I’ve just been denied medical management of a failed abortion

[Tinyteatime]

I had a medical termination last Saturday, 7 weeks pregnant after my coil failed. Thought it had passed relatively easily so came away on a short holiday with my family luckily only 1.5 hours away from home. Started heavy bleeding and bad cramps yesterday, came to a&e as as advised by the BPAS clinic as I was flooding a pad and blood leaking through my trousers. Passed some very large clots. Internal scan reveals what they think is a foetal heart beat still in there. I’ve been in hospital one night and they said they would do the surgery on me this morning. I’ve just been told that all the doctors available won’t perform the procedure due to religion. This in the U.K. in 2019, in a hospital that offers abortion services. They’ve said I can stay another night and have it tomorrow, I have a breastfed baby that I’ve already been away from for one night, I’m in pain, bleeding and I’ve already had sepsis last year from a womb infection whilst giving birth so I’ve raised infection risk as a concern. I feel so angry about this. Would they deny women treatment for miscarriage? Or is it because there may still be a foetal heartbeat present? Is it simply because I’ve chosen to end the pregnancy myself? How in an nhs hospital can women be denied healthcare like this?

@Barracker the patient is not at risk of infection/sepsis currently.

The treatment needed is not being withheld.

If the treatment were needed they would have kept her in and found a medic to complete the abortion.

At this moment in time OP is bleeding PV with a threatened risk of miscarriage.

In NO POSSIBLE WORLD can anyone conclude that it is BETTER for HER to have treatment withheld

Exactly.

Alarmist thread? Really? Oh do bore off

No, I'm not pro-forced birth at all.

I'm pro-not-forcing-people-do-what-they-consider-abhorrent.

I'm pro choice.

I'm pro-not-forcing-people-do-what-they-consider-abhorrent.

Then they shouldn’t get into this area of medicine. Simple.

They are not attacks @BigotedWoman but facts.

OP has chosen to start a thread on a public forum regarding this - not all people are going to agree that the service provided has been "shocking" "outrageous" or anything else.

And i am pro choice- but i can also untangle rationale from high emotion.

If the treatment were needed they would have kept her in and found a medic to complete the abortion

Oh rly? A bit sceptical on this one I’m afraid

Haha, we'd be very short staffed!

No we wouldn't. We would be rid of lazy shites like you who expect others to take up the caring. FUCK OFF!

Bigglesworth then how come we don’t allow doctors to make ‘choices’ in other areas??? Why can’t doctors refuse to treat gay people? Or alcoholics? Or refuse to administer blood transfusions or assist with organ transplants? If they did, they would be fired yet we indulge them in this. If there was a zero tolerance to religious objection to an area of treatment in which you specialise, you would not be short-staffed- doctors would just have to get over themselves. I know it sounds harsh but we are talking about medical professionals leaving a woman in pain and emotional distress because they have an objection to performing a procedure to remove something that cannot be called a baby by anyone’s definition due to the early stage of the pregnancy.

I'm pro-not-forcing-people-do-what-they-consider-abhorrent

Funny how when confronted with 2 abhorrent situations- 1 a woman in pain bleeding emotional distress being denied care she would receive if it wasnt for drs being allowed to be mysoginistic and controlling.

And 2 - a procedure that someone else doesn't have to undergo themselves but is medically necessary for someone else

That funnily enough it's the womans dilemma that is considered less important ..

if you can't perform a termination, don't go into medicine, quite simply

This. Take your anti-woman prejudices elsewhere. Or even better, reeducate yourself.

How can hospitals recruit gynae staff who won't provide gynae services? Why are they not being REALLY suspicious of people who are going to actively get in the way of patient care?

OP has chosen to start a thread on a public forum regarding this - not all people are going to agree that the service provided has been "shocking" "outrageous" or anything else.

You don’t have to. But as a woman is in a distressing situation and clearly does think those things about the care she is receiving, perhaps instead of using the situation to practice your right to free speech on a public forum, you could consider opting to not comment on this one and be less... gee I don’t know, bitchy patronising and mean? Just a helpful suggestion.

If we stop allowing health professionals to have their own ethics, and morals, and make them simply slaves that do what the patient wants, and is legal, I think we'll be in trouble.

We don’t have to stop allowing health professionals to have their own ethics, we just need to insist health professionals (and anyone else) ensure they take jobs that align with their ethics instead of jobs that require actions they don’t agree with. These nurses and consultants didn’t have to go into these specialisms. There are plenty of health areas that never touch on abortion or contraception. People can work in those areas. We need to allow the NHS (and any other employer) to hire (and fire) on the basis of someone’s fitness for the position including whether or not they are prepared to actually do what is required in the position.

IfOnlyOurEyesSawSouls
If you were a doctor there is no way you would publicly pronounce 'there's no risk' without seeing this particular patient or knowing her history.

Wtf do you think you are doing?

Shocking.

I would consider going to the media over this. Just shocking.

Get lost @Bigglesworth.

There's nothing funny about this situation. Take your shit attitude elsewhere

We need to allow the NHS (and any other employer) to hire (and fire) on the basis of someone’s fitness for the position including whether or not they are prepared to actually do what is required in the position.

Yes. Precisely.

I respect those who have chosen a path to save life having ethical problems ending life

So do I - in fact I respect anyone's right to their opinion and beliefs

What I don't respect is their choosing to put themselves in a position where those beliefs prevent them from fulfilling the role, especially if that means potential danger for others

Sarah -exactly. In NI they would rather let a woman DIE in front of their eyes than give her the treatment she needed. That’s barbaric, not compassionate. It has fuck all to do with it and it is rooted in misogyny because they think women wanting to terminate a pregnancy are blameworthy to the extent that they aren’t even prepared to put their signature on a fucking prescription sheet. Nobody is asking them to personally stop the heartbeat of a full term baby fgs. Just to treat their patients with a modicum of respect.

Barracker

A wise poster once said, put the fuck off in a separate post straight after the explanation. that way when the fuck off is deleted your argument still stands.

Bigglesworth

You are wrong.

I am right.

Now...

Barracker got it right. OP was seen by a doctor, who thought her condition was sufficiently serious for her to be placed 1st on the list for today's surgery. A different medic then decided they had conscientious objections to carrying out the procedure, and also decided (since the bleeding had stopped) that the procedure was no longer urgent, which looks like an after-the-fact justification to me.

OP has been previously told by another medic that she is at elevated risk of sepsis due to having had it in the past. It's one of the known risks of retained products of conception.

And yet she is being denied a D&C for the sole reason that the medics on duty today are anti-abortion.

Now we have posters popping up to have a go at her and tell her to "dial back the drama", when she's lost a lot of blood, been separated from her baby (the existing one that is already alive, that she chose to have, that she loves and wants to look after, not some figment of a pro-forced-birther's imagination). Those posters should be fucking ashamed of themselves.

I agree with a PP who said if you choose to go into an area of medicine where performing abortions is part of the job, and you refuse to do those parts, then your motives for making that choice are pretty suspect. There were a thousand and one other specialisations you could have chosen... why choose the one which involves you denying a legal medical service to the one in three women who will need it at some point in their lives?

How can hospitals recruit gynae staff who won't provide gynae services? Why are they not being REALLY suspicious of people who are going to actively get in the way of patient care?

Put simply, because religion is a protected characteristic and merely being a woman isn't (though there are some circumstances that can make them so)