I was reviewing the papers on the Marr sofa earlier with Jane Moore, one of my favourite columnists. Next week’s abortion vote came up, and she said she is pro-choice – but was persuaded of the need to reduce the time limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks by a letter she received from a nurse involved in the procedure. Its contents, she told Marr, were unsuitable to be discussed on air. She later told me what it was – a description of how at 24 weeks the child is often strong enough to be alive – and then must be left to die on the side of an NHS sink until breathing his, or her, last. Jane wrote about this in a column for The Sun on 23 March 2005 and I can see why it changed her mind. It’s not online, but here’s an edited version. I would say that I’d like every MP to read it before voting, but I suspect those voting to keep the 24-week limit would not expose themselves to descriptions of what, precisely, they are supporting.
EVERY so often a letter arrives in a columnist’s mailbag that throws a hand grenade right into the middle of a long-held view. That happened to me last week following my article in which I urged caution before lowering the time limit on abortion from 24 to 20 weeks. The letter came from a Registered General Nurse who works on a gynaecological ward that regularly deals with late terminations.She apologised for the “unpleasant and upsetting aspects” of her letter but felt her points needed to be said. I agree, and felt it also warranted a wider audience. Apparently, at 20 weeks, tablets can be given to kill the foetus prior to expulsion. But at 24 weeks it is sufficiently strong to survive the treatment and many are born with signs of life. “It is all too easy for people to picture a clump of cells or mush. People don’t want to picture perfectly-formed miniature babies and I don’t blame them, I was once the same,” says Kay. “But having cut the umbilical cord on one who survived, then had to watch him gasp for breath for ten minutes on the side of a sink before he died, that sight will haunt me for ever.” The reason given for that particular termination was that the mother’s current boyfriend had a toddler son who might get jealous of a new baby. It took them 21 weeks to come to that conclusion. Kay adds: “I know of two nurses who went off work with stress as a result of their experience with late terminations. I suffered horrendous nightmares and guilt for months. The guilt comes from the fact that you as a nurse cut the umbilical cord and, as dramatic as it sounds, we felt like murderers.” Kay doesn’t believe in hounding or criminalising women who have to make this extremely tough decision owing to severe disability. Her misgivings are reserved solely for those who use termination as a form of contraception. Women who, up until last week, I hoped were few and far between. But, according to Kay, these terminations far outstrip those carried out because of fetal abnormality or genuine emotional distress. She says: “There are girls who come back five or six times demanding terminations and they get them. How can someone coming for their fifth termination be allowed to keep saying it is due to emotional distress? I should imagine in ten years’ time the emotional distress of being allowed to have five terminations is going to take its toll. What is going on?”
Comments