Nurses 'should perform abortions'

1069 · Oct 14, 2007

Nurses 'should perform abortions'

Denis Campbell, health correspondent
Sunday October 14, 2007
The Observer, UK

Britain's nurses are calling for the law on abortion to be changed so that they can perform terminations on women in the early stages of pregnancy.

Their request comes as Channel 4 prepares to broadcast footage taken during the abortion of a 16-week-old foetus for the first time on British TV. The scenes in Wednesday's Dispatches documentary will fuel the growing debate on abortion, which Parliament is preparing to review for the first time since 1990.

The Royal College of Nursing, which represents the country's 390,000 nurses, has asked for the 1967 Abortion Act to be amended to allow both nurses and midwives with extra training to carry out surgical abortions on women in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy and also to prescribe the abortion pill. Only doctors may now perform terminations.

The RCN has made its demands in a written submission to the Commons select committee on science and technology, which starts an inquiry tomorrow into whether abortion law needs a major overhaul.

The document points out that a growing number of nurses and midwives already carry out a range of complex surgical procedures that have traditionally been the preserve of doctors, such as colposcopies, hysteroscopies and fitting intrauterine devices.

Dr Peter Carter, the RCN's general secretary, said: 'When the Abortion Act was written, it didn't include nurses. We want it clarified once and for all that nurses can do first trimester abortions. Nurses feel they could be involved in these [two] areas more closely.'

Women seeking an abortion would benefit because it would help them to get quicker access to treatment, said Carter. At the moment, women in some parts of the country face delays in accessing abortion services because of a growing ethical reluctance among doctors to be involved. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which represents the 5,500 doctors in Britain who specialise in pregnancy and women's health, has thrown its weight behind the RCN's call. In its submission to the select committee it says: 'A recent randomised control trial published in the Lancet has shown that first trimester abortion using manual evacuation [the termination procedure often used on women up to 12 weeks] can be provided safely by appropriately trained nurses.'

Dr Kate Guthrie, an RCOG spokeswoman on abortion, said allowing nurses to carry out early terminations would help to relieve pressure on overstretched NHS staff and supplement the declining number of doctors prepared to carry out abortions. Speaking in a personal capacity, Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP on the committee and a former hospital doctor, said: 'The committee will look carefully at all the evidence before making a recommendation, although the support for this by both the RCOG and the RCN is obviously notable.

'It is likely that the 40-year-old ban on nurses providing abortions will be raised next year when the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill comes before Parliament and many MPs will look to the Royal Colleges for guidance.'

>snip<

link

If Britain allows this, the US will follow.
I've believed for a long time (and suggested more than once) that first-trimester abortions should be delegated as necessary to nurses, midwives, even trained laypeople who have been through some sort of program and received a certification.
It is a simple, low-risk outpatient procedure which takes all of five minutes or less.
Nurses routinely perform far more complex and invasive procedures than abortion.
It is currently restricted only to doctors for political- not medical, health, or safety- reasons. The reason is to increase barriers to access. A doctor's time is worth more than a nurse's; therefore, abortions cost more than they ought to. There are fewer doctors than nurses, and fewer still who offer abortion services.
This is a trifling waste of doctors' valuable time and expertise, which could better be spent elsewhere.
Women's reproductive health has already largely been delegated to nurse-practitioners; I can't remember the last time I saw a doctor for any reason at Planned Parenthood; it's nurse practitioners doing everything- pelvics, breast exams, pap tests, colposcopies, prescribing birth control, everything.
And that's fine. Keep the costs down, keep access unrestricted.
Put abortion in nurses' capable hands.
Women who prefer to have the procedure performed by an MD can pay extra.

Shayah · Oct 14, 2007

Things are a bit different in Israel where abortion is covered under the Criminal Law Amendment (Interruption of Pregnancy) of 1977. The 1977 law ensures a low-cost, and in some cases free, legal abortion to any woman who fills one of four criteria:

• She is under 18 or over 40 (not free).

• She is carrying a fetus with a serious mental or physical defect (free).

• She claims that the fetus results from forbidden relations such as rape or incest (free) or, in the case of a married woman, that the baby is not her husband's (not free). Single women also fall under this clause, and they too must pay.

• She shows that by continuing the pregnancy, her physical or mental health would be damaged (free). A fifth criteria (economic hardship) was abolished in 1980.

A woman who seeks to terminate a pregnancy in Israel must appear before one of the 41 abortion committees operating in public and private hospitals around the country. These committees include three members — a physician whose field of expertise is obstetrics and gynecology; another physician who is either a family doctor, psychiatrist, internist or gynecologist, and a social worker. At least one woman must be present on each committee. Approximately 96% of these requests are approved.

Six separate committees consider requests for termination when a fetus is beyond 24 weeks old. The yearly distribution of legal and illegal abortions in Israel is roughly equal. Illegal abortions are typically performed by private doctors and quite expensive. The law stipulates that anyone performing an illegal abortion (even self-induced) is liable to imprisonment for up to 14 years. In practice however, imprisonment is rarely invoked.

Hatuey · Oct 15, 2007

Shayah said:
Things are a bit different in Israel where abortion is covered under the Criminal Law Amendment (Interruption of Pregnancy) of 1977. The 1977 law ensures a low-cost, and in some cases free, legal abortion to any woman who fills one of four criteria:

• She is under 18 or over 40 (not free).

• She is carrying a fetus with a serious mental or physical defect (free).

• She claims that the fetus results from forbidden relations such as rape or incest (free) or, in the case of a married woman, that the baby is not her husband's (not free). Single women also fall under this clause, and they too must pay.

• She shows that by continuing the pregnancy, her physical or mental health would be damaged (free). A fifth criteria (economic hardship) was abolished in 1980.

A woman who seeks to terminate a pregnancy in Israel must appear before one of the 41 abortion committees operating in public and private hospitals around the country. These committees include three members — a physician whose field of expertise is obstetrics and gynecology; another physician who is either a family doctor, psychiatrist, internist or gynecologist, and a social worker. At least one woman must be present on each committee. Approximately 96% of these requests are approved.

Six separate committees consider requests for termination when a fetus is beyond 24 weeks old. The yearly distribution of legal and illegal abortions in Israel is roughly equal. Illegal abortions are typically performed by private doctors and quite expensive. The law stipulates that anyone performing an illegal abortion (even self-induced) is liable to imprisonment for up to 14 years. In practice however, imprisonment is rarely invoked.

It's amazing to see that even in countries where religion plays such a big role people can still have abortions. What are the Christian fundis to say now? That Israel is a nation of baby killers? My suspicion is that they will remain silent and ignore your post.

Snapler · Oct 17, 2007

No, absoultly not. Nurses in any place should not be allowed to preform an abortion. Why? I could say its because of religious belief and life is scared...Blah...Blah. Hower, the main reason why is that no one has the right at all to determine death of anyone.

If we did that would be saying many things. One, that people don't really care much for the child. Two, people aren't really getting permission from the child that they want to kill. Three, MURDER.

In simple terms the answer is clear. Abortion in any sense is wrong, cruel, unfair, and in some cases taking the easy way out.

In my opion nothing should be easy, for it was, then one would not learn anything.

{feel free to contact me in PM with depates or comments}

1069 said:
Nurses 'should perform abortions'

Denis Campbell, health correspondent
Sunday October 14, 2007
The Observer, UK

Britain's nurses are calling for the law on abortion to be changed so that they can perform terminations on women in the early stages of pregnancy.

Their request comes as Channel 4 prepares to broadcast footage taken during the abortion of a 16-week-old foetus for the first time on British TV. The scenes in Wednesday's Dispatches documentary will fuel the growing debate on abortion, which Parliament is preparing to review for the first time since 1990.

The Royal College of Nursing, which represents the country's 390,000 nurses, has asked for the 1967 Abortion Act to be amended to allow both nurses and midwives with extra training to carry out surgical abortions on women in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy and also to prescribe the abortion pill. Only doctors may now perform terminations.

The RCN has made its demands in a written submission to the Commons select committee on science and technology, which starts an inquiry tomorrow into whether abortion law needs a major overhaul.

The document points out that a growing number of nurses and midwives already carry out a range of complex surgical procedures that have traditionally been the preserve of doctors, such as colposcopies, hysteroscopies and fitting intrauterine devices.

Dr Peter Carter, the RCN's general secretary, said: 'When the Abortion Act was written, it didn't include nurses. We want it clarified once and for all that nurses can do first trimester abortions. Nurses feel they could be involved in these [two] areas more closely.'

Women seeking an abortion would benefit because it would help them to get quicker access to treatment, said Carter. At the moment, women in some parts of the country face delays in accessing abortion services because of a growing ethical reluctance among doctors to be involved. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which represents the 5,500 doctors in Britain who specialise in pregnancy and women's health, has thrown its weight behind the RCN's call. In its submission to the select committee it says: 'A recent randomised control trial published in the Lancet has shown that first trimester abortion using manual evacuation [the termination procedure often used on women up to 12 weeks] can be provided safely by appropriately trained nurses.'

Dr Kate Guthrie, an RCOG spokeswoman on abortion, said allowing nurses to carry out early terminations would help to relieve pressure on overstretched NHS staff and supplement the declining number of doctors prepared to carry out abortions. Speaking in a personal capacity, Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP on the committee and a former hospital doctor, said: 'The committee will look carefully at all the evidence before making a recommendation, although the support for this by both the RCOG and the RCN is obviously notable.

'It is likely that the 40-year-old ban on nurses providing abortions will be raised next year when the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill comes before Parliament and many MPs will look to the Royal Colleges for guidance.'

>snip<

link

If Britain allows this, the US will follow.
I've believed for a long time (and suggested more than once) that first-trimester abortions should be delegated as necessary to nurses, midwives, even trained laypeople who have been through some sort of program and received a certification.
It is a simple, low-risk outpatient procedure which takes all of five minutes or less.
Nurses routinely perform far more complex and invasive procedures than abortion.
It is currently restricted only to doctors for political- not medical, health, or safety- reasons. The reason is to increase barriers to access. A doctor's time is worth more than a nurse's; therefore, abortions cost more than they ought to. There are fewer doctors than nurses, and fewer still who offer abortion services.
This is a trifling waste of doctors' valuable time and expertise, which could better be spent elsewhere.
Women's reproductive health has already largely been delegated to nurse-practitioners; I can't remember the last time I saw a doctor for any reason at Planned Parenthood; it's nurse practitioners doing everything- pelvics, breast exams, pap tests, colposcopies, prescribing birth control, everything.
And that's fine. Keep the costs down, keep access unrestricted.
Put abortion in nurses' capable hands.
Women who prefer to have the procedure performed by an MD can pay extra.

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways · Oct 17, 2007

Snapler said:
No, absoultly not. Nurses in any place should not be allowed to preform an abortion. Why? I could say its because of religious belief and life is scared...Blah...Blah. Hower, the main reason why is that no one has the right at all to determine death of anyone.

If we did that would be saying many things. One, that people don't really care much for the child. Two, people aren't really getting permission from the child that they want to kill. Three, MURDER.

In simple terms the answer is clear. Abortion in any sense is wrong, cruel, unfair, and in some cases taking the easy way out.

In my opion nothing should be easy, for it was, then one would not learn anything.

{feel free to contact me in PM with depates or comments}

No one is determining the death of "anyone"- a fetus is not a functioning human being, as it is not self-aware. There is no need to obtain permission from the fetus, any more than you would need to obtain permission from a tapeworm you wanted to remove. Both are parasites that you do not want in your body, and both coulddo you physical harm. Mentally, they are no different. What's wrong with taking the easy way out?

ARealConservative · Oct 17, 2007

I feel a whole slew of medical procedures could be handled by nurses if the patient is comfortable with it.

It could also reduce medical costs in this country.

Snapler · Oct 17, 2007

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
No one is determining the death of "anyone"- a fetus is not a functioning human being, as it is not self-aware. There is no need to obtain permission from the fetus, any more than you would need to obtain permission from a tapeworm you wanted to remove. Both are parasites that you do not want in your body, and both coulddo you physical harm. Mentally, they are no different. What's wrong with taking the easy way out?

"a fetus is not a functioning human being," :roll: :rofl a tadpole can still be concidered a frog. Even though, it has not yet reached that stage, because if it is given time, it is going to become one.

With that said, killing a 'fetus' is the same as killing a soon to be child and/or a possible member of the community.

"What's wrong with taking the easy way out?" Plenty.
Like i said before, one wouldn't learn a thing, or at least not take out the important life lesson that comes from it. In this case of Abortion, one would deprive them selfs of the lession of responsibility for your own, taking care of an other by yourself, the struggles and pleasures of a infant/ child.

Also, if people always took the easy way out of things, one would only understand one perspective of things.

i'd be happy to continue if nessisary.:mrgreen:

1069 · Oct 17, 2007

Snapler said:
"a fetus is not a functioning human being," :roll: :rofl a tadpole can still be concidered a frog. Even though, it has not yet reached that stage, because if it is given time, it is going to become one.

With that said, killing a 'fetus' is the same as killing a soon to be child and/or a possible member of the community.

"What's wrong with taking the easy way out?" Plenty.
Like i said before, one wouldn't learn a thing, or at least not take out the important life lesson that comes from it. In this case of Abortion, one would deprive them selfs of the lession of responsibility for your own, taking care of an other by yourself, the struggles and pleasures of a infant/ child.

Also, if people always took the easy way out of things, one would only understand one perspective of things.

i'd be happy to continue if nessisary.:mrgreen:

Not in this thread, you won't.
This thread is about whether or not nurses should perform abortions as opposed to doctors.
If you have no relevant input to contribute to the matter at hand, then please go start your own thread.

Felicity · Oct 18, 2007

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
No one is determining the death of "anyone"- a fetus is not a functioning human being, as it is not self-aware.

Irrelevant. You aren't a "functioning human being" when you're napping. Still, no one has the right to kill you.

There is no need to obtain permission from the fetus, any more than you would need to obtain permission from a tapeworm you wanted to remove.

Why stop at birth? A newborn isn't functioning and is completely reliant upon others for survival.. Heck--all sorts of human being are...where do you draw the line with rationally, consistantly, logically?

Ivan The Terrible · Oct 18, 2007

Hatuey,

Hatuey said:
It's amazing to see that even in countries where religion plays such a big role people can still have abortions. What are the Christian fundis to say now? That Israel is a nation of baby killers? My suspicion is that they will remain silent and ignore your post.

Actually in Judaism abortion can be justified if the mother’s life is in danger. As well as other reasons. Judaism and Christian are two very different religions.

OKgrannie · Oct 18, 2007

Felicity said:
Irrelevant. You aren't a "functioning human being" when you're napping. Still, no one has the right to kill you.

Of course you're a "functioning human being" while sleeping, you think you morph into something else upon falling asleep? The brain is carrying on all the appropriate bodily functions even tho its at a different level of consciousness. The brain even registers such things as sounds; as a mother you would know how quickly a mother can awaken when a baby cries.

Why stop at birth? A newborn isn't functioning and is completely reliant upon others for survival.. Heck--all sorts of human being are...where do you draw the line with rationally, consistantly, logically?

A newborn is fully functioning and while it is reliant upon others, all of us are reliant upon others. No one is ever forced to provide care for someone else tho, it is entirely voluntary. Even those who are dependent upon a pay check for providing care are not forced to do it.

Hatuey · Oct 19, 2007

Ivan The Terrible said:
Hatuey,

Actually in Judaism abortion can be justified if the mother’s life is in danger. As well as other reasons. Judaism and Christian are two very different religions.

Obviously this requirement :

She claims that the fetus results from forbidden relations such as rape or incest (free) or, in the case of a married woman, that the baby is not her husband's (not free). Single women also fall under this clause, and they too must pay.

Has very little to do with the mothers life being in danger.

Felicity · Oct 19, 2007

OKgrannie said:
Of course you're a "functioning human being" while sleeping, you think you morph into something else upon falling asleep?

Yes. In the same way you believe you morph into something else upon emerging from the birth canal.:doh :roll:

The brain is carrying on all the appropriate bodily functions even tho its at a different level of consciousness. The brain even registers such things as sounds; as a mother you would know how quickly a mother can awaken when a baby cries.

Ditto, for the fetus, dear.

A newborn is fully functioning and while it is reliant upon others, all of us are reliant upon others. No one is ever forced to provide care for someone else tho, it is entirely voluntary. Even those who are dependent upon a pay check for providing care are not forced to do it.

weak. Be responsible to the consequenses of personal choices. Nine months is NOT that long--there are jail sentences longer for kiting checks:roll:

OKgrannie · Oct 19, 2007

Felicity said:
Yes. In the same way you believe you morph into something else upon emerging from the birth canal.:doh :roll:

There is a definite change in the fetus during birth, it is no longer ATTACHED. It is breathing on its own. The fetus morphs into a baby.

Ditto, for the fetus, dear.

No, at this point, it is the WOMAN's brain that is carrying on all the appropriate bodily functions. When the fetus's brain is developed enough to carry on functions, abortion is not allowed.

weak. Be responsible to the consequenses of personal choices. Nine months is NOT that long--there are jail sentences longer for kiting checks:roll:

Nine months plus recovery time= a year gone from the life of a young woman. A person should be punished for kiting checks, but for having sex?

Ivan The Terrible · Oct 19, 2007

Hatuey,

Has very little to do with the mothers life being in danger.

That's not, to my knowleage, apart of Jewish Law. My point was that we are a little more flexable. By the by The Isrealie Government is Secular like the US.

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways · Oct 19, 2007

Felicity said:
Irrelevant. You aren't a "functioning human being" when you're napping. Still, no one has the right to kill you.

I think, I dream. I don't inhabit the body of an unwilling woman.

Felicity said:
Why stop at birth? A newborn isn't functioning and is completely reliant upon others for survival.. Heck--all sorts of human being are...where do you draw the line with rationally, consistantly, logically?

A newborn is self-aware, and not harbored in a woman's body. A newborn can be adopted a fetus can't.

Sorry for semi-hijacking the thread, 1069. I think that nurses should be able to perform abortions, if trained for it- since they are more generally female, the woman would likely feel more comfortable as well.

Felicity · Oct 19, 2007

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways said:
I think, I dream. I don't inhabit the body of an unwilling woman.

A fetus thinks, she dreams...and most are not in unwilling women. The only difference between you and an aborted fetus, is that you made it out the the womb alive.

A newborn is self-aware, and not harbored in a woman's body.

A fetus is as self aware as a newborn.

A newborn can be adopted a fetus can't.

Wrong--even frozen embryos can be adopted.

tryreading · Oct 19, 2007

1069 said:
Nurses 'should perform abortions'

Denis Campbell, health correspondent
Sunday October 14, 2007
The Observer, UK

Britain's nurses are calling for the law on abortion to be changed so that they can perform terminations on women in the early stages of pregnancy.

Their request comes as Channel 4 prepares to broadcast footage taken during the abortion of a 16-week-old foetus for the first time on British TV. The scenes in Wednesday's Dispatches documentary will fuel the growing debate on abortion, which Parliament is preparing to review for the first time since 1990.

The Royal College of Nursing, which represents the country's 390,000 nurses, has asked for the 1967 Abortion Act to be amended to allow both nurses and midwives with extra training to carry out surgical abortions on women in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy and also to prescribe the abortion pill. Only doctors may now perform terminations.

The RCN has made its demands in a written submission to the Commons select committee on science and technology, which starts an inquiry tomorrow into whether abortion law needs a major overhaul.

The document points out that a growing number of nurses and midwives already carry out a range of complex surgical procedures that have traditionally been the preserve of doctors, such as colposcopies, hysteroscopies and fitting intrauterine devices.

Dr Peter Carter, the RCN's general secretary, said: 'When the Abortion Act was written, it didn't include nurses. We want it clarified once and for all that nurses can do first trimester abortions. Nurses feel they could be involved in these [two] areas more closely.'

Women seeking an abortion would benefit because it would help them to get quicker access to treatment, said Carter. At the moment, women in some parts of the country face delays in accessing abortion services because of a growing ethical reluctance among doctors to be involved. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which represents the 5,500 doctors in Britain who specialise in pregnancy and women's health, has thrown its weight behind the RCN's call. In its submission to the select committee it says: 'A recent randomised control trial published in the Lancet has shown that first trimester abortion using manual evacuation [the termination procedure often used on women up to 12 weeks] can be provided safely by appropriately trained nurses.'

Dr Kate Guthrie, an RCOG spokeswoman on abortion, said allowing nurses to carry out early terminations would help to relieve pressure on overstretched NHS staff and supplement the declining number of doctors prepared to carry out abortions. Speaking in a personal capacity, Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP on the committee and a former hospital doctor, said: 'The committee will look carefully at all the evidence before making a recommendation, although the support for this by both the RCOG and the RCN is obviously notable.

'It is likely that the 40-year-old ban on nurses providing abortions will be raised next year when the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill comes before Parliament and many MPs will look to the Royal Colleges for guidance.'

>snip<

link

If Britain allows this, the US will follow.
I've believed for a long time (and suggested more than once) that first-trimester abortions should be delegated as necessary to nurses, midwives, even trained laypeople who have been through some sort of program and received a certification.
It is a simple, low-risk outpatient procedure which takes all of five minutes or less.
Nurses routinely perform far more complex and invasive procedures than abortion.
It is currently restricted only to doctors for political- not medical, health, or safety- reasons. The reason is to increase barriers to access. A doctor's time is worth more than a nurse's; therefore, abortions cost more than they ought to. There are fewer doctors than nurses, and fewer still who offer abortion services.
This is a trifling waste of doctors' valuable time and expertise, which could better be spent elsewhere.
Women's reproductive health has already largely been delegated to nurse-practitioners; I can't remember the last time I saw a doctor for any reason at Planned Parenthood; it's nurse practitioners doing everything- pelvics, breast exams, pap tests, colposcopies, prescribing birth control, everything.
And that's fine. Keep the costs down, keep access unrestricted.
Put abortion in nurses' capable hands.
Women who prefer to have the procedure performed by an MD can pay extra.

The article says they are going to show two abortions on British TV, but not show the actual surgery. They should show the whole procedure on camera. I guess the anti-abortion group felt it would be too extreme to do so.

Like was discussed on another thread here, some in this country want to force women to see an ultrasound before they can have an abortion. I'm against any mandatory requirement like that, but not against showing an abortion (that was going to happen anyway) on TV that people can watch if they choose.

Anyway, I'm against nurses performing abortions. Abortion is currently safer than actual childbirth as far as the pregnant woman's mortality. I think having people who are not doctors performing them will raise the mortality rate, and that's no improvement in service for women. Also, abortion is already pretty cheap, isn't it? Is the current price that much of an obstacle for women?

1069 · Oct 19, 2007

tryreading said:
The article says they are going to show two abortions on British TV, but not show the actual surgery. They should show the whole procedure on camera. I guess the anti-abortion group felt it would be too extreme to do so.

Like was discussed on another thread here, some in this country want to force women to see an ultrasound before they can have an abortion. I'm against any mandatory requirement like that, but not against showing an abortion (that was going to happen anyway) on TV that people can watch if they choose.

Anyway, I'm against nurses performing abortions. Abortion is currently safer than actual childbirth as far as the pregnant woman's mortality. I think having people who are not doctors performing them will raise the mortality rate, and that's no improvement in service for women. Also, abortion is already pretty cheap, isn't it? Is the current price that much of an obstacle for women?

Yes, the current price (400-500 dollars, cash up front, within a window of opportunity spanning mere weeks) is extremely prohibitive for women living in poverty.
Not to mention there are geographical barriers to access; some towns/ counties/ states have no provider, and extremely poor women often have no transportation, no one to watch their children while they make such an extended trip for day surgery.
Having nurses provide abortions would mean better access.
For instance, Cecelia Fire Thunder, former Oglala Sioux tribal leader and also an RN, vowed that if South Dakota outlawed abortions, she would open a clinic and perform them herself on tribal land, where the state government would not have jurisdiction.
That sort of thing would have been helpful to South Dakotan women even though the proposed abortion ban was defeated.
There is not a single abortion provider in the entire state, only a doctor who flies in from out of state to perform abortions once a month, at best.

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways · Oct 19, 2007

Felicity said:
A fetus thinks, she dreams...and most are not in unwilling women. The only difference between you and an aborted fetus, is that you made it out the the womb alive.

The fetus, until full brain function has been achieved in the third trimester (subsequently, the time when I believe on-demand abortion should be illegal) cannot think or dream. How would it?

Felicity said:
A fetus is as self aware as a newborn.

Not until the third trimester.

Felicity said:
Wrong--even frozen embryos can be adopted.

Embryos, but not fetuses. With today's technology, to do so would carry the same result as any successful abortion.

Please be aware that this is the last time I will respond to you on this topic on this thread, as I do not wish to see this turn into another epic, 30-page abortion shootout that goes nowhere.

Jerry · Oct 19, 2007

1069 said:
Nurses 'should perform abortions'

Denis Campbell, health correspondent
Sunday October 14, 2007
The Observer, UK

Britain's nurses are calling for the law on abortion to be changed so that they can perform terminations on women in the early stages of pregnancy.

Their request comes as Channel 4 prepares to broadcast footage taken during the abortion of a 16-week-old foetus for the first time on British TV. The scenes in Wednesday's Dispatches documentary will fuel the growing debate on abortion, which Parliament is preparing to review for the first time since 1990.

The Royal College of Nursing, which represents the country's 390,000 nurses, has asked for the 1967 Abortion Act to be amended to allow both nurses and midwives with extra training to carry out surgical abortions on women in the first 13 weeks of pregnancy and also to prescribe the abortion pill. Only doctors may now perform terminations.

The RCN has made its demands in a written submission to the Commons select committee on science and technology, which starts an inquiry tomorrow into whether abortion law needs a major overhaul.

The document points out that a growing number of nurses and midwives already carry out a range of complex surgical procedures that have traditionally been the preserve of doctors, such as colposcopies, hysteroscopies and fitting intrauterine devices.

Dr Peter Carter, the RCN's general secretary, said: 'When the Abortion Act was written, it didn't include nurses. We want it clarified once and for all that nurses can do first trimester abortions. Nurses feel they could be involved in these [two] areas more closely.'

Women seeking an abortion would benefit because it would help them to get quicker access to treatment, said Carter. At the moment, women in some parts of the country face delays in accessing abortion services because of a growing ethical reluctance among doctors to be involved. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which represents the 5,500 doctors in Britain who specialise in pregnancy and women's health, has thrown its weight behind the RCN's call. In its submission to the select committee it says: 'A recent randomised control trial published in the Lancet has shown that first trimester abortion using manual evacuation [the termination procedure often used on women up to 12 weeks] can be provided safely by appropriately trained nurses.'

Dr Kate Guthrie, an RCOG spokeswoman on abortion, said allowing nurses to carry out early terminations would help to relieve pressure on overstretched NHS staff and supplement the declining number of doctors prepared to carry out abortions. Speaking in a personal capacity, Dr Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat MP on the committee and a former hospital doctor, said: 'The committee will look carefully at all the evidence before making a recommendation, although the support for this by both the RCOG and the RCN is obviously notable.

'It is likely that the 40-year-old ban on nurses providing abortions will be raised next year when the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill comes before Parliament and many MPs will look to the Royal Colleges for guidance.'

>snip<

link

If Britain allows this, the US will follow.
I've believed for a long time (and suggested more than once) that first-trimester abortions should be delegated as necessary to nurses, midwives, even trained laypeople who have been through some sort of program and received a certification.
It is a simple, low-risk outpatient procedure which takes all of five minutes or less.
Nurses routinely perform far more complex and invasive procedures than abortion.
It is currently restricted only to doctors for political- not medical, health, or safety- reasons. The reason is to increase barriers to access. A doctor's time is worth more than a nurse's; therefore, abortions cost more than they ought to. There are fewer doctors than nurses, and fewer still who offer abortion services.
This is a trifling waste of doctors' valuable time and expertise, which could better be spent elsewhere.
Women's reproductive health has already largely been delegated to nurse-practitioners; I can't remember the last time I saw a doctor for any reason at Planned Parenthood; it's nurse practitioners doing everything- pelvics, breast exams, pap tests, colposcopies, prescribing birth control, everything.
And that's fine. Keep the costs down, keep access unrestricted.
Put abortion in nurses' capable hands.
Women who prefer to have the procedure performed by an MD can pay extra.

...so we have schools with nurses...schools who issue hormonal BC...and we have Mr. Judicial Bypass, assuming the state even requires parental consent....so when lil 11-17 y/o sally becomes sexualy active, no one will tell her parents, and when the school needs to treat her for std's, no one will tell her parents, and when the school aborts her child, no one will tell the parents....I live with a woman who was sexualized at a very young age, so yes this is anicdotal but I personaly know first hand the efect this will have on the families of those children, and by extencion sociaty as a whole.........as it was in the day of Noah........I'm so glad I don't have any doughters.....

1069 · Oct 19, 2007

I'm so glad I don't have any doughters.....

"doughters"?

Would those be like miniature doughgirls?
If so, I'm glad I don't have any either.

Jerry · Oct 19, 2007

1069 said:
"doughters"?
Would those be like miniature doughgirls?
If so, I'm glad I don't have any either.

Either or...they all come from you breading michiens....how do you feel about handcuffs....

1069 · Oct 19, 2007

Jerry said:
....how do you feel about handcuffs....

I feel fine about them, in their place.

Jerry · Oct 19, 2007

1069 said:
I feel fine about them, in their place.

What about a satin or silk rope instead, any prefrence there?

Nurses 'should perform abortions'

1069

Shayah

יותר מקו

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Snapler

New member

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways

Just Crazy Enough to Work

ARealConservative

cookies crumble

Snapler

New member

1069

Felicity

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All

OKgrannie

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Felicity

OKgrannie

Ivan The Terrible

Ivan The Terrible > All

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways

Just Crazy Enough to Work

Felicity

tryreading

Steve

1069

Edify_Always_In_All_Ways

Just Crazy Enough to Work

Jerry

1069

Jerry

1069

Jerry

Nurses 'should perform abortions'

&#1497;&#1493;&#1514;&#1512; &#1502;&#1511;&#1493;

Rule of Two

New member

Just Crazy Enough to Work

cookies crumble

New member

Ivan The Terrible > All

Rule of Two

Ivan The Terrible > All

Just Crazy Enough to Work

Steve

Just Crazy Enough to Work

יותר מקו