or even that she had strong views on the matter herself. I don't think that people can say they know without a doubt what went on if they weren't there.

wannabe is it you who thinks that if a woman is not prepared to have a disabled child she shouldn't have children?

I have to ask.

grey no for me it's about equality.

The cut-off for termination of a healthy pregnancy is 24 weeks.

Therefore, the cut-off for termination of a pregnancy for disability should be 24 weeks
.
Disability should not equal less equal than healthy.

Alternatively, there should be no cut-off and any woman should have the right to choose to terminate any pregnancy up to term. Would anyone be comfortable with that? And if not, why not? given that it is ok to terminate pregnancies for conditions as insignifficant as club foot or cleft pallet right up to term.

Disability does not equal incompatible with life; many people with disabilities go on to lead normal, fulfilled lives. Yet any one of those babies could be terminated right up to term.

Who are we to decide whose life is worth living and whose isn't?

I do have personal views on terminating for disability on the whole but this is not the issue here. the issue here is that it is deamed totally acceptable to kill viable babies purely on the basis they have a disability, whereas their non disabled peers (if you can call them that) it would be considered not acceptable to terminate.

SQ I think there are no guarantees in life, and that any woman deciding to have a baby needs to go into a pregnancy with an open mind. Because even if all antenatal tests come back clear, any one of us is only a botched birth or a car crash away from having a disabled child.

Interesting points Wannabe, I suppose in my mind this was a very unhealthy foetus, as opposed to disabled, if that makes sense?
I take your points, but I still maintain that most late abortions would only be carried out for serious medical conditions. Is that really the case about club foot for example?
Nonetheless I defend a woman's right to choose, and believe that a mother's rights are always more important than an as yet unborn child. I know this is an emotive thread and not meaning to cause offence. I just think this was a tragic situation for the poor parents.

wannabe

One of the best posts I have ever read on the subject. Bless you, perfectly put.

Wannabe sorry to hammer the question but do you ever say this on threads

"if a woman is not prepared to have a disabled child she shouldn't have children"?

32 week old babies do not look like healthly new borns Some do, mine did, he was just skinny as was only 3lbs 9.

Sorry dee x

Been thinking about this subject all morning - what a dreadful thing for the poor parents to cope with.

Interestingly, I was really pressured into having the tests for DS, at one point I had to sit up from just having had a scan and adopt a very stern attitude of 'This is MY decision, thank you' but I felt very rail roaded into having it done.

Actually this is bringing back some bad memories about a thread where I was terribly upset when pg with DD2.

Some people on here have views that are just a bit extreme and it is best to learn when to forget it and go away. So I'm going to forget it and go away.

Very emotive thread, hope everyone is OK

gg so by your logic that any woman should have the ultimate right to choose do you believe that any pregnancy should be able to be terminated up to term? Because actually I can kind of agree with that stance - although I do think it is wrong for a pregnancy to be able to be terminated to term, I think the law being changed to allow all pregnancies to be able to be terminated to term is preferable to the current one which only allows for the termination of those babies with disabilities.

Sardine I fail to see what relevance your questioning has here. This is not a thread about whether or not women should or should not have children if they're not prepared to have a disabled child - it is a thread which touches on the practice that allows for the termination of viable babies based on the fact they have disabilities. That has nothing what so ever to do with any view on whether a woman chooses to terminate based on disability.

I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if I've got this totally wrong
But my feeling is that a lot have people have jumped on 'it's morally wrong' tack from reading a brief article in a paper. Which basically amounts to knowing bugger all about what the situation, conversations, thought processes or medical problems were.
It is a tragedy that a procedure went wrong but as to the moral side of things there is unlikely ever going to be enough information to take a balanced view upon it. As a person who has contemplated abortion (choice taken away by miscarriage ) I fully understand what a gut awfully wrenching decision it is and how it is so ridiculously hard that it is unexplainable except to those who have been there. Moral judginess is all well and good but until you have been in that position you cannot know what is right or wrong and even then you will only probably know what YOU must do in that particular situation and at that point you will not give a damn about everybody elses moral compass just that you are very sad at having to make a decision (and will probably carry that sadness with you for the rest of your life)

Erm wannabe I'd quite like to leave it.
I read your posts and they brought back memories and I was wondering whether it was you who had upset me so badly when I was pg with DD2, I have just found the thread and I find it was.
It colours how I read your posts, that's all. I was wondering if it was you as it's been 3 years and I still think about what you said to me.

I think a woman should have the choice to terminate at any time whatsoever on whatever grounds she feels are compelling for her and that a feotus should never ever have more rights than the woman in whose body it is. The instances in which a mother got to a late stage and willingly terminated are already TINY, and would remain tiny, but who are we to decise who should be forced to be a mother?

But this thread is about a woman who did not actively choose termination at all, probably. There is SO little to go on re the prognosis of the ill feotus, the conditions of the twin pg as a whole, what advice she was or was not given, but we can only assume that the decision to lose one twin was painful enough, without the medical accident that then ensued.

The main reason for allowing for such late terminations is that the lives of the babies involved would be, if born, so painful, short and full of suffering that they would be better off dead. This quality of life judgement is an incredibly difficult one to make and one with a horrific personal cost for the parents, but I would still want to give them the choice. Since we do not allow active euthanasia, I can, in principle, see why, in some cases, parents would choose a late termination rather than a very painful, short life for their babies.

I was once asked to help out a foetal medicine team who had seen a huge rise in their referals because of closures of similar teams in the local area. Due to the nature of the work they did (referals of really difficult, rare, complicated cases) they often advised for late terminations. The team did not used to have an ethical problem with such late terminations when they were rarer, but were beginning to question their own views due to the large number of cases they were handling (the reasoning in each case was very similar, it was just the number of cases that was causing them concern, but the number of cases was a direct result of the closures of other departments not of an overall increase in terminations nationally). I asked them to explain to me what would happen if they did not perform these late abortions and the answer was that there would be a huge increase in NICU patients who would live short and painful lives. When they gave this answer they saw themselves why the terminations were morally required and answered their own worries.

Sardine you were the one who chose to bring up disagreements from previous threads and start interrogating me on my views.

This thread was not the place for it.

You have every right to take issue with my opinions (or anyone else's for that matter) but frankly bringing up a grudge from a thread that goes back three years is not on.

And if you're still that upset by the opinions of someone on the internet three years on then perhaps you'd do well to step away from your computer.

Disability is an emotive topic. There are always going to be strong views on both sides, you can't avoid that.

My 32 week baby looked just like a healthy newborn, he was just small at 4lb 4oz

booboo For club foot? Cleft palate? one hand?

BlU I'm not going to engage in debate over your extreme views. Suffice to say that the idea that women can destroy a life at any point just because they want to, is reprehensible.

*but who are we to decise who should be forced to be a mother?
*

And if you don't want to be a mother you do the moral and responsible thing and take car of it as early as possible.

You see you wouldn't let it go before either. Yours is the only comment I have ever had made to me that has affected me like that BTW. And I have had plenty of stuff said to me on here over the years!

I just read your posts and wondered if it were you. I realised it was.

I wonder when you say there are strong views on both sides, which sides you are talking about. Strange thing to say.

Maybe the side that wants abortion on demand up until birth?

Yes, Wannabe, I do believe that. Although it is almost inconceivable that anyone would get to a late stage of pregnancy and suddenly choose to terminate, unless it was for medical (not disability per se) reasons, nonetheless I would defend the woman's rights over her own body.

In fact Blu and Booboostoo have said perfectly what I was trying to say.

I completely agree with wannabe.