http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1892696,00.html Fifty babies a year are alive after abortion Lois Rogers A GOVERNMENT agency is launching an inquiry into doctors’ reports that up to 50 babies a year are born alive after botched National Health Service abortions. The investigation, by the Confidential Enquiry into Maternal and Child Health (CEMACH), comes amid growing unease among clinicians over a legal ambiguity that could see them being charged with infanticide. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which regulates methods of abortion, has also mounted its own investigation. Its guidelines say that babies aborted after more than 21 weeks and six days of gestation should have their hearts stopped by an injection of potassium chloride before being delivered. In practice, few doctors are willing or able to perform the delicate procedure. For the abortion of younger foetuses, labour is induced by drugs in the expectation that the infant will not survive the birth process. Guidelines say that doctors should ensure that the drugs they use prevent such babies being alive at birth. In practice, according to Stuart Campbell, former professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at St George’s hospital, London, a number do survive. “They can be born breathing and crying at 19 weeks’ gestation,” he said. “I am not anti-abortion, but as far as I am concerned this is sub-standard medicine.” The number of terminations carried out in the 18th week of pregnancy or later has risen from 5,166 in 1994 to 7,432 last year. Prenatal diagnosis for conditions such as Down’s syndrome is increasing and foetuses with the condition are routinely aborted, even though many might be capable of leading fulfilling lives. In the past decade, doctors’ skill in saving the lives of premature babies has improved radically: at least 70%-80% of babies in their 23rd or 24th week of gestation now survive long-term. Abortion on demand is allowed in Britain up to 24 weeks — more than halfway through a normal pregnancy and the highest legal limit for such terminations in Europe. France and Germany permit “social” abortions only up to the 10th and 12th weeks respectively. Doctors are increasingly uneasy about aborting babies who could be born alive. “If viability is the basis on which they set the 24-week limit for abortion, then the simplest answer is to change the law and reduce the upper limit to 18 weeks,” said Campbell, who last year published a book showing images of foetuses’ facial expressions and “walking” movements taken with a form of 3-D ultrasound. The Department of Health was alerted three months ago to the issue of babies surviving failed terminations. In August clinicians in Manchester published an analysis of 31 such babies born in northwest England between 1996 and 2001. “If a baby is born alive following a failed abortion and then dies (because of lack of care), you could potentially be charged with murder,” said Shantala Vadeyar, a consultant obstetrician at South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust, who led the study. A systematic investigation of data collected through the CEMACH indicated that there are at least 50 cases a year nationwide in which babies survive abortion attempts. “First sight of our data suggests this is happening,” said Shona Golightly, the agency’s research director. She said official confirmation of the figures would be available next year. It is not known how many babies who survive attempted abortions go on to live into adulthood.
Sad. Generally speaking, I tend to side against abortion unless the mother's life is threatened, and in cases of conception resulting from rape/incest, which are rare to say the least. It's a very difficult topic, however, and I won't pretend there is an easy answer to it.
I believe pretty much the same... this is definately a sad, sad article... but not shocking. Anyone who had viewed videos or documents of partial birth abortions could easily see the same type of sad results.
While decidedly and fiercely pro-choice, I would support legislation or a constitutional amendment that limited elective abortion to 10 or 12 weeks like Germany and France do.
The pro-life and pro-choice is the stupidest argument going on in politics today. Both pro-life and pro-choice groups don't want an abortion. Nobody wants a person to give birth to a child when they aren't ready or if that person is a minor. Making abortion illegal isn't going to stop abortions. Pot is illegal, and we see how effective that law is... If anything, that will make abortions more dangerous as people seek illegal means to carry out abortions in an environment far dirtier than a hospital. Complications that occur may result in the death of the mother because there is no staff nearby to help. The best solution is to stop debating the law and start helping the children. It's amazing that the politics of a situation has become more important than the situation itself. Keep abortion legal because changing the law won't change reality. You know, you can ban "gays" but gay people will still exist. You can ban "alcohol" but people will keep drinking. It's stupid and a drain of resources to ban abortion. You'd have a prison full of doctors and idealists instead of the true criminals of society.
I agree with MartianMan, but 21 weeks is too far along into a pregnancy IMHO. I think 3 months should be the cutoff.
great. and i agree. so are you saying get rid of Roe v. Wade? get rid of all laws and allow abortion as late as you like for whatever reason you like???
Of course not. I'm just saying abortion should be kept legal. In my opinion, I'd give a the mother 12 weeks, if not more, to have the option of an abortion. Obviously, waiting too long is worse for both the mother and the baby. If the mother has a hard time deciding at 12 weeks whether to have an abortion, she's still going to have a hard time deciding at 21 weeks.
Roe vs. Wade seems to me, a layperson, as a judicial trick. Maybe a lawyer can comment on it. Personally, I'd rather pass a law that allows abortion explicitly.
Well, abortion is legal and that likely will never change. The issue now is whether or not we should have unrestricted abortion, and IMO there should be serious limitations as to when a woman is allowed to have an abortion.
I think it's great that a bunch of men are debating how to control and tell a woman what she should do. carry on...
Actually you're somewhat correct. The Roe decision is actually entirely irrelevant today. It was a mootness clause case. In other words, the supreme court ruled that although the case was irrelevant when it was decided (Jane Roe had already had her child by the time the case reached the court), they nevertheless ruled because the court came to the conclusion that its impossible for any pregnancy litigation to ever reach the court without it becoming moot, so they might as well make the ruling. However, in 1992, planned parenthood v. casey, was decided not on an exception to the mootness clause, but rather the due process clause. Also it officially declared abortion to be a constitutional right in and of itself as opposed to Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion based on the right to privacy. Consequently, when everyone whines about whether the government will overturn Roe v. Wade, it's virtually irrelevant. Roe v. Wade today is purely symbolic as planned parenthood v. casey has become the real legal standard by which abortion is upheld. As for an actual law to legalize abortion, that would clear things up substantially as well as give abortion rights much needed credibility. The main problem with a judicial ruling legalizing abortion, is the standard judical activism claims of the right wing. Legislation would at least clear this up.
I think this is an argument for better doctors than for banning abortions. Every medical procedure has a risk of things not working out the way they want them to. While yes I can understand that anti-abortion people will consider this to be an argument for banning abortion since there are a certain number of abortions botched that don't result in the intended result. That though doesn't change the issue whether a fetus is part of the mother's body and its her right to do with her body as she wishes or when a fetus gains personhood.
One thing every doctor knows is the 'fetus' is never part of the mother's body. The 'fetus' is living inside the mother's body. This 'wordplay' is what helps foster misunderstanding about a woman's 'rights'. The baby is no more a part of the mother's body one hour before delivery than it is one hour after delivery. Sustained by the mother's body, fed by the mother's body, protected by the mother's body... all apply. (just like it does for the 6 month old infant) But if we say a 'fetus' is actually just a part of the mother's body we leave medical science for the sake of personal agenda and convenience. Two separate people enter abortion clinics, only one comes out alive. It isn't hard to look at DNA, blood analysis, gender, etc and decide if the two bodies are the same or different. I am passionate about abortion in most part because of this one issue. I have no problem with a mother removing her uterus, kidney, or left big toe; they are part of her body and she has that right to her body. Society is rebelling against human design that a human baby is conceived and protected inside a mother until birth. Human babies that mother's are designed to protect should not be killed. A woman get's raped, so instead of punishing the rapist we kill the baby. Children are a gift. Stop cruelly punishing the children for the sins of the adults. I was never a part of my mother's body, she carried me (for which I am grateful) to birth. Abortion is the wrong solution for the problems of mothers who face very difficult pregnancies and severe hardship in life. It is a horrible solution for the mothers who care not for children because of self serving issues of convenience. We must find solutions for women that are not so easy and callous as killing. Add the trauma and damage abortions often cause to women and you end up with one of the most tragic consequences of man's lust for convenience and personal self-gratification. How many abortions are the result of the father refusing responsibility for the child? How many are the result of a woman viewing it as appropriate birth control? Killing un-born children and birth control are not synonyms. If we do not want children born into disadvantaged situations then let's step up to the plate and fix the root of these problems. Let's take responsibility for our children instead of looking for selfish 'quick fixes' like abortion. Get to the root of the problem- mankind's selfish irresponsibility. Abortion is the worst example of a band-aid approach to problem solving I know of. What a tragedy. Maybe I shouldn't be so passionate, but the baby cannot defend itself and I cannot stand by silent. (Note to self- take a deep breath, relax)
