Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

smacl

jameorahiely wrote: »

If it has improved since April, it was a very strange decision to suspend services in August.

And those services resumed in October. From the report

Due to the number of concerns arising from the inspection of this and other MSI locations, we inspected the governance systems at the MSI corporate (provider) level in late July and August 2016. We identified serious concerns and MSI undertook the immediate voluntary suspension of the following services as of 19 August 2016 across its locations, where applicable:

Suspension of the termination of pregnancy for children and young people aged under 18 and those aged 18 and over who are vulnerable, to include those with a learning disability
Suspension of all terminations using general anaesthesia or conscious sedation
Suspension of all surgical terminations at the Norwich Centre

MSI responded to the most serious patient safety concerns we raised and was able to lift the restrictions on the provision of its termination of pregnancy services at this location on 7 October 2016.

jameorahiely

smacl wrote: »

And those services resumed in October. From the report

While it's good they've promised to stop holding down vulnerable women and give them abortions without their consent. It would be very misleading to describe them as having done nothing morally or legally wrong, wouldn't you agree?

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Parties of perpetual opposition not willing to be part of a government don't count.

I was just picking them because they have the most 'advanced' position. SF, Greens, Labour and SDs are all fully signed up for 'repealing the 8th' as well though.

smacl

jameorahiely wrote: »

While it's good they've promised to stop holding down vulnerable women and give them abortions without their consent. It would be very misleading to describe them as having done nothing morally or legally wrong, wouldn't you agree?

You might want to quote where in the report they mention holding down vulnerable women. Nearest I could find was this'

Patients were given plenty of information and advice and nurses and doctors were competent and experienced. However, there was not proper support to help women with learning disabilities give informed consent to treatment. Some staff were taking consent to treatment without the appropriate level of safeguarding training and competency for the vulnerability and complex needs of many patients receiving the service.

which resulted in the following recommendation

Put in place protocols for obtaining consent, pathways, and support for all patients who lack capacity to consent including those adult patients with a learning disability

You seem to be adding a substantial amount of drama from your own imagination to support your own agenda. It doesn't concur with the CQC report.

Hotblack Desiato

Who impregnated these women with learning disabilities, and what consent did they obtain?

jameorahiely

smacl wrote: »

You might want to quote where in the report they mention holding down vulnerable women. Nearest I could find was this'



which resulted in the following recommendation



You seem to be adding a substantial amount of drama from your own imagination to support your own agenda. It doesn't concur with the CQC report.

Why are you linking to one report from the clinic in Birmimghan? Have you not read the full report from all the clinics?

Whilst inspecting at one location we observed a woman with a
known learning disability attend the clinic without a friend or
supporter. The patient had noted on their record from the
telephone consultation that they had learning difficulties.
Although advised to attend the clinic with a friend or relative for
support, they came alone and the treatment continued.
Consent to treatment for this patient was not carried out in a
way they could understand and we observed the situation was
poorly and insensitively handled by doctors. It became
apparent that staff had not checked discharge arrangements
for this patient. Local leaders confirmed there was no pathway
in place to support adult patients with learning disabilities,
including no signposting to independent advocacy services.

222233

I don't understand how they are responsible for someone with a disability choosing to have an abortion?? Should people with disabilities not be entitled to the same level of responsibility as everyone else??

I don't believe it is their job to assess their clients intellectual, cognitive functioning etc... How are they to "know" if someone has a disability, based on assumption / prejudicE? I do understand in this case they were apparently aware however I very much doubt they would have been in a position to refuse treatment or treat a patient differently due to a disability.

MrPudding

222233 wrote: »

I don't understand how they are responsible for someone with a disability choosing to have an abortion?? Should people with disabilities not be entitled to the same level of responsibility as everyone else??

I don't believe it is their job to assess their clients intellectual, cognitive functioning etc... How are they to "know" if someone has a disability, based on assumption / prejudicE? I do understand in this case they were apparently aware however I very much doubt they would have been in a position to refuse treatment or treat a patient differently due to a disability.

It is. The rules on consent are pretty clear, assessing the clients intellectual and cognitive functioning, particularly in respect to their ability to understand and give quality consent is exactly what they should be doing.

MrP

jameorahiely

222233 wrote: »

I don't understand how they are responsible for someone with a disability choosing to have an abortion?? Should people with disabilities not be entitled to the same level of responsibility as everyone else??

I don't believe it is their job to assess their clients intellectual, cognitive functioning etc... How are they to "know" if someone has a disability, based on assumption / prejudicE? I do understand in this case they were apparently aware however I very much doubt they would have been in a position to refuse treatment or treat a patient differently due to a disability.

Yes it is as Mr. P has explained also, they were mafe aware of it in the consultation as is stated im the report

jameorahiely

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Who impregnated these women with learning disabilities, and what consent did they obtain?

The didnt follow safegaurding and reporting so the failed their duty to follow it up. So who knows?

During our inspection of one location, we observed an incident
involving a patient who became very distressed, where we
witnessed inappropriate behaviour by a surgeon. Although we
wrote to MSI to inform the provider of the incident and ask for
an update as to how it had been dealt with, the incident was
not reported through the MSI incident reporting system.
However we did not witness the practice of dealing with
patients with a learning disability at the other seven clinical
locations.
• The national safeguarding lead had raised issues with the
reporting of incidents in June 2016 at the clinical governance
committee meeting. However, no action had been taken to
address these concerns.

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

Why are you linking to one report from the clinic in Birmimghan? Have you not read the full report from all the clinics?

Re the disabled patient, I'm taking the liberty of presuming the "they" is being used by CQC to protect that patient's identity & prevent it from being revealed as required by law. The use of the "they" is becoming common practice and it does not actually mean or infer that there is more than one patient involved, and that then transfers unto the number of clinics concerned where the specific CQC report mention is concerned, which may be only one.

jameorahiely

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the patient, I'm taking the liberty of presuming the "they" is being used by CQC to protect the patient's identity & prevent it from being revealed as required by law. The use of the "they" is becoming common practice and it does not actually mean or infer that there is more than one patient involved, and that then transfers unto the number of clinics concerned where the CQC report is concerned, which may be only one.

I'm mot sure whatyou mean. Thete was lots more than 1 clinic audited. The poster linked to the report of 1 clinic in Birmimgham. Failings were found at more than 1 and using 1 report rather than the summary of all the cini s is disingenuous.

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

I'm mot sure whatyou mean. Thete was lots more than 1 clinic audited. The poster linked to the report of 1 clinic in Birmimgham. Failings were found at more than 1 and using 1 report rather than the summary of all the cini s is disingenuous.

I was referring to the disabled patient which you referred to, who was at one clinic. That specific incident was at one clinic. I agree with you that the CQC report also covered other MSI clinics and procedural failings noted on how patient Admin could and should be improved on to halt any chance of medical procedure errors.

jameorahiely

aloyisious wrote: »

I was referring to the disabled patient which you referred to, who was at one clinic. That specific incident was at one clinic. I agree with you that the CQC report also covered other MSI clinics and procedural failings noted on how patient Admin could and should be improved on to halt any chance of medical procedure errors.

Yes. It wa lots more than admin though and across mamy clinics . Abortion remains left in open bins, safegaurding not folowed. Consent procedures not followed. Staff not trainedEtc. Here's the full summary report, I still baffled why someone chose to only link to the findings in the Birminghan clinic.

http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/new_reports/AAAF9029.pdf

aloyisious

jameorahiely wrote: »

Yes. It wa lots more than admin though and across mamy clinics . Abortion remains left in open bins, safegaurding not folowed. Consent procedures not followed. Staff not trainedEtc. Here's the full summary report, I still baffled why someone chose to only link to the findings in the Birminghan clinic.

http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/new_reports/AAAF9029.pdf

Possibly because there is more than one CQC report around and there are two involved here, one specific to the clinic involved in the disabled patients case and the other referring to clinics in general.

jameorahiely

aloyisious wrote: »

Possibly because there is more than one CQC report around and there are two involved here, one specific to the clinic involved in the disabled patients case and the other referring to clinics in general.

There are lots of reports
They could have linked to the maidstone report where: Theatre staff were wearing jewellery (rings with stones in them) and not washing their hands between operating on patients. Over anaesthesia of patients was a regular occurance and anyone who dared to question it was removed from working in the theater. Discharge proceedures were not followed and women and under 16's were regularly discharged without being fit to travel home alone. FGM was not recognised as abuse and reported as required. 64 failed abortions had occured in the march 2015 to April 2016 period. Time not given for patients discuss consent. A child who didn't understand or have the capacity to give consent getting her sister to sign the form. No referals made for safeguarding the under 16's as is required. Staff describing it as a cattlemart. People with doubts being "persuaded" to go through with it. Parents being avtively being discouraged from supporting their child going through the proceedure. An open top bucket with the product of several terminations being carried through the waiting room area when other patients were waiting... and on it goes... A lot of legally and morrally dubious actions.

volchitsa

I couldn't understand why you seemed to have the same conversation going on over two threads, but following this back I came across this, which is not by you at all :

frostyjacks wrote: »

A 22 second phone call to a non-medically trained call centre worker is all it takes to end a life. Shocking.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4284290/Marie-Stopes-abortions-signed-just-phonecall.html

Even if the mother doesn't give sufficient reasons for wanting to kill her baby, the clinic will just make stuff up. Not in our country, thank you very much.

So you apparently tried to make the same misrepresentation of the situation on the other thread that Frosty jack had tried here some days ago, presumably you were hoping that people would forget that this had been done and dusted earlier :

You - and he - are presenting an inspector's highly critical report of clinical malpractice, for which the clinics were actually made close until things were put right, as being the usual way abortions are carried out in the UK.

That is not true and not honest. And this is the second time in 24 hours that you have been caught at that.

When you have to lie to make your case, you don't have one.

aloyisious

With regard to MSI, abortion service to women and girls is not its sole service to the public. It provides health check-ups to pregnant women, indeed to women in general when it comes to gynaecology and physical sexual health and related matters, such as STI's. To close MSI clinics down completely is quite probably on the wish-list of anti-abortionists, seeing as they don't like abortion-service providers. However, IMO, it doesn't fit into the best interests of women to do so.

jameorahiely

volchitsa wrote: »

I couldn't understand why you seemed to have the same conversation going on over two threads, but following this back I came across this, which is not by you at all :



So you apparently tried to make the same misrepresentation of the situation on the other thread that Frosty jack had tried here some days ago, presumably you were hoping that people would forget that this had been done and dusted earlier :

You - and he - are presenting an inspector's highly critical report of clinical malpractice, for which the clinics were actually made close until things were put right, as being the usual way abortions are carried out in the UK.

That is not true and not honest. And this is the second time in 24 hours that you have been caught at that.

When you have to lie to make your case, you don't have one.

If this is directed at me which I have a feeling it is:

Shock horror that more than one person reads a newspaper :rolleyes:

Are you the only one allowed to contribute to both threads?

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

If this is directed at me which I have a feeling it is:

Shock horror that more than one person reads a newspaper :rolleyes:

Are you the only one allowed to contribute to both threads?

Hardly - I'm just pointing out that you copied Frostyjack's attempt at misrepresenting the actual situation on this thread and tried to do the same thing on the other thread.

A report into clinical malpractice in specific UK clinics is no more a description of what is normal in the UK than the HIQA report into Savita Halappanavar is a description of miscarriage in Ireland.

jameorahiely

volchitsa wrote: »

Hardly - I'm just pointing out that you copied Frostyjack's attempt at misrepresenting the actual situation on this thread and tried to do the same thing on the other thread.

A report into clinical malpractice in specific UK clinics is no more a description of what is normal in the UK than the HIQA report into Savita Halappanavar is a description of miscarriage in Ireland.

Then why did you prentend in the other thread my mention was the first you'd heard if it?

If you can't grasp the difference between one case and systematic failures, so be it.

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

Then why did you prentend in the other thread my mention was the first you'd heard if it?

If you can't grasp the difference between one case and systematic failures, so be it.

I didn't say any such thing, you informed me that it seemed to be the first I'd heard of it.

I didn't recognize your description of abortion providers in the UK - and for reason, since that report was into anomalies, not a description of what was usual.

If I picked up every inaccuracy in your posts I'd have to give up my day job.
That was an utterly unimportant one so I didn't bother.

stefanovich

Just to let you all know. You can not believe in religion and also be anti-abortion. You do not need to accept the atheist dogma.

volchitsa

stefanovich wrote: »

Just to let you all know. You can not believe in religion and also be anti-abortion. You do not need to accept the atheist dogma.

Sure, and apparently you can be a Christian and support child abuse too. As we've seen.

It's nothing to do with atheism that makes it necessary to allow women control of their bodies, it's about women having normal human rights that's all. Even when they're pregnant.

jameorahiely

volchitsa wrote: »

Sure, and apparently you can be a Christian and support child abuse too. As we've seen.

It's nothing to do with atheism that makes it necessary to allow women control of their bodies, it's about women having normal human rights that's all. Even when they're pregnant.

Sure even athetiests can support the abuse of women, as we've seen

volchitsa

jameorahiely wrote: »

Sure even athetiests can support the abuse of women, as we've seen

Of course but I'm not the one making the connections between religion or no religion and being pro choice, so that's not a reply to my point at all.

Being pro choice is about supporting equal rights for women, and about believing that an embryo is not as important as the woman keeping it alive.

I guess it's possible for someone to believe this strongly, and yet to be prepared to hit a woman around the head for disrespecting him - though it seems rather contradictory to me.

OTOH we did have a cardinal who protected a child abuser over his victims, so anything is possible I suppose.

stefanovich

volchitsa wrote: »

It's nothing to do with atheism that makes it necessary to allow women control of their bodies, it's about women having normal human rights that's all. Even when they're pregnant.

What about the rights of the human inside them whose life is being ended before it even begun?

smacl

jameorahiely wrote: »

The poster linked to the report of 1 clinic in Birmimgham.

Your original post referred to 'the most recent cqc report (dec 2016) on marie stopes' and the report I linked was what google came up with, i.e. a Dec 2016 report on a Marie Stopes clinic. Perhaps in future if you have a specific report in mind you should provide a link. You made three other replies based on the report I linked prior to deciding it wasn't in fact the report that you were referring to.

jameorahiely wrote: »

While it's good they've promised to stop holding down vulnerable women and give them abortions without their consent.

So which of these reports refers to 'holding down vulnerable women' because I'm still not seeing it.

volchitsa

stefanovich wrote: »

What about the rights of the human inside them whose life is being ended before it even begun?

I don't think the fetus has any rights over the woman's body, like I don't think you can be held down and and had your blood taken, not even to save someone's life.

It'd be nice if you would do that, but the truth is that lots of people die for lack of kidney or bone marrow donors, but we don't force people to donate all the same.

MrPudding

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think the fetus has any rights over the woman's body, like I don't think you can be held down and and had your blood taken, not even to save someone's life.

It'd be nice if you would do that, but the truth is that lots of people die for lack of kidney or bone marrow donors, but we don't force people to donate all the same.

Yes, but pregnant women are just, you know, women. He is a man, how could you possibly think that forcing a woman to remain pregnant for 9 months to save another human is remotely on the same level as inconveniencing him for the 10 minutes it would take to remove a pint of his blood, which would replace itself fairly quickly? What is this? Feminisim gone mad?

MrP