Good God Almighty: Seriously?

I know I\’m out of step with many…..with most….on this subject but:

They had both previously given notice of conscientious objection to any involvement in abortions and said they were not expected to participate in such treatment. But in 2007 the health board introduced changes that meant patients undergoing medical terminations were cared for in the labour ward, where the women worked. They were not expected to administer abortion-inducing drugs but management said requiring conscientious objectors to provide care for patients through a termination was lawful.

What?

But in 2007 the health board introduced changes that meant patients undergoing medical terminations were cared for in the labour ward, where the women worked.

Bed 1, \”Yes, a girl, we\’re calling her Maisie, we\’ve been trying for years to have a girl and now she\’s only a day away!\”

Bed 2, \”Kill mine, cut it up, haul it out and burn the remains\”.

Bed 3, \”Weak uterus I\’m told, have to stay here in bed for as long as I can to give the little chap as much chance as I can. He\’ll be premature but maybe not too premature if I just stay calm and quiet and here.\”

Bed 4, \”19 weeks? Yup, that\’s legal, get it out.\”

The same ward?

Sirsly?

18 comments on “Good God Almighty: Seriously?

  1. Can’t wait until they make a mistake and mix up the beds …..

    That should be a law suit and a half.

  2. I went to a toungue-tie clinic with my 6 week old son who was struggling to breastfeed and it turned out that they were running an abortion clinic in the same building.

    You can’t give anesthetic with a tounge-tie on a 6 week old. So women were having abortions to the sound of new born babies wailing in immense pain. Combine this with the glass atrium waiting room that we all sat in for 3 hours on a boiling hot day with a group of babies that were starving hungry because their mum’s were too dumb to stick two aptimels up to the breast feeding nazis and you really start to get a picture of Dante’s hell.

  3. Not sure who you envisage being upset by this – the mothers horrified someone could have a termination, or the ones having an abortion disturbed to be reminded of a path not taken?

    Anyway, correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t I.V.F patients also get placed on labour wards – presumably with potential to upset them depending on the treatment outcome, patients having limbs amputated sharing a ward with people still having two arms and legs, and so on

    And as for the actual objection of the two midwive’s, according to the linked article, they’re not being asked to tend to the patients but “they were not prepared to delegate, supervise or support staff who were looking after patients”.
    Where does that position stop – how far up a chain of command are you allowed to extend that?

    Tim adds: Anne Widdicombe always refused any Ministerial position to do with the NHS. On the grounds that such a job would put her in the chain of command about abortions. Whether you think her right or wrong for that position I think the sticking to principles part is admirable.

    And Catholic law on these matters is very similar to criminal law on other matters. Aiding and abetting sorta stuff.

  4. Not sure who you envisage being upset by this – the mothers horrified someone could have a termination, or the ones having an abortion disturbed to be reminded of a path not taken?

    Maybe both?

  5. “Not sure who you envisage being upset by this – the mothers horrified someone could have a termination, or the ones having an abortion disturbed to be reminded of a path not taken?”

    Anyone possessing common sense and/or empathy?

  6. @JuliaM
    “Anyone possessing common sense and/or empathy?”
    So any woman for whom having an abortion is a relief compared to carrying an unwanted baby but is capable of rationally distinguishing her situation from the person next to her lacks common sense and/or empathy?
    Good to see there is only one approved way to feel.

  7. At the risk of sounding a bit New Agey, I don’t think women should be having babies in “hospitals” anyway. Childbirth isn’t an illness, it’s a normal part of life with somewhat higher than average medical risks. So let’s have Community Birthing Centres, with medical staff available if needed, and put the abortions, which are a medical operation, in hospitals. Which sort of solves the problem.

    Maybe we ought to split off a National Sprogging Service entirely separate from the NHS or something.

  8. What about this bit? “Miss Doogan, of Garrowhill, Glasgow, has been absent from work through ill health since 2010 as a result of the dispute.”

    That seems to imply that her GP has signed her off sick for over a year on the grounds that the thought of doing her job makes her feel unwell.

    NHS terms of employment provide for at most one year’s sick leave. So it seems that she is being given considerable leeway by her employer.

  9. @ITBoy Actually in well run hospitals the trying to have babies bit IS physically separated out from the having babies bit even though it all comes under the Obs and Gynae clinical speciality. So for example you should find that the Emergency Gynae Unit (code for miscarriage unit) is NOT located on the antenatal ward filled with labouring women even though in some respects the patients are the same.

  10. ITBoy

    Birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, abortion. Yeah, well, it’s all labour, innit? So, obv, you can use your midwives much more efficiently if you lump ’em all in together in the same ward. After all, these women, they’re all rational people, aren’t they, so it won’t bother them that the woman in the next room is delivering a live baby while they’re delivering a dead one.

    Bollocks.

    Ian B

    Speaking as someone who wouldn’t be alive today if I hadn’t had my son in hospital (oh, and he wouldn’t be alive either), I’m afraid my one-word comment above applies to you too.

  11. Good for you Tim to point this out. These women made a specific declaration that they were conscientious objectors to working with abortion cases which, your source article avers, they were free to do and to have their wishes respected. The health board then changes the rules of the game, if not the game entirely.

    It’s a bit like, having declared yourself a conscientious objector to, say, World War I, the authorities then come along later and draft you into World War II, insisting that it’s a totally different theatre of operations, so your original objections don’t apply.

    It will be, er, interesting to see what happens if the current campaign for “assisted dying” (i.e. euthanasia) succeeds. Will we see single hospital wards packed with eager mothers-to-be, mothers-who-aren’t-eager-to-be, the don’t-want-to-die coffin-dodgers and the want-to-die-now-goddammit-geriatrics.

    Maybe there might be some room for the genuinely ill. But probably none for “First, do no harm.”

  12. Frances, I don’t remember suggesting anywhere that women giving birth shouldn’t have medical care. Just that the places they have babies in should be more about being “where you give birth” than “where sick people go”.

  13. Ian B

    If going somewhere “where you give birth” means that the medical care you need if it all goes wrong is 30 miles away, then I’d rather be “where sick people go”. After all, if it all goes wrong then both baby and mother are sick, possibly terminally so.

    According to the WHO the “natural” Caesarean rate – i.e. those births where the outcome would be tragic if a Caesarean were not performed – is 10-15%: the rate in the UK generally is much higher, up to 30% in some areas. Additionally, 10-15% of newborns spend time in a neonatal special care unit. 14% of Caesareans in the UK are emergency Caesareans.

    If the medicalisation of birth means that more women and babies survive and are well, then I’m all for it. Nostalgia for home births and midwife-staffed birthing centres is misplaced when lives are at risk, I’m afraid.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.