News RSS Feed


Hospitals forced to contract out abortions

5:17pm Sunday 18th May 2008

comment Comments (20)   Have your say »


Doctors and nurses are refusing to carry out abortions on moral grounds, forcing the NHS to contract them out to the private sector.

Medics at Eastbourne District General Hospital have forged an agreement that they will not carry out terminations for "social" reasons after 14 weeks of pregnancy - even though the legal limit is 24 weeks.

One of the country's leading gynaecologists - who worked at the hospital for 19 years - last night said the policy reflected increasing unease among medical staff across Britain over late terminations.

Consultant Dr Vincent Argent said carrying out late abortions caused a major moral conflicts for doctors.

Dr Argent, a former director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said: "Late abortions conflict with everything doctors and nurses are trained to do - preserve life."

His opinion has been backed by representatives from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and BPAS.

Dr Argent was speaking ahead of debates due to be held in Parliament tomorrow (on Tuesday) about the Government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Pro-life MPs have argued for an amendment changing the maximum legal limit for "social" abortions, those carried out on healthy foetuses through parental choice.

Politicians will by asked to vote on whether they believe the limit should be brought earlier, with 13, 16, 18, 20 and 22 weeks expected to be considered.

Dr Argent said the number of NHS doctors prepared to carry out late abortions had dwindled and many hospitals were being forced to contract them out to private clinics or charities.

Around 75% of abortions carried out after 17 weeks of pregnancy each year have been done outside the NHS.

Dr Argent has urged MPs to back plans to bring the limit forward.

Eastbourne MP Nigel Waterson supported his case and would be voting to reduce the time period for abortions.

He told The Argus: "This does not surprise me. It must be depressing for medical staff to be asked to carry out late term abortions when they know that medical science has advanced so much since the 1960s when the original act was was passed and that many premature babies can now survive."

East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust, which runs the EDGH, confirmed that there was a 14 week limit for social abortions but made clear that staff still carried out terminations which were necessary for medical reasons later in pregnancy.

But the trust declined to comment further on the issue.

Sussex Pro-Life campaigner Judy Law said she could not support the bill because she felt changes were wrongly being made in conjunction with policies on embryology.

She added that she was concerned that no changes were being made to laws which allow pregnancies to be terminated at any time if the child has a disability.

She said: "People need to be aware of the reality of abortion, that it is actually killing a child.

"Whatever age a termination is carried out it doesn't matter. Life starts at conception.

"The message being sent out about disabilities is worrying. It suggests to people with disabilities that their life is not as important as others."

Should abortion after 14 weeks be outlawed?


Your Say YourThe Argus

mark, brighton says...
7:51pm Sun 18 May 08

the question of abortion after 14 weeks is not the point of the story, surely the nhs could collapse if staff decided what should and should not be done. should smokers be given expensive heart surgery? should muslim staff look after jewish people.? the point is that staff may not be happy working on various people, imagine looking after a child molester? could i say i dont want him to be treated? its a big can of worms , if we can say what staff do in work.

Matron, says...
7:58pm Sun 18 May 08

mark wrote:
the question of abortion after 14 weeks is not the point of the story, surely the nhs could collapse if staff decided what should and should not be done. should smokers be given expensive heart surgery? should muslim staff look after jewish people.? the point is that staff may not be happy working on various people, imagine looking after a child molester? could i say i dont want him to be treated? its a big can of worms , if we can say what staff do in work.
no, you are quite wrong, its enshrined in law that Nurses and Medical staff can opt out of the actual abortion procedure - they are however not allowed to refuse to care for these women, before or after the procedure

Somebodies child, says...
10:11pm Sun 18 May 08

Its legal to kill it while its inside but murder once its popped out, what is it and why is it????

eddy jacobsen, London says...
11:01pm Sun 18 May 08

To "somebodies child"

Correct!! - there is not such an issue as unborn; if life is inside or outside the womb, it is equally the same.
Mother Theresa said this, rightfully so:
"When we are killing the baby inside the woman, how much more couldn't we kill each others - and nations"

www.eddy.nu

SADDENED, Hove says...
7:33am Mon 19 May 08

Doctors' and nurses' jobs are to save lives not kill them for social reasons. It is time for people to accept their responsibilities for creating life. It is time to move away from selfishness and greed.

T.Ruth, says...
8:31am Mon 19 May 08

SADDENED wrote:
Doctors' and nurses' jobs are to save lives not kill them for social reasons. It is time for people to accept their responsibilities for creating life. It is time to move away from selfishness and greed.
I totally agree with you and I wish to add this; no matter what the reasons may be, or how convincing the pro abortionists think their argument is, abortion is nothing less than an act of murder. Feminists can talk themselves silly trying to convince everyone that abortion is the sole right of the mother, but they are wrong and deep down they know they are wrong, because once life begins in the womb an individual human being has been created and no other human being has the right to terminate that life.

Charlie, Brighton says...
8:59am Mon 19 May 08

I am neither for nor against abortion, I believe its up to the idividual/couple iinvolved to choose. This issue always has and always will be a matter of personal choice. People arguing for and people arguing against. If a child is concieved by "accident" say due to faild contraception and it is not viable for the parents to look after a child due to age, money or other circumstances then why not let them have an abortion?

T.Ruth, says...
9:59am Mon 19 May 08

Charlie wrote:
I am neither for nor against abortion, I believe its up to the idividual/couple iinvolved to choose. This issue always has and always will be a matter of personal choice. People arguing for and people arguing against. If a child is concieved by \"accident\" say due to faild contraception and it is not viable for the parents to look after a child due to age, money or other circumstances then why not let them have an abortion?
Why, because the act of abortion (termination of a life) for convenience sake is a ruthlessly selfish act, which for reasons beyond my comprehension is performed by people who would be horrified if they were asked to end the life of that same child once it were born. This leads me to believe that “out of sight out of mind” is a factor that allows otherwise decent people to go through with the act of abortion.

Eco Man, Kemp Town says...
10:30am Mon 19 May 08

Every woman who aborts has to walk along the pavement, and look at a 9-year-old child, and think to herself: that is what the child she aborted would have become.

So many women's aggression when the subject is raised points to an essential feeling of guilt.


A question, Here says...
10:41am Mon 19 May 08

what about if a woman becomes pregnant after she is raped? Or if the fetus is severly deformed and will have no quality of life? What if, you make all abortions ilegal and women in desperate need seek back street abortions and end up dying themselves? Perhaps it is not quite as simple as right or wrong.

steve, accrington says...
11:40am Mon 19 May 08

CONTRACEPTION !

Paul, Brighton Seafront says...
12:11pm Mon 19 May 08

Eco Man wrote:
Every woman who aborts has to walk along the pavement, and look at a 9-year-old child, and think to herself: that is what the child she aborted would have become. So many women's aggression when the subject is raised points to an essential feeling of guilt.
Why a 9 year old specifically?

I am fed up with the NHS having to throw good money after bad for things such as abortions, when the vast majority of them are through careless and wreckless behaviour.

Me, Worthing says...
12:20pm Mon 19 May 08

A question wrote:
what about if a woman becomes pregnant after she is raped? Or if the fetus is severly deformed and will have no quality of life? What if, you make all abortions ilegal and women in desperate need seek back street abortions and end up dying themselves? Perhaps it is not quite as simple as right or wrong.
I completely agree. If a woman is raped she will have to live with the memory of that ordeal for the rest of her life. How much harder must it be when you have a constant reminder in the child that you concived as a result of the rape?

Charlie, brighton says...
12:25pm Mon 19 May 08

steve wrote:
CONTRACEPTION !
see my previous comment, what if contracpetion fails unbeknown to the people involved. untill they realise they are pregnant.

Nic, Brighton says...
12:53pm Mon 19 May 08

Not every case is the same. Someone who just was irresponsible enough not to use contraception should live with their mistake but then again you have problems like women who have been raped and it's then when abortion is understandable.The problem you have with making someone live with their mistake and having the child is that this may result in the child having a poor upbringing,being harmed,or given away.An abortion should be given only at the early staged of the pregnancy.The legal limit is 24weeks, my sister is 22weeks and at this point knows the sex of the baby,can see its full grown body and can feel it kicking.At this point in the pregnancy you are killing a person.Perhaps the law on abortions should be re-looked at as i can understand how the nurses and doctors feel.Could you kill a baby when its so formed to point where you can see if it's a boy or girl,moving around,kicking the mother??

Andy R, Hove says...
1:24pm Mon 19 May 08

Strange how all these "pro-life" people seem to have no concern for the lives of women killed by unsafe illegal abortions. Some people seem to have this notion that if you make abortion illegal it will somehow magically disappear. All experience tells us this is rubbish.

Maybe Nigel Waterson is happy for a Vera Drake on every corner. I'm not.

Mrs Knitting Needle, Back street. says...
2:06pm Mon 19 May 08

T.Ruth wrote:
Charlie wrote: I am neither for nor against abortion, I believe its up to the idividual/couple iinvolved to choose. This issue always has and always will be a matter of personal choice. People arguing for and people arguing against. If a child is concieved by \"accident\" say due to faild contraception and it is not viable for the parents to look after a child due to age, money or other circumstances then why not let them have an abortion?
Why, because the act of abortion (termination of a life) for convenience sake is a ruthlessly selfish act, which for reasons beyond my comprehension is performed by people who would be horrified if they were asked to end the life of that same child once it were born. This leads me to believe that “out of sight out of mind” is a factor that allows otherwise decent people to go through with the act of abortion.
Suprisingly, the world does not revolve around YOUR comprehension of things. Anyone who things abortion is wrong should listen to some of the rubbish you write and think of how much nicer the world would be if your mother had had a large gin and a hot bath or had just used her head......

david cameron-young, abingdon says...
4:23pm Mon 19 May 08

the whole issue here is not whether abortions should be carried out, but WHEN they should be done. by that i mean at what stage of the pregnancy an abortion should be given. there are certain times at which a foetus is deemed as viable, i.e. able to live, and it is this time that doctors cannot agree on. if abortions are carried out for 'personal' or 'social' reasons, then this should be as early as possible in the pregnancy, but not all disabilities or deformaties can be picked up in early pregnancy, and then this is possibly a justifiable time for a late abortion, should the parents require it, or the doctors advise it. many of the above posts are going on about whether abortions should be given at all, but that is not the point in question.

Andy R, Hove says...
12:48am Tue 20 May 08

It is absolutely the point in question. The anti-choice lobby doesn't just want a cut in the time limit - it wants to remove abortion rights altogether.

What is dangerous about this latest move is that its supporters are pretending that "scientific evidence" shows that fetuses are capable of independent life at an earlier stage. This is a complete lie - the evidence shows that there has been no change at all in this over the last 15 years.

Nic, Brighton says...
12:44pm Tue 20 May 08

i agree with David, it's about when an abortion should be available (ie 14weeks, 24 weeks etc).As i said in my first point a child at 24weeks is fully grown, moving around,you can tell what sex it is. At this point you are killing a human being, which is why the nurses and doctors see it as wrong. At an early stage on the pregnancy it's different.You cant get rid of abortions, you can tighten the rules.

Comments are closed on this article.

Local Advertisers


Local Information

Enter your postcode, town or place name

House prices »   Schools »   Crime »   Hospitals »