Vive La France!

ajohn said:
why would a woman needs to search around for 2 when the services are set up to need them?
Click to expand...
Conscientious objectors? Sceptical (of each other) doctors? Doctor shortages? Take it up with distinguished individuals mentioned in the 12th Report index. There is a whole list of experienced people to choose from, that have commented on approval process delays.

Whether you buy it or not is irrelevant - delays exist.
 
You are aware that the report was written almost 18 years ago. Today's stats are very different.
 
You are aware there was a pandemic going on when that article's source data was taken?
 
motorbiking said:
You are aware there was a pandemic going on when that article's source data was taken?
Click to expand...
So the system is prone to existential delays unrelated to the system.
All the data that you and ajohn have presented does not address the identification of these existential delays.
Your data only reports on normal, unimpeded, terminations that follow the programmed procedures, and fails to acknowledge any delays.
That doesn't mean that delays do not exist.
And clearly Noseall has presented evidence from eminent sources that recognise the delays in the system. You just refuse to acknowledge them.
if you keep your eyes closed, you won't see anything, but everything still exists.
 
noseall said:
Indeed.
Click to expand...
What relevance does that link have. It makes a point but there is a simple reason why the act makes use of earlier laws. Before the act there were women having abortions via people who "knew" how to do it. A favourite that used to get a mention was a coat hanger or some other object. Women were often caused harm by a number of methods used.

The link effectively means that some women are telling fibs and finish up using the wrong procedure. Prison - perhaps a bit extreme but no action at all?

The Guardian link. Well the NHS in general is having problems. People are finding that they can have all sorts of things done more quickly if they are prepared to travel away from the hospital they would normally use. I had this recently with my wife for some tests. I spent well in excess of 1hr driving across B'ham in the early rush hour and even longer coming back. Different catchment area in the same region. Some find an entirely different region is best.

The last link I posted doesn't contain the data previous ones have. There is a need to use this one to see abortion trends
www.gov.uk

Abortion statistics, England and Wales: 2021

www.gov.uk www.gov.uk
You can clearly see an increase in take up at starting in 2016*. The rate of increase slowed somewhat ~2019, A very high proportion of abortions are granted on the basis of Grounds C which effectively means socio economic.

What's the real problem? Capacity. The pills at home will have helped with that but by how much? Would one doctor just filling in prescription rather than needing 2 and some forms or the other change things much? The prescription will be needed or the pharmacy wont dish them out. They are POM's. Shove the whole thing out to GP's. I'm sure they would love that. Maybe not if they had sufficient capacity. Fact is loads haven't hence the changes in how they work.

The 2 pills at home has had a big impact on attendances leaving docs with less to do or maybe they never got involved when all did attend? I can see them seeing the current situation as a waste of time but past that Really? Just ideas to improve things that wont have much effect at all. Like I said I can't see any reason for needing 2 but I am not a doc. However I do know that there is a lot of specialisation within the NHS etc. They can concern rather narrow areas.

*;) Could this be when Tory policy really started to kick in?
 
Something this thread has made me think about, is the cut off point for the less rigorous grounds for abortion. Currently that point is set at 24 weeks. But this limit was set in 1990, and presumably was based on the chances of a very premature baby surviving at that time. I have just been reading that the survival age, for very premature babies, has improved by two or three weeks since that time. So, my question is, if the 24 week limit was based on the chances of survival in 1990, would it be logical to reduce the 24 week by two or three weeks, to reflect the current medical reality?
 
JonathanM said:
Something this thread has made me think about, is the cut off point for the less rigorous grounds for abortion. Currently that point is set at 24 weeks. But this limit was set in 1990, and presumably was based on the chances of a very premature baby surviving at that time. I have just been reading that the survival age, for very premature babies, has improved by two or three weeks since that time. So, my question is, if the 24 week limit was based on the chances of survival in 1990, would it be logical to reduce the 24 week by two or three weeks, to reflect the current medical reality?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that the survival rate might have improved by a few days, but 2 to 3 weeks, naah.
The gestation period would have had to go through a monumental evolution process for that to happen.
And there's always going to be outliers. But they will hav elittle effect on the survival rate of thousands..

The Bliss data that I based my graph on was dated for 2023.
Your comment is based on 2021 data.

In addition, only a tiny percentage of foetus are terminated as late a s23/24 weeks.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top