The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

The real abortion scandal? That two doctors must testify a woman's sanity

Andrew Lansley is "shocked and appalled" at doctors pre-signing consent forms -- but the medical pro

By Nichi Hodgson Published 24 March 2012 12:54

The Care Quality Commission (CQC), ordered to perform spot-checks at abortion clinics, revealed yesterday that up to one fifth of clinics have been breaking the law by allegedly allowing doctors to pre-sign consent forms, presumably before they are assigned to a specific patient. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley is reportedly "shocked and appalled" by the findings.

I am shocked and appalled that in 2012 we still require two doctors to testify not to the physical fitness and consent of the woman in question but to the indomitable risk a continued pregnancy poses to her physical and mental health.

Assessed from that perspective, being pro-choice is actually nothing of the sort. Presuming you are bodily healthy, what you are actually consenting to is the notion that to be refused an abortion would make you just a baby away from barmy.

Thankfully, the medical profession is more pragmatic than the law; it's not too often you meet a glassy-eyed new mother lugging a child about, lamenting, "Oh, you know, there just wasn't enough chance of me having a breakdown so they wouldn't let me not have her." And doctors have had to be -- they are working with a piece of legislation that has only been updated once since 1967, an era where women couldn't get a mortgage without a male guarantor. Is it any wonder then that some doctors may think the double-signing about as anachronistic and inappropriate? And what about the thousands of women, myself included, that have ever had an abortion? It's time the law acknowledged that women can safely -- and sanely -- consent to abortion, with full awareness of the implications as they do so, and that one informed medical opinion is enough to guide that.

For a government that claims to want to give people more control over their own lives, the coalition has done a neat job of allowing the paternalist, Conservative backbenchers the steer of the abortion debate. The CQC investigation, the circumstances of which are politically suspect according to BPAS chief executive Ann Furedi, comes just a little too soon after Nadine Dorries' failed Bill proposing independent abortion counselling. It also conveniently distracts from the berating Lansley has faced over NHS reforms. Nothing like an abortion brouhaha to make people forget about the mismanagement of the health service -- except perhaps setting the already overstretched CQC to investigating procedural signatures rather than the abuse of old people or children isn't the slickest way of doing it.

The recent furore relating to illegal sex selective abortion has made the matter of women's "choice" even more inflammatory. But neither doing away with the need for the two-doctor signature rule nor changing the emphasis of the law to give women the right to opt out of motherhood rather than out of madness would automatically legitimise the right to sex selection. (Surely not revealing the sex of the foetus, except in circumstances where disability necessitated it, would circumvent that pretty easily?) Nor would it see the number of abortions rise exponentially. What anti-abortionists never seem to grasp is that, whatever the circumstances, nobody seeks a termination lightly. While not necessarily traumatic, it is a grave decision you do not forget making. And neither one, nor two, nor a thousand doctors' signatures can affect that -- unless the government makes it harder to seek abortion in the first place.

Nichi Hodgson is a 28-year-old freelance journalist specialising in sexual politics, law and culture.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: andrew lansley Abortion

More from Nichi Hodgson

View the discussion thread.

42 comments

Sun, 2012-03-25 15:03 — jankaas (not verified)

"And before I get howls of outrage; what’s the difference between a fresh one and one still in the womb."

you don't know the difference between a new born child and a 9 week old foetus? (i use 9 weeks as about 75% are medically aborted then)
ok Luddite, here's the difference;

newborn;
http://www.pregnancy.co.uk/pregnancy/a/41-and-42-weeks-pregnant/

9 weeks;
http://www.pregnancy.co.uk/pregnancy/a/9-weeks-pregnant/

can you tell the difference...? i hope you can now.

Sun, 2012-03-25 15:04 — jankaas (not verified)

" If she wants more, the selfish irresponsible cow should pay for it herself."

btw you are aware that an irresponsible cow needs an irresponsible bull to make babies...?

Sun, 2012-03-25 17:11 — andyg (not verified)

Jankaas, when does the "irresponsible" bull get a say in the murder of his own flesh and blood? At 1 week, 9 weeks, 22 weeks, or never?

Sun, 2012-03-25 17:23 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Mr Cobley your use of 'self-determination' shows you are begging the question, if you know what that means. If a woman wants self-determination then she shouldn't get pregnant. There is a choice, you know. Of course if she was rapd that makes the question rather different, but a woman isn't ALWAYS raped you know.

Sun, 2012-03-25 17:58 — Plug (not verified)

Apologies Fergus, I mistook you for Flashbuck.

Sat, 2012-03-24 13:22 — Unbelievable (not verified)

"What anti-abortionists never seem to grasp is that, whatever the circumstances, nobody seeks a termination lightly"

I absolutely disagree with you on this one. You create a caricature of anti-abortionist that is easy to knock down. It annoys me that this debate is always held on such grounds. Create a simplistic view of the enemy based on the most fanatical of them. It is not the argument of someone who wishes to debate based on logic.

For example, I am very concerned about the number of abortions and am not religious. It is on recent scientific innovations that reveal increasingly more about the (to use Christopher Hitchen's also used term) un-born child.

The recent debate about sex-selective abortion highlights the contradictions in logic that 'women's rights' activists often display.

Being against abortion is not necessarily about being a misogynist. It is about saying there is a balance between two rights - the rights of the woman to choose and the rights of the un-born baby to life. Nobody pretends this is not complex and people do not have to make the most horrible decisions unlike the discourse you create)- they just decide that on balance the right to life is more important than the right to choose.

Sat, 2012-03-24 14:21 — mike cobley (not verified)

And...what's it to you? You say you are not religious, but your position on abortion seems no different from the religious anti-abortion faction. If this to you is a moral question quite apart from any religious edict, then may we assume that your moral sensitivity extends also to the suffering of children born into poverty and deprivation?

Sat, 2012-03-24 14:27 — Tim (not verified)

well done mike for ignoring that guys point and missing the irony of your response. Your question is absurd and does not make sense.

Sat, 2012-03-24 15:14 — A. Cole (not verified)

Nichi

Is the requirement that two doctors consent is needed the greatest scandal?

Or the fact that sex-selective abortions are occuring?

THIS IS HOW THE PRO-ABORTION FEMINISTS HAVE REALLY SCREWED UP!!

Sat, 2012-03-24 16:23 — jankaas (not verified)

@Unbelievable

"It is on recent scientific innovations that reveal increasingly more about the (to use Christopher Hitchen's also used term) un-born child."

such as? is it that we can now have ready access to 3D imaging at very early stages, or, that vast numbers of premature babies we can now keep alive have many more wide ranging disabilities than perviously assumed, or, something else?

"they just decide that on balance the right to life is more important than the right to choose."
sorry, but who are "they" in this statement? and how did they reach their conclusion?

Sun, 2012-03-25 19:46 — Maria111

The most sanctimonious male pro-lifers are also those that neglect/do not want adopt a single unwanted child and provide this child with the everyday care, excellent education, and pollution-free environment.
In the absence of strong character some men show up their superiority by attacking the powerless

Sat, 2012-03-24 16:33 — NichiHodgson (not verified)

@A. Cole

What, so feminists are responsible for the predominantly patriarchal exploitation of abortion for sex selection?! Not the individuals themselves?!

Sat, 2012-03-24 16:39 — Flashbuck (not verified)

"No one seeks a termination lightly" ?

HaHaHaHaHa you're 'aving a larf!!

Just last week an 18 year old had her sixth abortion!!!

She's either very dumb or just an evil serial killer.

Either way it seems abortion for her is like trimming her nails.

Sick.

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:06 — Qaswdefrgt (not verified)

I've seen lightly asked for terminations. Good on those women asking for rights which assure more females are aborted. Well done!

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:13 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Our group is composed equally of persons of both genders. Yes, we acknowledge gender covers a lot of ground.
That old sayiing - " If man gave birth, abortion would be a sacrament!' - is very appropriate in this debate.
We have to to find some way of hand-cuffing the impregnator to the pregnant woman so that they both feel the full impact of the situation.
It is still up to the woman to make any decision relating to giving birth -even if her partner objects.
They need not even be in the same room - just so long as the man is aware of his responsibility in this situation and his responsibility to society.
Of course, rapists, men married or partnered to others, will have to be treated more discretely and should not be allowed to have any influence on the woman's decision.

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:16 — Plug (not verified)

Just last week, Flashbuck? Are you sure? Would you care to back up your assertion with some detail?

Sat, 2012-03-24 17:35 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Not last week it is true. But Daniel Martin Daily Mail 6 August - it certainly did occur. Always glad to be of service. Dinah is my aunt but truth is my sister.

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:36 — McMac (not verified)

" If man gave birth, abortion would be a sacrament!"

Yeah...because when it comes to access to health-care men are always at the front of the queue aren't they?

Sat, 2012-03-24 18:49 — Plug (not verified)

Fergus Pickering, which 6th August exactly?

Sat, 2012-03-24 19:42 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

Look it up on the internet, you lazy sod. And what does it matter which 6th of August. You mean if it was a couple of years ago it's all right?

Sat, 2012-03-24 19:46 — A. Cole (not verified)

Nichi

Feminists have blindly supported loose abortion laws that has led by proxy to sex selective abortions.

Surely abortion on demand (advocated by many feminists) implies abortion on any grounds (including the sex of the child).

FEMINISTS HAVE FALLEN ON THEIR OWN PRO-ABORTION SWORD!!

Sat, 2012-03-24 19:48 — A. Cole (not verified)

Does a womans right to choose not also entail the right to choose the gender of the child they bring to birth??

Sun, 2012-03-25 21:13 — A. Cole (not verified)

Maria

In opposing abortion some men are supporting the powerless...........i.e. the unborn child!!

Sat, 2012-03-24 20:17 — Plug (not verified)

I think you know as well as I do that the article was published in 2007, referring to a case the previous year. Not 'just last week', nor 'a couple of years ago'. At least 5 years ago. Not a great thing to happen, indeed, but not really germane to the debate here.

Sat, 2012-03-24 20:37 — Flashbuck (not verified)

Plug, you dipstick, so many women have multiple abortions all the time, it's hardly news anymore. They're killing human life on regular basis and on industrial scale every day, and anyone who supports it is mentally sick. Fact.

Sat, 2012-03-24 21:33 — Plug (not verified)

No they don't Fergus, really they don't. By all means disagree with abortion, but don't shore up your position with saloon-bar rhetoric and expect people to take you seriously.

Sat, 2012-03-24 22:11 — Hugh Markey (not verified)

Long ago in the twentieth century some very senior Irish clergy expressed abhorrence at the idea of women being given free medical treatment when it came to giving childbirth .Just to get things in perspective, at that time in Blessed Ireland the medical services charged for everything at the point of use. Everything. Of course the nuns in the form of the Sister of Charity were there as enforcers. No nonsense.
The argument was that such a move
would be an encouragement to women to have reckless relations in and out of marriage.
Some mid-wives of our acquaintance recall the sweet things these women had to say about their menfolk in the throes of childbirth.
Loads of fun. The same goes for abortion. The more the merrier - it's great gas, as they used to say.
You speak to your mother with that mouth - as the nuns used to proclaim if any male resorted to foul language.

Prostate Problems
(The more interventions the better! )

Sun, 2012-03-25 22:22 — jankaas (not verified)

not playing andyg

Sun, 2012-03-25 22:25 — cc (not verified)

There's a massive waiting list of couples wanting to adopt babies, so it's wrong and irrelevant to ask whether certain kinds of men should take more responsibility.

As for rape, it's no excuse to kill a human life just because that life was fathered by a violent nutjob: two wrongs don't make a right. Why should fatal violence be inflicted on the baby just because its mother didn't consent to sex, eh?

Innocent human life is the supreme value, not the woman's physical and emotional comfort and well-being. Fact.

Sun, 2012-03-25 22:28 — jankaas (not verified)

@Fergus

"If a woman wants self-determination then she shouldn't get pregnant."

criminal acts to one side, do you think getting pregnant is always a conscious choice made by the woman?

Sun, 2012-03-25 22:57 — andyg (not verified)

cc: "Innocent human life is the supreme value, not the woman's physical and emotional comfort and well-being. Fact."
And what value do you think that child will place on its own life knowing how it came to being. Be careful of your answer, I have worked with these children for many years.
Maria: Can you evidence in any way what you write? Or would you like to tell me about the 23 males that took their own lives because society ensured that they couldn't get access to their children even though they wanted to. Just to remind you they called it the CSA. People like yourself with your flippant comments make bad situations worse. If you wish to go down the road of stupidity then a woman can run much faster with her dress up than a man can with his trousers down my dear.
I await your reply

Sun, 2012-03-25 22:59 — andyg (not verified)

A. Cole: Strongly agree

Sun, 2012-03-25 04:39 — Fergus Pickering (not verified)

No who don't do what, plug? You seem to be answering a post I never made. Let me make my position clear. I think abortion should be legal, as it is, but I don't buy into the ridiculous rhetoric that what is growing in a woman's body is her own affair and nobody else's when she is pregnant. Any problem there?

Mon, 2012-03-26 04:33 — Rose (not verified)

Once again ugly accusations and divisive comments are made because of a lack of clear definition in public debates.
Pro-lifers, you need to be aware of what it is you want to achieve in this debate. You don't want us to suddenly stop valuing our right to choose, you want us to start treating foetuses with the same moral consideration we give to fully-developed humans. So, (shock and horror!) you need to bring out reasons for us to do so.
Personally I agree with Sam Harris in that the amount of consideration with which we treat living should depend on their level of consciousness. At this moment, scientific understanding tells us that a foetus at say 9 months, doesn't have the level of consciousness required for us to consider it a human.
So, tell me why I should change my mind about this?

Sun, 2012-03-25 11:53 — mike cobley (not verified)

@Ferg - "I don't buy into the ridiculous rhetoric that what is growing in a woman's body is her own affair and nobody else's when she is pregnant. Any problem there?"

Well, yes. Why is the assertion of a woman's self-determination ridiculous, and if its not her own affair, then who's else is it?

Sun, 2012-03-25 12:07 — Luddite (not verified)

Women should also have the right to kill a freshly born child; if that Child is born deformed or is the wrong sex, colour, or has the wrong coloured eyes. And before I get howls of outrage; what’s the difference between a fresh one and one still in the womb. As for some women: demanding and getting multiple abortions. I’m all for that, but she should only be allowed one murder on the NHS. If she wants more, the selfish irresponsible cow should pay for it herself. After all why should someone strongly opposed to abortions for whatever reasons pay for someone else’s murder spree.

Mon, 2012-03-26 08:07 — McMac (not verified)

I'm trying to think of another example where an individual in our society has an absolute right to command people to do their bidding, access public resources and have a medical procedure with no questions asked. I can't think of one.