Related: Film discussion forum.
Telly addicts
JoolsToo · 01/10/2004 21:10
I'll try again - just type a whole message and pc bloo*dy crashed!
A baby with cleft palate was aborted after 24 weeks - the doctor is now being prosecuted after the intervention of a young female vicar. The law says only severely disabled foetuses can be aborted after 24 weeks but doesn't define what severe means. Two families shown - one whose mother thought it would be wrong to abort - her baby son was having the first of many corrective surgeries. The second was the mother of a 8/9 year old I think - who had other complications ie blindness and was quite severely disfigured at birth. He looks great now and seems very happy. Apparently it is not uncommon with bilateral cleft palate for other serious complications to accompany this defect and thats why this doctor thought the baby should be aborted. Very emotive stuff!
JoolsToo · 01/10/2004 21:16
well my first thought that it was terrible for a baby to be aborted just for a cleft palate but this is a bit more than that - they may have to have as many as 18 operations and as I said may have other complications - but thats the thing isn't it 'MAY' have other complications. Its hard to say unless you're the parents but I think I would have to say its not enough to warrant abortion especially at that late stage - where will it end?
Hulababy · 01/10/2004 21:24
My brother was born with cleft palate and hare lip. When tiny he had a series of operations from being very small. He then had his final op in his late teens/early twenties. Yes, they were painful ops, and he has had some difficulties - he has very little of his own top teeth, he has had some ear/nose problems (nothing that holds him back although he couldn't pass the navy medical as a result) and he has needed speech therapy as a child. But for many people born with this they have an excellent standard of living, with no real issues beyond the ops.
The ops have changed dramatically since my brother was born. he's now 30. The ops are now done earlier and quicker, and are even more successful with less scaring.
I know that some babies can be born with other problems - but unless they are identified before birth VERY early, I can't justify abortion for such a reason.
Skate · 01/10/2004 21:26
Hmm, it's very difficult and hard to judge a decision like this.
Just so glad I've never had to consider abortion - I just don't know what I'd do and that's why in many ways, I just don't want to know too much prior to birth. For example, I never had any of the tests for Down's - not even the blood test. I just didn't want to be faced with any difficult decisions and decided I'd just rather deal with whatever life 'throws at me'.
JoolsToo · 01/10/2004 21:30
Hulababy - I agree with you. I really don't think this comes under the heading of 'severe disability' but the 'experts/doctors' quoted and appearing on the programme didn't seem to think it extreme that this doctor had decided to abort. Begs the question what information was given to the parents? In a perfect world it'd be great if they could meet people with the condition - surely that'd help them make the decision?
Skate · 01/10/2004 21:31
Hmm, it's very difficult and hard to judge a decision like this.
Just so glad I've never had to consider abortion - I just don't know what I'd do and that's why in many ways, I just don't want to know too much prior to birth. For example, I never had any of the tests for Down's - not even the blood test. I just didn't want to be faced with any difficult decisions and decided I'd just rather deal with whatever life 'throws at me'.
Freckle · 02/10/2004 16:50
Why only prosecute one doctor? I thought current legislation provided that, in order to have an abortion, 2 doctors have to certify that the mother would suffer unreasonable physical or mental problems if the pregnancy were to continue. In which case, where's the second doctor?
Freckle · 02/10/2004 16:57
The Abortion Act 1967 provides that "a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith:- that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, or of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped?.
Can't really see a reason here for a child with a cleft palate to be aborted.
There is further provision relating to the child itself which states: "if there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped, or in emergency, certified by the operating practitioners as immediately necessary". And I still don't see a cleft palate (and accompanying problems) falling under these parameters.
zebra · 02/10/2004 17:21
I know when we discussed this on MN before, that I found links suggesting that cleft palate can be so severe as to be incompatible with life outside the womb it can mean the entire head is almost split in two for instance.
I really think we don't know enough of the facts in this case, but I don't know if the T'MacDonald broadcast brought out more info about this specific case.
MeanBean · 02/10/2004 17:35
I think the final decision about this should not be up to a lawyer, doctor, or vicar, but up to the woman herself. She's the one who will have to deal with the pregnancy, birth and child, no-one else. So no-one else should have decision-making powers. But then, I'm pretty militant on the issue of who controls a woman's body.
To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.