British Indians still aborting baby girls in UK

Doodledog

I see this as one of those situations (such as assisted dying) where I can see all points of view, but feel that the individual decision has to be made by the individual person at the heart of it - in this case the pregnant woman. Imposing someone else's moral view is, IMO, immoral.

Nobody should be coerced, and I have no problem with medical staff opting out of taking part if they have conscientious objections (I would struggle to do it myself), but the option should be there for those who need it.

I agree with this. You’ve captured well how complex and personal these situations are, and why the decision has to rest with the individual most affected. In cases like this, imposing someone else’s moral framework doesn’t feel ethical to me either. I also agree that while no one should be coerced into participating, the option needs to exist for those who need it.

I'm not sure how benign terminating a baby at nine months gestation could be. There might be reasons but that doesn't make it benign although I looked it up and the explanation wasn't explicit eg removing the products of conception rather than a viable baby.

Surely the person most affected is the baby.

We of course impose a moral framework via the law though.

Galaxy

We of course impose a moral framework via the law though.

But which morality and how strongly it’s imposed are constant points of debate.

Galaxy

We of course impose a moral framework via the law though.

It's rare that 'we' do, though. Most laws are decided on by others - often those we have voted against - and are interpreted by entirely unelected people such as doctors or social workers, who have their own prejudices and beliefs. On the whole they will be doing what they think is best, but best for them, not necessarily what is best for their patients/clients/constituents.

^ On the whole they will be doing what they think is best, but best for them,..^

That’s an extraordinarily cynical view of the caring professions

Having had the experience, traumatising, of dealing with abortion as a professional, this question popped up more often than not. Getting rid of baby girls, pandering to the misogynistic cultures involved. Once asked, following dating scan, whether it was a girl, I was able to answer that you can't at 8wks tell. 18 to 22 weeks is the norm. As for BPAS, least said the better. Dept of Health makes the strategy, not them.

"On the whole they will be doing what they think is best, but best for them, not necessarily what is best for their patients/clients/constituents." Doodledog

I think my daughter would be furious to read a comment like this. As a doctor she would say that her first concern is always for her patient. As an anaesthetist who frequently works in obstetrics, she is the person who is at the head end of the mother having a CS regardless of if it's with a GA or a spinal. She is also the doctor who is supporting the unfortunate woman who has to undergo a late termination and witnesses not just the trauma of such a procedure to the expectant mother and her family but also the trauma suffered by everyone, including herself, in the medical team involved. Abortions in the third trimester are thankfully fairly rare and are never performed without adhering to the law, the welfare of the patient and being absolute necessary. It is a sad fact that babies with severe internal malformations can survive in utero but cannot survive once outside the uterus. Thankfully these issues are usually found during the 20 week scan, which can take place between 18 and 21 weeks. These abortions are both extremely sad for the parents and also extremely unpleasant. However, occasionally these defects are not picked up until a 28 week scan is done (perhaps because of a concern over a lack of growth). I wonder how many of you would encourage your own daughter to carry a baby for a further 12 weeks that will not live for more than an hour or so outside the womb? Regardless of what the mother decides to do, it is a harrowing experience for absolutely everyone.

They are fortunately not common, but the most traumatic abortions for staff are those of a foetus with no abnormalities who is on the cusp of viability as a live birth if given neonatal care though foxie48, rather than those with abnormalities such as you describe. Some doctors refuse to be involved in an abortion in those circumstances, and it is also right that they should have that option. It’s a minefield.

Thank you foxie for your detailed response. I hope I never allowed personal views get in the way of helping parents, often single pregnant women find the least worst decision in harrowing circumstances

Casdon

They are fortunately not common, but the most traumatic abortions for staff are those of a foetus with no abnormalities who is on the cusp of viability as a live birth if given neonatal care though foxie48, rather than those with abnormalities such as you describe. Some doctors refuse to be involved in an abortion in those circumstances, and it is also right that they should have that option. It’s a minefield.

Casdon it is all extremely sad isn't it? tbh I'd rather not compare one cause of misery with another and try to evaluate which is more traumatic. My last post was in reply to the suggestion that doctors do what is "best for them" and earlier posts saying that late abortions should not take place. In an ideal world I would like to see every pregnancy being a planned one but as my last daughter was conceived thanks to a contraceptive failure I know firstly we don't live in an ideal world and secondly the only absolute way of avoiding pregnancy is complete abstinence. I also try not to judge others who have to made the difficult decision of having a late termination.
"In the UK (England, Wales, Scotland), abortions are generally permitted up to 24 weeks, but after 20 weeks,
they usually require specific legal grounds, often relating to the pregnant person's life/health or serious fetal abnormalities (serious/fatal anomalies), with services available in specialist NHS hospitals" AI generated

My third baby somehow arrived despite using effective contraception. I declined the amnio as I knew I would continue the pregnancy. I’d have chosen termination at some time in my life but not then when i was well and in a safe happy marriage.
I agree that medics should have the option not to take part. The idea of desperately trying to save the life of a tiny very early baby alongside late termination is distressing

I think there are quite a few examples of medical staff not treating pregnant women well. There are two of us on this thread, and there is an ongoing enquiry into numerous NHS trusts with regard to maternity care. This doesn't mean that all healthcare professionals treat women poorly, it just means there are some issues.

Yes, I understood what you were responding to foxie48, and I agree of course that doctors don’t do ‘what is best for them’. I was adding the dimension I did because that is the really sharp end for all the staff involved. It’s not about them doing what is best for themselves rather than the woman concerned, but ultimately each individual clinician must also act in line with their own beliefs, as the RCOG does make clear.

Casdon

They are fortunately not common, but the most traumatic abortions for staff are those of a foetus with no abnormalities who is on the cusp of viability as a live birth if given neonatal care though foxie48, rather than those with abnormalities such as you describe. Some doctors refuse to be involved in an abortion in those circumstances, and it is also right that they should have that option. It’s a minefield.

I was thinking of people who want no time limits so if that happens there would be more healthy babies being aborted late. I do think medical staff should the option to say no to being involved if that happens.

Casdon

Yes, I understood what you were responding to foxie48, and I agree of course that doctors don’t do ‘what is best for them’. I was adding the dimension I did because that is the really sharp end for all the staff involved. It’s not about them doing what is best for themselves rather than the woman concerned, but ultimately each individual clinician must also act in line with their own beliefs, as the RCOG does make clear.

I think some doctors want to decide what is best for the woman hence me being told I should have an abortion because I was 17, because I thought I might be pregnant with an unplanned pregnancy when I had a six month old baby (I wasn't but had all the signs) because I was 38. Those 2 doctors and one BPAS counsellor thought they knew what was best for me but it's not their place to push their views particularly in an aggressive way when the woman, me, was clearly distressed by the third one.

The opposite should apply as well, fair enough for a doctor not to want to take part but not right to lecture woman about why they disagree. Certainly not right to aggressively shout at the woman.

MaizieD

^ On the whole they will be doing what they think is best, but best for them,..^

That’s an extraordinarily cynical view of the caring professions

Do you think so? I don't - I think that some areas are so bound up with things like religion and culture that people's views are very strong, and often polarised. It's the same with assisted dying. Why MPs get to vote on something like that on behalf of the rest of us is beyond me. We vote them in based on their views on economics and whether they want a bypass around our home towns, not to decide whether we should have the right to end our lives when we want to, yet they make those decisions based on their own moral compass.

Abortion is similarly tricky. It's not something I would do (or I think I wouldn't, but have never been in a situation where I have had to consider it), but I think it should be for others to decide if and when it is right for them, and one woman's reasons will not be the same as another's. A doctor can say whether mother or baby would suffer if the pregnancy went ahead, but no more, really, and a social worker can advise on welfare options that the woman might not have known about, but not what is going on in someone else's head.

I don't think I am being cynical - more realistic.

I am about as opposed to assisted dying as it is possible to be ( will probably never vote Labour again because if it, yes I know private members bill etc etc) but I think we do vote for parties partly in terms of morals/ ethics and not just economics don't you think?

I think people in these cultures should realise that it’s the man who determines the sex of the baby and therefore they shouldn’t be blaming the wife, not that there is any blame to be attached.
I was just thankful I had two healthy babies irrespective of their gender

Galaxy

I am about as opposed to assisted dying as it is possible to be ( will probably never vote Labour again because if it, yes I know private members bill etc etc) but I think we do vote for parties partly in terms of morals/ ethics and not just economics don't you think?

Morals and ethics can drive attitudes to economics and how to run society (eg looking after the weak or survival of the fittest), but that's on a macro level. When it comes to individuals, views split outside of those axes. For example a religious person could believe either in higher taxation and universal provision or in low taxation and providing for oneself, but at the same time have very core beliefs about their God's right to give and end life, and be unable to take steps to help anyone to act outside of them. That is fine, but IMO they shouldn't be able to impose those beliefs on those who don't share them.

Galaxy makes an important point about maternal care often being poor
I look back to my care in the eighties as a golden age compared to now.
It’s a wider issue with women’s health generally. I don’t disregard the concerns about gender based terminations but I do believe there are significant concerns about poor care often being women throughout our lives

What about aftercare and ongoing care for people born with disabilities?

It’s all very well saying you don’t agree with later terminations but there is so much ignorance about how much this all costs if put into the hands of the government or On the other hand how much it costs for parents and families to raise a child with a disability esp if it’s severe or profound. The lack of support, financial, emotional or otherwise is severely lacking.

I’m not suggesting anything btw. I’m just raising another point that might have already been raised.

JaneJudge

What about aftercare and ongoing care for people born with disabilities?

It’s all very well saying you don’t agree with later terminations but there is so much ignorance about how much this all costs if put into the hands of the government or On the other hand how much it costs for parents and families to raise a child with a disability esp if it’s severe or profound. The lack of support, financial, emotional or otherwise is severely lacking.

I share your concerns JaneJudge but now we are getting into the realms of first cousins in the Asian community being allowed to marry and giving birth to children with severe disabilities who will need a lifetime of expensive care, benefits, disability equipment and medical care.

Maybe somebody should start another thread as this one is way off track now.