Amendment to abortion bill

[bosch]

Did I really hear Lady ? talk on Radio 4 this morning about tabling an amendment to the bill currently going through the Lords to stop women having an abortion between 28 and 40 weeks on the grounds of severe disability of the baby because women are aborting babies with hare lip and club foot.

do people really do this? Not wanting to be judgemental about others decision to have an abortion (for interest, I'm in the camp of 'would never have an abortion myself but support the woman's right to choice') but surely you're not allowed to abort a baby with a 'disability' that is operable???

sorry, this has been buzzing round my head all morning since I heard it on the way in to work. did I hear it right?

Yes, people do have abortions for hare lip, cleft palate and club foot. It is allowed until 40 weeks.

I think the lady you mean is curate Joanna Jepson? She herself was born with cleft palate (I think)

article here

Poeple have done it in the pat, I think using the argument that ahre lip etc can be indicative in some cases of mroe complex disability issues that are not necesarily picked up through screening.
i couldn't do this myself though, and I do eprsonally beleive that after 28 weeks a disability should be able to be shown as life limiting before termination is allowed. But thats just my view and as a parent of Sn kids I freelya dmit to bias.

Thanks Piffle.

Yes I heard it and thought, surely no one would abort for something so trivial?

Was also v. surprised that you could have an abortion in those circs right up to term.

I was told at 30 wks that ds2 was going to be severely brain damaged, (as was ds1) and that ds2 couldn't be aborted, which was quite lucky as it turned out as they'd totally misinterpreted the scan and he's perfectly healthy!!

If there is to be abortion that late, imo it should only be where they are absolutely certain they've got their facts right and that the disability would be very severe indeed. Even then, I personally wouldn't do it.

Joanna Jephson looked up the stats for abortion and, IIRC, found one case where cleft lip and palate was cited as a reason. She had no idea about, and no right to know, the full story. Yet proceeded to harass the doctors involved and get the police to investigate, which must have been very distressing for the woman concerned. Cruel, interfering, publicity-hungry busybody, IMO. Who is clearly unfit to provide pastoral care. Vicars are supposed to care for their parishioners, not seek out people they do not know in order to hassle them.

None of anybody else's business why someone has an abortion, IMO. Although I would say doctors should provide full information about abnormalities and be clear about what they don't know and the full range of possible outcomes.

I think they are right to stop such a ridiculous practice. These things are very operable. While I don't think there is ever a good reason for an abortion I find this sort of thing particularly appalling.

What edam said.

I think this article is what the poster was referring to here.

I think Baroness Masham is trying to create an equal playing field whereby abortions after 24 weeks on grounds of disability would not be allowed. When I originally read the small article in the Times it made it sound like she was trying to stop any abortion due to disability but this longer article says it is only for late abortions.

I have a couple of friends who have been told that the babies they were carrying would probably not survive birth - and if they did that they would definitely not survive the first few days due to very severe chromosomal abnormalities. They both decided to terminate. But the timing of all this if it would be outlawed under these new rules would lead to people having to make very hasty decisions. In my experience the "20 week" scan can be anytime from 18 weeks to 22 weeks. If at 22 weeks you are told you are possibly carrying a very severely disabled child that will probably not survive the pregnancy you would then have very little time for chromosomal testing to confirm the diagnosis and genetics counselling to give you time to come to terms and decide how you want to procede.

But I was horrified by the cleft palate case too - but we do not know if that was the only reason for that abortion.

I feel certain that the late cleft palate case must have been very much worse than a little hole in the roof of the mouth. 2 doctors had to live with themselves after signing it off. Even when you hear a lot about doctors who won't sign off any termination, or at least never after 16 weeks.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2367917.stm

www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=388114&in_page_id=1770&ico=Home page&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article669212.ece

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/21/nabortion121.xml

sounds like more than once to me

Agree with edam wholeheartedly.

Thanks everyone, though I'm not sure if I'm any the wiser. I'm very suspicious of those articles you link to paula - it looks like someone put out a press statement that the papers re-wrote. What was the 'agenda' of the person/organisation that put out the press statement.

Am very surprised if the law remains that abortion on grounds of serious disability is being interpreted by doctors so very broadly as to allow the cases referred (webbed fingers a 'serious disability').

Can't help wondering if Doctors haven't been filling in forms properly - if the doctors put together the 'marker' of a not so serious disability and your history (previous live or still birth? Maybe family history of more complex disability) and conclude risk of serious disability, how do they write it up on the form. Wonder if they use the 'shorthand' of the not so serious disability to explain why late abortion agreed.

A woman can claim that she is unable to cope with the prospect of a disability. If she threatens to commit suicide it can place the medical staff in an impossible situation.
Those who have said that we can't know all the facts are correct.

Incidentally, bosch, doctors wouldn't speculate on a termination form as it is a legal document and has to be completely backed up by the medical notes.

never - but surely if the reason for the abortion was inability to cope with the prospect of the disability, or even threats to commit suicide, that should be put on the form?

As you make guess, I know nothing about termination forms. But the information on the medical notes is not making it into the public domain (and rightly so). So the 'headline' reason for the abortion is leading to potentially misleading articles 'woman lightly decides on late abortion because baby might not be perfect' (I exagerate but you see what I mean...)

Yes Bosch you are correct-but it would be considered a breach of confidentiality for any details to be put into the public domain. The termination form has I think 4 options and in the situation I cite, the option would be something like " continuing with the pregnancy would pose significant risk to the mental or physical health of the mother ....)
In fact really, no details should make it into the public domain so I suppose there are serious lapses somewhere-but it should not be from a health professional-relatives, friends, acquaintances etc are not bound by any such duty. Cue the tabloids!