The Students' Union & Abortion

Captain Flaps

Sparks wrote: »

I was saying that the SU giving out any form of medical advice at all was wrong. Whether it came in the form of a religious lecture or an all-expenses paid trip abroad is just an irrelevant detail. The SU hasn't got a medical licence, and there's no regulation as to what they tell someone; the idea that that would be the source of medical advice is so wrong that I'm actually rather surprised something rather tragic hasn't happened to one of those seeking advice from them already.

That supports my point that it's individuals' opinions rather than the organisation as a whole which could cause problems. But yeah, obviously if the advice isn't regulated and can be proven to be poor, there're going to be problems. Don't forget you get medical professionals who have vested interests too...

Sparks wrote: »

You know, after four years as an undergrad, seven as a postgrad and two as staff, I've still not figured out if the SU even has a purpose at all past running the Ball and printing the newspaper.

No arguments there

Sparks wrote: »

it's a crapshoot as to whether you get helpful advice (Well Woman Centre/Marie Stokes) or a religious "lecture" (for lecture, read psychological bullying session and you'll get a better picture of what happens in those places).

So why, instead of going to a possibly biased centre which will force them into a decision, should the student not be able to chat to an SU representative who won't take them any further than casually chatting about the many options available?

Sparks wrote: »

If you mean, however, that any doctor who gave advice on abortions was going to lose their licence, you are wrong and you shouldn't be spreading that kind of rumour, lest someone who needs to ask their doctor believes you. Doctors are completely free to give advice on all the options available to someone who's pregnant - and in fact, not giving that advice might well be grounds for a malpractice suit or at least a formal complaint.

Ok, I probably worded that badly. If you went to a Doctor and said "I'm pregnant and don't necessarily want to be", is the doctor allowed to tell you that you're able to go to the UK to get an abortion? Would he or she not come under a lot of flak for that? That's a question btw, because I'm honestly unenlightened on this particular part of it. I vaguely remember a case in recent years where the Dr. played a reasonable role in the proceedings but I haven't the time to go digging around for it at the minute. If I find anything later I'll post it.

Sparks wrote: »

See, this is what I mean by Mind your own business - if you'd ever been in that spot, you'd know the answer is yes, and that the question betrays a complete lack of personal knowledge of the topic.

Wow, that certainly wasn't condusive to reasoned debate. If you re-read my post, you'll note that I was being hypothetical. Of course it's a big deal, I don't need a womb or a pregnant girlfriend to know and acknowledge that. I just don't want to see the significance of it all diminished by the widespread availability of abortions for anyone who wants one, because I think that if it's easy to get some people will treat it as a last defense form of contraception.

But that's neither here nor there, it's my own opinion, easily incorrect, and has little relevance to the OP, so I'm going to drop it. Apologies if I offended, I didn't mean to get you so worked up.

Boston

Theres the law, and then there's what the medical council decide is best practice. Despite what you may thing, they're the ones who have determined Irish abortion policy.

Mark200

Sparks wrote: »

Prove it.
And if you can't, please don't go about asking others to accept that, lest they actually do so.

Seriously, this is precisely what I mean by learning the phrase Mind your own business. What did it cost you there to defend the SU as a good place to get advice as opposed to a medical professional? Nothing. What would it cost you if you were wrong? Nothing. What would it cost someone who took you up on your advice and found out the hard way that it was wrong? A lot.

Well you're a bit of a rude person. What exactly am I supposed to prove? That they care Well if it makes any difference, I went to the same school as the new Welfare Office and lived just around the corner from him and he seemed like a non-political nice guy. Last I heard, he hasn't recently told pregnant girls to abort just for fun of it.

What's the difference between asking a Welfare Officer for advice and asking a friend for advice? Ok, you aren't 100% sure if the Welfare Officer "cares" but besides that neither of them are medical professionals and neither have anything real to lose by giving bad advice.

Sparks wrote: »

What would it cost someone who took you up on your advice and found out the hard way that it was wrong? A lot.

Is that to me there? Because if it is, I don't really know what advice it is that you're accusing me of giving.

Boston

Mark200 wrote: »

Well you're a bit of a rude person. What exactly am I supposed to prove? That they care Well if it makes any difference, I went to the same school as the new Welfare Office and lived just around the corner from him and he seemed like a non-political nice guy. Last I heard, he hasn't recently told pregnant girls to abort just for fun of it.

The majority of Welfare officers and candidates I've seen in my years have run for a combination of political, popularity, and social reasons. I've no idea why Cormac ran for welfare officer, tbh he always struck me as more suit the the ents position.

What's the difference between asking a Welfare Officer for advice and asking a friend for advice? Ok, you aren't 100% sure if the Welfare Officer "cares" but besides that neither of them are medical professionals and neither have anything real to lose by giving bad advice.

Very little difference, the welfare officer might be better informed and have access to more resources but you're more likely to be able to trust the friend.

shay_562

Boston wrote:

Yea, but like, fuk them. If someone wants to ignore the opportunity to get medical advice and instead rely on advice from a untrained, unqualified college student who probably spent the previous night sleeping in their own piss and vomit, then go right a head. It's your moronic decision.

This, more or less, but phrased nicer. Sparks, I can see where you're coming from - taking the TCDSU Welfare Officer to be the 100% authority on all medical matters would be idiocy, and I don't think even the most devout of Union hacks would pretend otherwise. The same can be said (as I believe you mentioned upthread) of many 'civilian'-run advice helplines - I know people who work for Childline, Aware and various other counselling lines, who have minimal training or qualification, but can at least offer an ear and some measure of help. I reckon the Welfare officer can do the same, and in much the same way, having them there is better than not having them, because you can't (IMO) have too many different places for people to go to when they're in trouble. I'd agree that someone seeking medical advice might be better served going to a real doctor, but what if someone just wants someone who'll listen? If they just want to talk for a while, but feel embarrassed/guilty/stupid admitting to their friends that they've gotten themselves knocked up? The Welfare Officer doesn't work if used as your last port of advice on all medical matters, but someone who uses it as that is just as likely to use ramblings in PI, or the biased opinion of a friend, so I don't see that having the Welfare Officer in place does any more harm. I don't think that every Welfare officer is an altruistic saint who does the job for purely selfless reasons, but I've known quite a few of them (as well as various others who have run and lost) over the past few years, and they strike me by and large as a pretty genuine group of people who'd have done the best they could to help people.

I just think it's kinda pointless to say that the Welfare office shouldn't be giving out medical advice when I don't think even they would contend that they should be, and kinda unfair to suggest that Welfare Officers are only doing it for selfish reasons. President, Ents, even Dep Pres can be hugely politicised. I can't see many uber-hacks running for Welfare or Education just because of the massive career boost that will no doubt result from a year of giving out condoms, cups of tea and running awareness weeks.

Sparks

Captain Flaps wrote: »

Don't forget you get medical professionals who have vested interests too...

I know; but it's far less likely and far more punishable than with the SU.

So why, instead of going to a possibly biased centre which will force them into a decision, should the student not be able to chat to an SU representative who won't take them any further than casually chatting about the many options available?

Because the SU is exactly the same thing, only less well financed, less well established, less experienced, and without medical professionals on staff, and without even their reputation to lose in the event that they don't spot they've put an Opus Dei crackpot in as a crisis pregnancy counsellor.

Ok, I probably worded that badly. If you went to a Doctor and said "I'm pregnant and don't necessarily want to be", is the doctor allowed to tell you that you're able to go to the UK to get an abortion?

Yes. They may also refuse to do so on personal grounds, but they can't legally lie to you about your options.

Wow, that certainly wasn't condusive to reasoned debate.

Completely correct. It wasn't intended to be conducive to reasoned debate. It was intended to point out that this isn't a debate, and going about proclaiming your opinion as truth when you've nothing invested in the outcome is immoral and wrong. This is a situation where there's enormous potential for insensitive expression of opinion to cause damage, and I don't mean tweaking someone's ego, I mean causing suicides and depression and a dozen other pretty appalling outcomes.

Frankly, I don't think this is something we should be debating in here in this manner.

Sparks

Mark200 wrote: »

Well you're a bit of a rude person.

Damn right, on this issue.

What exactly am I supposed to prove?

That if my daughter is pregnant, that she can trust that the medical advice she gets is accurate, unbiased and confidential.

You can't prove that with the SU.

That's it, that's all there is to it as far as I'm concerned.
I have no problem with them saying "ah, you need medical advice, there's the doctor over there". I have no problem with them advising you on academic or college topics, though again, there are better sources. The moment they go past that and into giving medical advice, I think it's unacceptable, even when it's well-intentioned.

he seemed like a non-political nice guy. Last I heard, he hasn't recently told pregnant girls to abort just for fun of it.

And if you're wrong, what do you lose? Seriously?

What's the difference between asking a Welfare Officer for advice and asking a friend for advice?

Apart from not knowing the W.O. and their having a false patina of respectability to someone who is badly stressed? Nothing. Thing is, it's all nice for us to know that, sitting here on a nice sunday afternoon without a care in the world - but that's not the condition that those seeking advice on this are in. The words "stressed", "isolated", "suggestible", "vulnerable" and "desperate" come to mind rather rapidly when thinking about the condition they're in.

Is that to me there? Because if it is, I don't really know what advice it is that you're accusing me of giving.

Specifically, that you should seek advice from the SU because they give good advice.
You shouldn't - if you need medical advice (and with a crisis pregnancy, you do), you should see a doctor.

Captain Flaps

Sparks wrote: »

going about proclaiming your opinion as truth when you've nothing invested in the outcome is immoral and wrong.

That's exactly what you're doing.

Sparks

shay_562 wrote: »

taking the TCDSU Welfare Officer to be the 100% authority on all medical matters would be idiocy

Shay, I know what you're trying to say, but you're wrong and that quote is why you're wrong.

For just one moment, please, put yourself in the mind of someone who is in need of medical advice because of an unplanned pregnancy while an undergrad. Keep in mind all of the work that's gone into getting them to college, keep in mind all of the stress and the isolation and the fear that can be present. It's not hard to talk to friends about being pregnant like that because they're embarressed - it's hard to talk because of fear. Expecting someone in that situation to exhibit perfect judgement is unreasonable and inhumane.

Look, I'll give you an analogy - self-defence. The law on self-defence in Ireland states that if you believe at the time that your life is in peril, then you can do whatever you think is necessary at the time to defend yourself; and here's the point - the law very specifically does not require you to be correct about your belief at the time. It very specifically draws a line between being there at the time and looking at the event with hindsight. It does this, and it's right to do this, because there's a massive difference in a person's mental states when under stress and when not under stress.

You cannot just say "erra, if you got medical advice from a welfare officer you'd be an eejit to believe it". You cannot do this because when you're under stress, you're not an eejit to believe them, you're just being human. And it's inhumane to expect someone to be utterly detached and objective under that kind of stress.

Sparks

Captain Flaps wrote: »

That's exactly what you're doing.

Actually, it's not, because I'm not talking about someone in need of medical advice, I'm talking about everyone else who's so eager to decide on what they should do; and what I'm saying is:

• if you have an opinion on what someone in that situation should do and you're neither asked for it by them nor involved directly, then do the responsible thing and shut up rather than inflict suffering on them.
• if you have an opinion on what someone in that situation should do and you're asked by them, then do the responsible thing and shut up and tell them to seek out a doctor instead of boosting your ego by being the person who tells them what to do. Go with them, hold their hand, be supportive - but let a qualified professional give the medical advice. You're meant to be their friend, not their saviour.

Or, more succintly, Mind your own business.

Captain Flaps

Sparks wrote: »

You cannot just say "erra, if you got medical advice from a welfare officer you'd be an eejit to believe it". You cannot do this because when you're under stress, you're not an eejit to believe them, you're just being human. And it's inhumane to expect someone to be utterly detached and objective under that kind of stress.

Sparks, I do actually agree with you to an extent, though I'd take issue with some of the words you used. I'm just pointing out that it's not a cut and dried issue and you'd do well to acknowledge there is legitimate debate for both sides. tbqh I wouldn't trust the SU for anything, but I'm familiar with the history of incompetence. I was taking issue with your refusal to even discuss it.

I'm trying to engage you in a debate, it has nothing to do with ego. Of course if I knew someone who was in a crisis, I would help them in any way I could. I'd at least give them advice, if requested, them knowing damn well it's just my opinion and it would be rash to act based soley on that. Obviously they should be going straight to a doctor, but I think it's 'inhumane', as you put it, to suggest that instead of offering comfort I'd send them off to the doctor.

johnl

Sparks wrote: »

embarressed

embarrassed

shay_562

Sparks wrote:

You cannot just say "erra, if you got medical advice from a welfare officer you'd be an eejit to believe it". You cannot do this because when you're under stress, you're not an eejit to believe them, you're just being human. And it's inhumane to expect someone to be utterly detached and objective under that kind of stress.

So what, then? You're painting the picture of someone who is stressed, scared and doesn't know what to do (all fair enough), who for whatever reason doesn't want to go to a medical professional just yet (and I can think of plenty of reasons - fear of being judged by them is a big one, something that you'll be less afraid will happen with someone your own age who's a student just like you), and saying "It's better to have less sources of help and advice for them, because not all of those sources can be fully medically competent". You're saying that someone is thinking irrationally, yet if we reduce the number of places they can go for information to 1, they'll no doubt pick that one, as opposed to not seeking help at all because they're, as you say, acting a bit crazy. Doesn't follow, doesn't make sense.

Your main problem, throughout all your posts, seems to be that someone will get bad advice from an SU welfare officer stepping outside the bounds of their remit to offer medical advice and not bothering telling the person to seek further advice from their doctor. I reckon that this would only ever happen in an extreme minority of cases, and is just as likely to happen with advice from friends, the internet, or any number of non-medical counselling services. I don't see what's so wrong with the SU offering another port of call for scared students that, more often than not, will help to calm them down and send them to the right people.

johnl

johnl wrote: »

embarrassed

Utterly useless contribution to this thread. There have been more than one warning given; banned for 5 days.

Sparks

shay_562 wrote: »

"It's better to have less sources of help and advice for them, because not all of those sources can be fully medically competent". You're saying that someone is thinking irrationally, yet if we reduce the number of places they can go for information to 1, they'll no doubt pick that one, as opposed to not seeking help at all because they're, as you say, acting a bit crazy. Doesn't follow, doesn't make sense.

It doesn't seem intuitive, yes - but it's very, very real. It's called the paradox of choice in decision theory.

Captain Flaps

Boston wrote: »

the welfare officer might be better informed and have access to more resources but you're more likely to be able to trust the friend.

I don't see how that's an argument against the welfare office giving out advice.

Boston

My user name doesn't say "Sparks". I believe the onus is on you to ensure you seek advice from the right people.

Captain Flaps

Boston wrote: »

My user name doesn't say "Sparks". I believe the onus is on you to ensure you seek advice from the right people.

Ah now, there's no need for the snide remarks. The quote above kind of disregards all of the points raised by both sides through this discussion. I was making a point, because you mentioned earlier that you saw the SU as a bunch of twats sleeping in pools of vomit, and now you're saying that they're an informed place to discuss things?

Boston

I said the welfare officer might be better informed then some mate.

Captain Flaps

Boston wrote: »

I said the welfare officer might be better informed then some mate.

Aye, better informed than a friend. And yet Sparks thinks that no advice is valid other than that of the doctor. There's a gaping hole between realising you're knocked up and nipping down the doctor's. If the SU can help fill that hole with a bit of impartial info which might help you come to terms with it before you have to face the doctor, more power to them.

Boston

You have to weigh up the advice your given, a doctor may be influence by his or her own religious beliefs.

Captain Flaps

Boston wrote: »

You have to weigh up the advice your given, a doctor may be influence by his or her own religious beliefs.

A point which I made in my first post in this thread.

Kopf

I see the students union's provision of information on baby-killing as simple eugenics wrapped up in an illusion of "choice" and "support". The idea that encouraging a mother-to-be to have her own baby killed while still inside her is somehow "supportive" is blatant doublethink.

Trinity wants to, so to say, "curb" the rise in population so that there is less demand for Trinity college places by True Irish People, so that they can fill the college with foreigners. This is the REAL meaning of the so-called "Irish Smart Economy" - our tax money goes to exporting valuable knowledge, since it works out cheapest and easiest for the colleges, while the future bright sparks of Ireland, the true sons and daughters of the Irish land are whisked from the womb.

I would, while it was smiling in my face,
Have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums,
And dash'd the brains out

Just my 2c.

Boston

Your theory has merit and explains why they put RU486 in the water in the arts block.

Kopf

Boston wrote: »

Your theory has merit and explains why they put RU486 in the water in the arts block.

Don't be daft.

Boston

I put it this way, have you drank from the fountain in the arts block and have you every carried a child to term. Conclusive proof if ever it was needed.

Cantab.

So what's the rationale behind only providing the number for the "Irish Family Planning Association"? Do they sponsor the SU or something?

Boston

They're;

1. Well established for over 40 years.
2. Provide a varities of sex and sexuality services, not just crisis pregnancy, meaning they're possible in a position to deal with some of the underlining problems which may have lead to the crisis pregnancy
3. They're a not for profit organisation
4. They appear to have no idealogical foundation.
5. They have professionals who are in a position to dispense medical advice.
6. They are a national organisation mean that there can be consistency between universities.
7. They provide training and its possible that the organisation was where the welfare officers received there's.

Captain Flaps

Boston wrote: »

They're;

1. Well established for over 40 years.
2. Provide a varities of sex and sexuality services, not just crisis pregnancy, meaning they're possible in a position to deal with some of the underlining problems which may have lead to the crisis pregnancy
3. They're a not for profit organisation
4. They appear to have no idealogical foundation.
5. They have professionals who are in a position to dispense medical advice.
6. They are a national organisation mean that there can be consistency between universities.
7. They provide training and its possible that the organisation was where the welfare officers received there's.

Yeah Boston, but somewhere in there they provide info on the possibility of abortion and, regardless of how rarely it's suggested as an option to a minority of people using the service, that makes them all child murderers in our friend cantab.'s eyes.

Cantab.

Boston wrote: »

They're;

1. Well established for over 40 years.
2. Provide a varities of sex and sexuality services, not just crisis pregnancy, meaning they're possible in a position to deal with some of the underlining problems which may have lead to the crisis pregnancy
3. They're a not for profit organisation
4. They appear to have no idealogical foundation.
5. They have professionals who are in a position to dispense medical advice.
6. They are a national organisation mean that there can be consistency between universities.
7. They provide training and its possible that the organisation was where the welfare officers received there's.

All the above equally apply to CURA. Why isn't their number listed? (please don't try and claim that the IFPA is somehow ideologically "neutral")

You forgot the zeroth law of the "Irish Family Planning Association": the promotion of abortion in Ireland.