Woman sues for not being warned about psychological effects of abortion
BMJ 2002; 324 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.324.7352.1477/a (Published 22 June 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;324:1477All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Lord Woolf pointed out not so long ago that about 95% of medical
negligence actions fail. Tort is a dubious part of law where many tests
need to be satisfied. Most patients are unaware of the perils of
litigation.
A person who is already traumatised and finding it difficult to cope
with life should not take legal action where the end point result will
have no certainty. Legal actions and the world of negligence is a mountain
to defeat. It has long term consequences on a person's mental state.
Frustration with lawyers, disappointment, never obtaining the result she
hopes to will no doubt worsen her mental state. The end result would be a
woman who feel far more despair than she does at the moment.
Every woman and mother is aware of the implications of abortion. To
state that she was not " aware of the psychological implications" is
ludicrous. Every person is responsible for themselves. Independence and
responsibility for the consequence of ones actions is required by every
person. As doctors we are not responsible for all the decisions made by
a patient who knows full well, the consequences as sex education is
everywhere - magazines etc etc. An adult has responsibility for ones
actions. Litigations does not mean that as doctors we should hold every
patient's hand. Information is important but in the same vain patients are
quite capable of finding out the effects of abortion through their own
sources. Doctors cannot spoon feed every person or we would never get any
work done. Initiative is lacking in many people - there is nothing to stop
them looking it up in a library as opposed to expecting their doctor to
sit there with them for hours explaning all the things that may or may not
happen. Doctors are there to answer questions and in a climate where
expectations are high and the government provides limited time for
anything - patients do need to empower themselves and seek the information
if they are to have a procedure done. Abortion is a personal choice and
very different from other procedures. It requires a high level of
responsibility. In any case, she is a nurse and has a higher than above
understanding of her decision.
On many occasions, patients fail to blame themselves for their own
actions and subsequently blame doctors as they are an easy target.
Admittedly there are bad doctors in the world which provides a license to
blame tranference to appease ones self that " it is not my fault but
theirs" sooths the emotional fluctuations. In this present case, the
patient can say anything she wishes about doctors but the doctor cannot
defend him or herself due to the laws of confidentiality. This is the case
with every patient who many be misinformed and lend themselves out for the
great and good of media science. There are patients who have genuinely
suffered from mistreatment and this case is an embarrassment to those who
fight and support patient rights. There are many who have suffered
phenomenally at the hands of the NHS and who are denied legal aid. To
agree to this case being funded by tax payers money is a travesty of
justice and a complete waste.
The hard hitting advice for this lady is to seek methods of coping
with her decision and the subsequent consequences. If she feels strongly
about it, she should dedicate her life to advising women of the
implications of abortion so as to improve the situation by campaigning.
In life we all make mistakes, the way to lead a better life is to
face up to these mistakes as opposed to blaming others for it. Blaming a
doctor will not take her nightmares aware and indeed will probably make
them worse. It is important to rehabilitate ones life in order to lead a
good life as opposed to rotating in a catch 22 which will not only make
the situation worse increase her hatred. Doctors as scapegoats in this
case is just not acceptable. The blame also lies with the patients
concerned who clearly denies any responsibility for the decision she made.
Like a lot of patients, they use the media to raise awareness thus
persuading herself that she has done society a great good. Unfortunately,
the media has never changed the world and on this occasion it will be
yesterdays story which everyone has forgotten. If she wishes to make a
difference, she needs to provide a service to women and be contructive
with her life as opposed to avenging herself with legal actions.
After the media and the lawyers have gone, the person will then be
left with having to deal with her own problems - and that is the acid test
because she has not taken the time to find a way of developing self
survival strategies.
Everyone is responsible for their actions - the difference is whether
they wish to take that responsibility!?
Kind Regards
Dr Rita Pal
Competing interests: No competing interests
There is evidence from women's experiences to show the adverse
psychological effects of having an unplanned baby. If this women in
question had continued with her pregnancy perhaps she would have
experienced ongoing psychological trauma as a result of that. Who can
tell. The basis for the majority of terminations is based on the adverse
psychological effects of unplanned pregnancy. Mind you I do feel women do
not get enough support to deal with this after their termination and more
resources need to be allocated to post termination counselling.
Competing interests: No competing interests
She, as a nurse, should have had some idea of the psychological
implications of termination. I can only deduce that she is indeed after
the money.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Definately should have known better
The nurse concerned in this case was fully aware of the implications
of her decision to terminate her pregnancy. As student nurses, whether
traditionally trained, ie pre-project 2000, or trained under the recent
University framework, a major emphasis is placed on the student to be
aware of the pchological effects of terminations. As a student nurse from
1987 (old school!) I recall my gynaecology placement being one where the
nurses right NOT to be involved with terminations was at the forefront of
our tutors concerns - at no point were any of us pushed or forced to be
involved, and the theory behind such decision was enforced all the way.
This nurse would have received indepth theory on the physical and
psychological effects of termination, whether she was involved with
patients undergoing termination or not. This would have been a major part
of her nurse training, and if my memory serves me correctly, she would not
have been able to register with the UKCC as a qualified nurse unless she
had completed this part of her training.
I sympathise with her - she has been through a traumatic experience,
one which a couple of my friends have had to endure, but she needs to seek
counselling and support, not drag some overworked and underpaid medic
through the courts.
Sue Young
Competing interests: No competing interests