Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

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

722 replies

Tinyteatime · 27/06/2019 10:42

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?

OP posts:
WantLifeToBeBetter · 30/06/2019 23:10

Just because someone didn't actually die/contract sepsis doesn't mean there wasn't an unacceptably high risk of them doing so.

(Not a gynecologist or an expert in medical malpractice, but this is a pretty obvious point, logically)

Bunnyfuller · 30/06/2019 23:26
  1. The clinicians recommended the OP was treated as an emergency.
  2. She was then told that despite this, because of the on duty doctors’ personal beliefs, this recommendation would not be adhered to.
  3. She had a known history of TOP, heavy bleeding and pre-disposition to sepsis. Despite this, the previously urgently required procedure was put back. The Op was told this. The treatment plan was not changed due to a change in her status (which was coincidental) but due to the doctors’ personal beliefs.
  4. I would hope you do not measure success by ‘well, she didn’t get an infection/bleed out/sepsis’. Do we just ‘wing it’ and hope the gamble pays off?

After a senior midwife, when I timidly asked for advice as to why my catheter bag was turning red after a c-section, and being yelled at ‘YOU HAVE HAD A BABY YOU KNOW’ and not having the guts to say ‘YES AND THIS BLOOD IS COMING FROM MY CATHETERISED BLADDER YOU SILLY BITCH’ I find the ‘we know best and justify everything after the fact’ one of the things that has no place in a modern NHS.

Graphista · 01/07/2019 04:26

"it clearly wasn't an emergency or the OP wouldn't be here to tell the tale!" Pure luck! And no thanks to the hcps treating her that object to DOING THEIR JOB!

The next woman may not be so lucky, the woman before who's too distressed herself or recovering or their family is too distressed to complain maybe wasn't so lucky.

I would not be at all surprised if it were to be discovered there had been major illness or death resulting from the inaction by these hcps.

Oh - and in my opinion you've let your mask slip!

Because anyone who has genuinely trained or practiced as an hcp KNOWS that emergency treatment isn't only for the saving of life, it's for the prevention of further harm too.

"nor did you die, or in fact come to any harm at all"
I would say it's far too bloody early to be making assumptions on this!

"Quince comes across to me as someone who knows their stuff. Other posters on this thread... possibly not so much." Completely agree!

I'm genuinely wondering if certain posters are administrators from the hospital concerned. The more they post the less I believe they're hcps.

"so he and his colleagues could avoid doing any work/could go and play golf {less likely scenario})" are you fucking kidding with this mocking, trivialising BULLSHIT!?!

At NO POINT has ANYONE suggested the reasons were trivial or purely due to laziness!!

The decision to delay treatment was quite obviously and ADMITTEDLY (have YOU forgotten the dr that was honest with op and told her this was why it wasn't being done?!) due to religious objections of staff NOT because the clinical need had changed!

"Dr diagnosed there was still a live foetus in situ (either because he felt he could detect a heartbeat"
There was no obvious heartbeat! His "feelings" are irrelevant! His clinical, objective assessment was what SHOULD have been in play, not his personal religious beliefs.

"Astonishing gaslighting going on here" I'm not astonished it's happening. Between personal experience both as a patient and a hcp, plus much discussion on here including a thread of my own discussing the entrenched misogyny in medicine that aspect doesn't surprise me at all.

What I am shocked at is certain people claiming to be hcps when the more they say makes it more and more likely to me they aren't and never have been.

Trying their damnedest to dissuade her from complaining doesn't surprise me in the least.

I suspect quince knows exactly what I mean when I say this is a major issue in the Nhs.

"Most people training to be a GP have to rotate through O&G." Training to be a GP - also a choice and also one which involves dealing with contraception and abortion. People with religious objections to these shouldn't be GP's either!

nolongersurprised · 01/07/2019 05:39

I do hope what happened to the OP isn’t typical.

Two different clinical pathways - an acute procedure versus monitoring and a delay - but with the differing management pathways occurring because of the doctor’s religious beliefs rather than the clinical presentation.

I wonder if the hospital would admit that this has occurred?

loudnoises1 · 01/07/2019 05:59

So angry on your behalf OP. This shouldn't be happening in 2019.

Just a thought re not wanting to be away from your BF baby. I had to have some surgery recently and they let me stay on the postnatal ward so that I had access to a cot, breast pump etc. Might be worth asking?

larrygrylls · 01/07/2019 06:21

Suing is a ridiculous idea. What would you sue for? You are only compensated for actual loss, not potential loss.

So we have 24 hours of stress. What is the quantum for that? And you would have to prove (not assert) the conspiracy that you have posited above about the mendacious scanner and misogynistic doctors conspiring to deny you appropriate medical care...

In addition, as doctors above have asserted, were your condition to have deteriorated, you would have been operated on by any competent physician.

Those who say doctors should have to perform all procedures regardless of their ethical beliefs may have a theoretical point. However, you cannot compel people to work and medicine is a sellers’ market (we do not have enough doctors). If doctors avoided that specialty altogether there would be less doctors in total and things would only get worse.

The NHS is on its knees (a totally separate debate) and getting the care you needed within 24 hours seems not too bad considering. If you want on demand care, paying is always an option.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 01/07/2019 06:21

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

TheBigBallOfOil · 01/07/2019 06:23

Live it when doctors start giving legal opinions. They really do think they know everything, don’t they.
Talk to a solicitor who knows what they are doing OP. At the very least you’ll be able to put the frighteners on these bastards, cause them some trouble. Which they deserve, and which may make them do better next time.

nolongersurprised · 01/07/2019 07:04

So we have 24 hours of stress. What is the quantum for that?

Thank you so much larry - what this discussion needed 28 pages in was a male perspective about an acute gynaecology issue.

TheRedBarrows · 01/07/2019 07:08

larrygrylls
Please do link to the post where the OP says she is planning to sue.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 01/07/2019 07:09

It's all right nolonger, Larry's sorted it all out. we can stop talking now

MangoesAreMyFavourite · 01/07/2019 07:17

Flowers OP.
So sorry to see you are still having people say your care was perfect and you should just calm down. Nothing to see here, move on everybody!!! Hmm

nolongersurprised · 01/07/2019 07:30

It's all right nolonger, Larry's sorted it all out. we can stop talking now

And he so astutely pointed out that doctors working in acute gynae can’t actually be compelled to treat women with acute gynae emergencies.

I get it now - us women should be grateful for any treatment we get.

Thanks, larry!

cushioncovers · 01/07/2019 07:34

Agree with Larry

XXVaginaAndAUterus · 01/07/2019 07:40

@larrygrylls

I'd you had one tiny ounce of compassion in you, you wouldn't have posted that. Please bog off and I hope I never have to come into contact with you professionally

Ineedacupofteadesperately · 01/07/2019 07:49

Tiny I'm so glad you have been treated and I hope you're getting your milk supply up.

Larry agree with PP that your insensitivity is rather disturbing. You do realise that the way in which the OP was messed about by the doctors meant there was a drop in her milk supply and her breastfed baby suffered? This is a tangible harm to a real baby. You don't care about that I assume?

cushioncovers · 01/07/2019 07:52

. You do realise that the way in which the OP was messed about by the doctors meant there was a drop in her milk supply and her breastfed baby suffered? This is a tangible harm to a real baby. You don't care about that I assume?

This is upsetting of course and warrants a complaint but a law suit?

Dervel · 01/07/2019 08:17

I think it’s a conversation that needs having re: supply and demand of certain medical skills/resources. If there is a shortfall it’s better that it’s publicly known and discussed. Whilst on the one hand I’d like to agree with Larry because I don’t like the thought of frivolous lawsuits hurting the NHS, but if there aren’t any lawsuits and people just put up and shut up then there can’t be change.

If the OP had developed an infection and died this would have been a completely avoidable outcome. Thank god she’s ok, but it is only a matter of time before this occurs to someone. So I’d rather the lawsuit.

I’m somewhere in the middle in all this in that I’m not wedded to the idea of forcing medics to perform procedures they find violate their principles, and I know that’s a minority view here atm (and maybe I’m wrong), but in that case it was a failure on the hospitals part to organise around that issue.

howlsmovingcastle84 · 01/07/2019 08:24

A few years ago I attended a presentation given by 2 female gynae surgeons about the difficulty in recruiting people for that area. The overriding message that came from doctors was that gynae was considered an 'easy option' and that gynae surgeons in particular were not 'real surgeons'. Female doctors were often 'encouraged' to enter this specialism, not because it was thought to be a good thing for women to have access to female staff but because they were not considered good enough for the real surgery areas. There is a lot of misogyny within this area of medicine.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 01/07/2019 08:35

There is a lot of misogyny in medicine full stop.

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer · 01/07/2019 09:05

Some people are tone deaf

OP was obviously upset, this should have been a supportive thread

Not a discussion on the rights or wrongs ...or a bunch of made up bollocks accusing the OP of wanting to sue

Emmapeeler · 01/07/2019 09:07

After a senior midwife, when I timidly asked for advice as to why my catheter bag was turning red

Sounds similar to my experience after my first baby. Speak up, get shouted down. And a weird feeling of being ostracised for doing so. Just one hospital (the other I gave birth in was great) but eye-opening.

TheBigBallOfOil · 01/07/2019 09:19

The point of legal proceedings is not Keats the level of compensation you receive, as anyone with legal experience knows. In some types of proceedings financial compensation is not a possibility at all. The point can be that threat of proceedings, with the risk of exposure of misconduct before objective third parties, regulators and the public, produces fear and concern in the threatened and makes them more careful in future.
Plus they have the aggro of dealing with it all. My experience is this can make the arrogant and foolish more circumspect in future. No one likes nasty legal letters, threats to talk to GMC, DSARs and all the rest.
But you keep patronising the silly women Larry. I’ve only been practising law for twenty years. I do so need to have things explained to me by a fucking twat like you.

HorridHenrysNits · 01/07/2019 09:39

The GMC will not be particularly interested either as it sounds like all the 'duties of a doctor' as outlined in the GMC handbook have been fulfilled

Well that will be for the GMC to decide once they've actually gone through their provisional enquiry and potentially subsequent processes. But even if they decline to take matters further, there is suggestion here, from other clinical professionals that the gynae ward have a reputation for fobbing off patients with abortion complications.

If the relevant regulatory bodies are involved every time this happens, even if the outcome is not to pursue to a full investigation, the process itself is sufficiently serious that it might concentrate minds a little. For the same reason I'd also be sure to involve PALS, but the clinicians involved should also be aware that their regulatory bodies are looking at this.

Also larry, rtft, and be aware that you are not the only legal professional to have commented on it.

JessicaWakefieldSV · 01/07/2019 09:45

To the Larrys in the thread, ie the men:

No Uterus, No Opinion. Please kindly fuck off from a thread on abortion.