Source: RCOG website… patient information section.. Topic: About abortion care.
In Great Britain, the law allows a woman to obtain an abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy if two doctors agree that it would cause less damage to her physical or mental health than continuing the pregnancy.
The doctors may take your life circumstances into consideration. Most doctors feel that the distress of having to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is likely to be harmful and so will refer a woman for an abortion.
Q.Can my doctor refuse to give me an abortion? Ans: A doctor or nurse has the right to refuse to take part in abortion on the grounds of conscience, but he or she should always refer you to another doctor or nurse who will help. The General Medical Council’s Duties of a Doctor says that doctors must make sure that their “personal beliefs do not prejudice patient care”. You do not need your partner’s agreement, although many women want to discuss the pregnancy with their partner and come to a joint decision. Partners who have taken legal action to try to prevent an abortion have always been unsuccessful. Q. What if I am under 16? Ans: Any young person, regardless of age, can give valid consent to medical treatment providing she is considered to be legally competent – that is, able to understand a health professional’s advice and the risks and benefits of what is being offered. All very young women are encouraged to involve their pare
I think it is a crime by the society as a whole in denying the right of abortion to this lady. I only wish she had taken this decision before the deadline of 20 weeks instead of waiting till now. If it was okay to abort earlier for medical reasons, why can not it be valid after 20 weeks or whatever the time limit was ? The medical complications feared for the unborn do not change after the time limit. I feel ashamed at our collective helplessness in helping this lady out.
RE:Crime by society as a whole.
by Vinayak Gadekar on Aug 05, 2008 07:30 PM Permalink
Absolutely right !
Such judgements are okay to be passed when the state/country takes responsibility for the medical condition of the child as in countries like UK where there is free treatment on National Health Service.
In Mehta's case who should take the responsibility of the things which are going to go wrong when the child is born ?
The Judiciary is nothing but the arm-chair critics burping / farting all the way to corruption....
I appeal to FOGSI that it should take up this issue to the Honourable Supreme Court and convince the Honourable Supreme Court to give permission for abortion in this situation and issue an order to Parliament to amend the concerned laws. It will put an end to the agony of all such parents and the unborn babies with congenital defects. My LAST WORD to Mr.Haresh Mehta and Mrs.Niketa: Please be patient.. nature will solve your and your unborn baby’s problems. Try to feel good always what ever the results. Your happiness is in your hands. If anybody interested in the facts/evidences can go through the following evidences. Evidences from RCOG (Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology) and different standard textbooks are …(RCOG is the highest body of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists in UK). This information published in September 2004 replaces the previous leaflet published in May 2001. It is based on the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) guideline The Care Of Women Requesting Induced Abortion (revised and published by the RCOG in September 2004). The guideline contains a full list of the sources of evidence we have used. You can find it online at: National Evidence Based Guidelines Source: RCOG website… patient information section.. Topic: About abortion care.
In Great Britain, the law allows a woman to obtain an abortion up to 24 weeks of pregnancy if two doctors agree that it would cause less damage to her physical or mental health than continui
I’m sure that the abortion would have been done without any difficulty if the same defect was detected at 19 weeks of pregnancy. So why not abortion to be done if the same defect was detected at 21 or 22 or 23 or 24 weeks or later ? (Evidence: FOGSI has given a written statement that the risks to the mother are not increased at 24 weeks of pregnancy). RCOG clearly says that IT’S SOLELY THE WOMAN WHO DECIDES about whether she needs to go for abortion or not. Even if she is minor, she can take a decision. She need not take permission from her partner also. So my opinion is that IT’S BETTER (in all aspects) FOR Mrs.Niketa to UNDERGO ABORTION NOW. I feel that anybody who is against the abortion in this situation might not have come across the AGONY of parents and the difficulties that the baby has to face from the 1st day of its birth to till the end of its life. (We all know how difficult is to live in the present world even with all normal organs). (It’s not just fix the pacemaker and all problems are over). I presume that the judgement would have been different if the sitting Judge had a baby born with this or any other abnormality and faced the problems of it. The Honourable High Court would have taken opinions form FOGSI (Federation of Obsterics and Gynaecologists of India, which is the highest body in India), RCOG (Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, UK) and Ameriacan College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, USA). I appeal to FOGSI that it should take up this iss
Please forward my opinion and these evidences to Mr.Haresh Mehta and Mrs. Niketa, their Gynaecologist and their lawyer if any one knew thier email IDs.. I’m Dr.Manjunath. (My address: Dr.Manjunath.B.S., Gadihalli post, Tarikere Taluk, Chickmagalur district, Karnataka. Email : drmanjucochin@rediffmail.com). I’ve 3 yrs of working experience in Obstetrics and Gynaecology department. I would like to share my views about whether Mrs.Niketa should undergo abortion or should continue the pregnancy.. ..It’s more likely that the baby will have more problems (not only the heart problems that are detected now but also other undetected anomalies including chromosomal abnormalities, neurological problems, connective tissue disorders, metabolic disorders…etc..). Chromosomal anomalies might have been detected if amniocentesis and karyotyping (definitely indicated in this situation) would have been done. ..The dangers of continuing pregnancy (medical problems to both mother and fetus/baby , emotional, social, economic problems ) are more than the risks of abortion (risks of abortion are almost similar at 20 weeks or at 24 weeks or at 28 weeks or later). And risks of abortion are less than the risks of delivery at term or by cesaerean. Suppose the fetus dies (sometime later) inside the uterus because of its heart problems then the risks to the mother are SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than the abortion of a living baby at 24 weeks. I’m sure that the abortion would have been done without any di
Please forward my opinion and these evidences to Mr.Haresh Mehta and Mrs. Niketa, their Gynaecologist and their lawyer if any one knew thier email IDs.. I’m Dr.Manjunath. (My address: Dr.Manjunath.B.S., Gadihalli post, Tarikere Taluk, Chickmagalur district, Karnataka. Email : drmanjucochin@rediffmail.com). I’ve 3 yrs of working experience in Obstetrics and Gynaecology department. I would like to share my views about whether Mrs.Niketa should undergo abortion or should continue the pregnancy.. ..It’s more likely that the baby will have more problems (not only the heart problems that are detected now but also other undetected anomalies including chromosomal abnormalities, neurological problems, connective tissue disorders, metabolic disorders…etc..). Chromosomal anomalies might have been detected if amniocentesis and karyotyping (definitely indicated in this situation) would have been done. ..The dangers of continuing pregnancy (medical problems to both mother and fetus/baby , emotional, social, economic problems ) are more than the risks of abortion (risks of abortion are almost similar at 20 weeks or at 24 weeks or at 28 weeks or later). And risks of abortion are less than the risks of delivery at term or by cesaerean. Suppose the fetus dies (sometime later) inside the uterus because of its heart problems then the risks to the mother are SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER than the abortion of a living baby at 24 weeks. I’m sure that the abortion would have b
The parents, with doctor's opinion should have a right to take a decision about the foetus instead of the child suffering a short miserable and painful life. This is contrary to evolution as well as insane for a healthy society. Politicians, who keep illicit relations and whose children are handicapped even as grown ups make laws for this country. Sick in every sense of law and legislature.
Taking a decision to prematurely end a life because of a supposed defect is not a wise move. I believe that our society needs to empower better health care for children by subsidizing equipment for children with congenital defects.
Basically court wants to say that you ruin your life by going for proper legal procedures.any good private nursing home could have done it without need of court.always go by ways other than legal procedures,you will be happy.
joke
a(to conductor)-can i smoke in bus conductor-no a-but that other person is smoking conductor-he did not ask me.
I really hate that 'wells Fargo ad.' its really stupid..everytime u open rediff for news u hear tht stupid sound of 'bowling'..and thts for every rediff page !!its really stupid..thts why i have even stopped reading rediff news ..i go for other news websites.. I dunno how on earth they r advertising tht stupid stuff by making users listen tht insane sound...wht do they get ? attention? even i wanna buy tht stuff, m not gonna do tht ..
