trans-vaginal ultrasound for no medical reason - Virginia, anti-choice

[MitchieInge]

(and other states I think) is there a thread about this already?

I do agree that women having to pay extra for scans is horrific. Having to pay for a termination is terrible. It should never be an option that people can't afford.

I recently read a very sad story about an American woman who found out she was pregnant and wanted a termination. Couldn't get to the nearest abortion clinic which was 100miles away. She managed to get hold of some mifepristone via the Internet. But she was further on than what she thought, it induced a miscarriage but made her poorly. She went to a neighbour for help and the neighbour called the police. I believe the woman is now facing charges though they're trying to determine if the fetus is more or less than 23 weeks before they decide about prosecuting. Terrible.

Informed consent is beneficial though???? It does not imply any morality about the 'informed' bit. Same as obtaining informed consent for an gallbladder op - you have a scan to know what you're dealing with - you're informed. Images are stored. Similar experience.

Ovarian cyst ? tumour - gold standard is TV scan and images stored for 7 yrs...blah blah blah

"The document itself says that the scans are to be done in order to obtain "informed consent to abortion".

Nothing to do with dodgy clinics or protecting HCPs."

Sorry, but I disagree. Making sure that clinics get informed consent is about making sure that there aren't dodgy clinics doing terminations without informed consent. Which protects women.

toothbrush do you always look at everything in isolation? Never see any patterns, never see that certain traits in societies lead to certain other things?

Knowing that abortion is a right which is constantly on the verge of being removed in the states, and all the other things going on over there, is it really suitable to look at this one thing in isolation?

It isn't the UK and it isn't the NHS.
A woman who had been raped would not be forced to have a trans-vaginal scan in the UK. I imagine if a woman in teh UK flat out refused a scan for some reason then they would find a way to accoodate her. If not, maybe we need to look at that too. I simply do not understand why people are so keen to remove all of the background cultural facts of this topic and find excuses for it. Why? It seems like a strange thing to do.

I'm interested in why the OP chose such a sensationalist headline for this thread? One which seems to bear no relation to what the bill is actually saying.

I agree about costs.

Sardine - I can see where you are coming from however I have seen evidence of private care (across all healthcare not just abortion) being driven by business. Unnecessary procedures performed because it's business.

Scans would show medical problems and early miscarriage meaning that an abortion would not be required for those women and they get the healthcare they need.

So some of you think that women who seek abortions, do not know what an abortion is?

And need to be shown ultrasound pictures, and listen to a heartbeat, in order to understand that what an abortion is, is getting rid of a pregnancy?

I am sure I must have misunderstood you.

x posting here

Looking at this in isolation? I think I look factually and don't look for something that isn't there. If I thought this was 'the thin edge of the wedge' yes I'd be arguing against it.

Yes I see patterns and traits.

Do I think rejecting gold standard healthcare or choice is a good idea because of the risk of a future 'situation' ? No.

First up on google came a top 10 of worst states for womens rights, this is what it has to say about virginia

1. Virginia. Gov. Bob McDonnell and the anti-choice coalition in the state legislature have a two-pronged strategy for the women of their state: attack both their ability to pay for abortion and their ability to find a safe, legal provider in the first place. McDonnell amended a bill establishing Virginia?s health insurance exchange that banned women using the exchange from having insurance coverage for their abortions. Most of these women would struggle to pay for abortion out of pocket, since the exchanges are set up to handle people who aren?t covered by their employers, usually because they?re part-time, underpaid workers or unemployed.

But even if you can get the money together, Virginia wants to make it hard for you to find a doctor. McDonnell also signed into law a bill requiring that abortion clinics meet hospital regulations in order to stay open, which is similar to requiring your dentist to work out of a hospital if he wants to drill your cavities. The move has nothing to do with safety, but will likely end up causing 17 clinics to shut their doors, leaving only four abortion providers in the entire state of nearly 8 million people.

it's not sensationalist, the scans will be performed because they are legally required and not because they are indicated medically - whether or not a medic deems them necessary

and it's not sensationalist to describe the republicans as anti-choice. I suppose I could gave put pro-life but who isn't pro-life?

I think there are some women who years down the line may regret their decision and turn round and blame the clinic and say that things weren't explained fully and then sue the arse of the clinic. A very small minority but I can see it happening.

I think that there is some research that found that nearly 40% of women having a termination thought that women should be offered the chance to see scan images.

I believe this bill talks about offering the option to women, not making them see the images or listen to the heartbeat. Women can decline.

I believe that ensuring that a scan is carried out to confirm gestation will mean that women get the method of termination which is safest for them

I don;t know what to say. I really don;y.

The back-story of attacking womens reproductive rights in parts of teh US is well known.
Yet apparently that is all irrelevant here. What matters is enforcing this, on the basis that it is protecting women from sharp practice although it doesn't say that in any of the linked articles - saying it is gold standard that women must be forced to undergo ultrasounds - even raped children - and even transvaginally - as this is gold standard.

If you deal in facts then where does it say that the reason for this is to protect women? That idea has come out of thin air and is now being touted as the definite reason.

When in fact having an ultrasound - if to do with anything is to do with diagnosis and not consent. Scans are not for the patient they are for the HCP to determine the appropriate treatment.

Some absolute logical failing on here and a desperation to apply worthy kindly motives to something that obviosuly is not coming from that place.

WHY? i don't get it.

And how any HCP can say that a scan is a consent factor as opposed to a diagnostic factor is beyond me.

But mitchinge, it's not a vaginal ultrasound, its an abdominal one that will be routinely offered. So why not title the thread "abdominal ultrasound for no medical reason" if you believe there is no medical reason for it.

I do however see a medical reason.

A transvaginal scan will not be performed for the sake of it. It will be done if an abdominal scan is not possible.

There seems to be an implication on this thread that women will be subjected to transvaginal scans as a method of punishment or to discourage them from seeking abortion. Abortion services are generally not staffed by people with an ethical objection to abortion.

There is possibly a serious point to this thread, and scanning for non-clincial grounds does seem dubious, but given the level of sensationalism and mis-information on this thread you would be hard-pressed to find it.

i'm wondering whether this is conflating other stuff that is going on there with this and jumping to a huge conclusion (a very understandable one). the only out and out dodgy seeming bit is the offering to see the scan and hear the heartbeat. i'm really not clear on what on earth they could claim that was about other than anti choice political pressure - i don't buy the it would stop clinics getting sued for not offering/offering etc because this is politicians writing this not private health practitioners trying to avoid legislation.

i actually do believe that a rape victim could be refused an abortion effectively if she wasn't prepared to have a scan that the doctor considered necessary now i think about it. i've been refused a female consultant even when saying that i would not have potentially life saving treatment if a man had to do it - it was made very clear that that was up to me but they wouldn't budge no matter what my reasons. i was a year late having treatment due to this as they just signed me off and didn't even inform my gp - it was me who eventually discussed it with her and my reasons and she wrote and asked for special consideration and they still refused to let me see a female consultant.

i've also had the obnoxious twat who insisted on a vaginal scan without even trying an abdominal one before the d&c i talked about earlier. i really wasn't left with any choice other than to get up and walk out of hospital still carrying a failed pregnancy that my body had not shown any signs of naturally dealing with.

in the context of what is going on in the us it's obviously going to read like more of the same but i can understand that actually a lot of this 'could' be justified. the offer to listen to the heartbeat is just blatant though imo. but then again maybe they're seeing it as not a foregone conclusion that the woman will have a termination but a consultation that should be a part of the decision making process guided of course by their ideals that a woman should change her mind. i have to say i find this one a whole lot less worrying than most of what i have read lately whereby women are in prison for miscarriages and abortion is effectively being outlawed if not contraception too.

YES and if someone is a rape victim and the scan needs to be trans-vaginal. What then?

For one thing diagnosis and consent are interlinked. A woman may be happy to have a termination at 8 weeks if it involves swallowing a tablet. But at 13 weeks she may feel that the gestation is too advanced for her to have a termination, or may not want a surgical procedure.

Where does it say that this bill is to try and emotionally blackmail women into not having a termination?

Then they either consent to the vaginal scan or they don't. If they don't consent to it then they come back the following week and try again for an abdominal scan? I don't know, that's me guessing. Do you know the answer? If not, find out if you want to know.

I don't think they're going to pin her down and force her to have it done.

I think the transvaginal scans are a red herring on this thread and it's a shame the OP chose to focus on them in the title - Toothbrush is making excellent well-informed posts on how they are medically necessary and appropriate and SQ is focused on the woman being made to view the images, which is the real feminist issue.

Arguing at cross-purposes, peeps!

I don't know, a dr, in the states, told me about it over the phone last night - I think my subject line is pretty much word for word what he was saying, that doctors will be compelled to perform trans-vaginal ultrasounds when there is no medical reason for the procedure. I haven't read anything yet that reassures me that this won't be the case.

Do you really think this law is being enacted in women's best interests? And not as part of a wider anti-abortion drive?

sardine I do not wish to inform women what an abortion is or force women to look at images. With any healthcare provision an adult must be given risks and options. I've just started HRT. I was given a fact sheet with a huge amount of info on and told to go away and read it before I could start it.

It's not about preventing my access to it. It was all about giving me the risks to the rest of my health (not that negligible) and getting me to make a choice and giving me time to do so.

I still would not wish to reject good healthcare because of my fear of how this policy was being used strategically.

Pick battles. Keep good healthcare but argue for free provision/better access. Accepting poor care is not the answer.

My whole point of posting was to inject some information to counter the assumption that the whole point of a TV scan was to suppress women at the point of asking for an abortion.

My main wish is that abortions are safe and provided sensitively with women able to make decisions that are right for them I have met many a woman who bitterly regretted their abortion and felt pressured by parent/partner or society. That is as tragic as a woman being humiliated or hurt whilst requesting/receiving one.

I can't type fast enough... thread is moving too fast for me

The fact that this is being introduced by lawmakers, and out of the hands of medics, is a problem.
The fact that there is therefore no leeway for the medic, in certain situations, as they have to abide by this by law.
The fact that it is described in the opening as to do with informed consent, when ultrasounds are for diagnostic purposes, is a dead giveaway.

As far as I know there is not a problem in virginia with shoddy abortion clinics or women being persuaded into having abortions they don't want. If there were then the people making this legislation would be quoting stats. They aren't.

The whole thing is simply another nail in the coffin for womens rights in certain parts of the US.

Legislature has no place specifying what diagnostic procedures should be used. Do they have chapter and verse in their statute books about what investigations must be made by law if someone presents with suspected gout? A broken leg? Doubt it.

Whole thing stinks.

"Then they either consent to the vaginal scan or they don't. If they don't consent to it then they come back the following week and try again for an abdominal scan? I don't know, that's me guessing. Do you know the answer? If not, find out if you want to know.

I don't think they're going to pin her down and force her to have it done."

It's have it done or no abortion.
My second pregnancy was such that the placenta was in the way and I had to have trans-vaginal scans, they couldn't see anything otherwise.

This is not a good position to put women in.

If a medical professional says a scan is a must, then that is one thing.
If the lawmakers say a scan is a must, for all patients, no ifs no buts, then that is something quite different.

it does make a difference however when it turns out that this legislation will effectively shut down a large proportion of already limited facilities in the state. this is again the problem with privatisation and religious politics governing the availability and funding of services.