Printable View
This has been in the news here a lot lately. Reports of women from certain ethnic groups choosing to abort babies after finding out the gender at their 20 week scan has led several Canadian hospitals to stop telling patients the gender of their baby.
Toronto News: Six GTA hospitals won
I've never seen/considered this viewpoint (quoted from article below) before and think it is a valid observation, why is aborting for gender so incendiary but aborting for other reasons (other than viability issues) isn't? I can see his point, the ethical paradox that banning abortion for gender-selection reasons is "unfair" to mothers, especially those of certain ethnicities. Not saying I personally don't find aborting for gender tragic, after all I'm a parent of the less-preferred sex, but I also am in the camp that all abortions are tragic.
Quoting from the article:
Bernard Dickens, a professor emeritus of health policy at the University of Toronto, wonders if it is even ethical to implement a blanket policy due to concerns over one segment of the population.
“Note the paradox that abortion for no reason — because it’s untimely, unplanned, not wanted — that is acceptable. So then we’ve got the paradox that an abortion for no reason (is ok), but abortion for what seems to be a gendered or sex-based reason is not,” he said.
“Making policies to deny that population what is important to them — in itself, it is a difficult ethical and legal question. Is that racial profiling, is that a form of racial discrimination?”
That's just HORRIBLE! :nono: It just takes one or a few stupid people to screw it up for everyone!! :hair:
Then there are those sweet innocent little ones who didn't even ask to be born..
I'm in the GTA and unknowingly went to one of those hospitals that would not tell with my first baby. I was really annoyed as I went in all excited to find out the gender and they refused to tell me. At the very least they should have told me that policy when I booked my 20 week scan with them. With my second and third pregnancies I called around and asked the policy before booking my appointment.
I think that gender abortion is sad, but wholeheartedly disagree with this and any policy that treats adults like children. Being denied information about my child "for my own good" pisses me off.
I don't like the first part, but I like your second paragraph, just so you are aware :)Quote:
Originally Posted by RedCanoe
Are the parents doing self abortion or having a Dr do it? If a trained person preforms the abortion and believes that it is only being done because of gender then it is on them. If the parents are doing something themselves then the should be forced to seek counceling before their insurance will pay for any future prenatal care.
I understand how people who know that a genetic condition runs in the family with a certain gender and they choose to abort. If there is something majorly wrong with the babies brain, heart, or organs then ok abort. I know some cultures can't deal with mental issues.
But then again should the family be forced to carry an unknown gender and do something later after it is born... like the father from India who tortured a baby girl for months until she dead from major injuries. Or the abandoned babies left to die in all kinds of places.
I think that there has to be some consideration for how far along someone is when they choose to abort. You could take the argument to extremes and say if it is okay to abort a 20 week+ old baby, why can't you just kill it when it is born? I mean, what's the difference really after 20 weeks and a newborn? They are both helpless beings. So, I think there has to be boundaries because there are always people who take things to the extreme. Honestly, that's what the majority of laws/rules are made for- those that go to the extreme.
Most of us would never consider murdering someone. Or stealing. I don't need a law to prevent me from doing either. The laws are not for me though, they are put in place for those that have a disregard for others and this is not that different.
It would be very irritating to not be able to find out and I think it is extreme not to be able to find out so I don't necessarily agree with the policy but I understand why they put it into place.
The policy has trickled down to private u/s places here in Canada. When I was trying to find a place where I could get a gender scan, pretty much every place I called said they'd only do it after 20 weeks. When I asked why, they explained the late abortion issue and said the government is putting a lot of pressure on them to stop telling women early enough for them to arrange an abortion.
It changed here in bc too about 1.5 years ago! We can go to a private scan and pay to find out! My friend just did at 23 weeks... I assume she had to wait til that gestation to find out... But not sure?!?
There are actually some people making that very argument right now and calling it "after birth abortion". After-Birth Abortion: The pro-choice case for infanticide. - Slate Magazine
And next someone will say if it is okay to kill a newborn because I didn't want it, someone will kill their 3 year old and use that as justification. I saw it. There just has to be some level of sanctity.
I get the argument against late abortion. And I saw that article about being able to kill a newborn *shakes head*. But no one in Canada is proposing changing the laws which allow late abortions (and as far as I know you can legally abort anytime during pregnancy in Canada, for any reason, but I think it would be hard to find a doctor to do it after a certain point if you did not have a medical reason). If we as a society decide that a 20 week old fetus should have rights (and I'm not arguing for or against this here, different debate!) we should change abortion laws to reflect that. My argument isn't about this, though.
These policies are the government/hospitals (same thing here with gov. health care) deciding which information they will reveal to you *in case* you decide to use that information in a way that they do not approve of. That's not right. What if certain hospitals decide they are against abortion altogether and decide to stop telling you that your baby has Down's because a lot of Down's babies are aborted? Where do we draw THAT line? What right does anyone else have to withhold information about your pregnancy from you because you *may* use it in a way that they do not agree with? Not in an illegal way, just a way that *they* disapprove of (and no, I'm not condoning gender abortion). I know it's easy to look at this issue as a minor inconvenience for most people (so you find out gender at birth instead of 20 weeks, so what?) and it could save some babies that might have been aborted. But it's a dangerous precedent, letting government decide what information is relevant and what information is best kept from you, "for your own good."
and, following on Red Canoe's logic, might Canadian doctors/hospitals someday refuse to disclose to women whether or not they are pregnant, at all, until after 20 weeks, since that would prevent all easily-obtainable abortions?
The problem with Giubilini and Minerva's argument is that it presumes that "personhood" is a black and white issue, that either you are a "person" or you aren't... when in fact, in the human life cycle, there are many stages and times when people have some degree of "personhood"--when they are a person in some ways, and not in others. Think of an Alzheimer's patient who can only survive in assisted living, or an adult with a catastrophic brain injury who needs a legal guardian to manage his/her affairs. But arguments about abortion, or euthanasia, that focus on when or whether someone possesses "personhood" are really addressing a different question than that of revealing gender at ultrasound...
I just don't see how a government can allow abortion at 20 weeks, but then try to prohibit some abortions, for some reasons... If a 20 week-old fetus has enough "personhood" that its life should be protected, then its life should be protected, regardless of whether it's a girl or a boy, whether it has Down's Syndrome or congenital heart disease, etc. And if not, then not.
And it does seem like a slippery slope when hospitals/governments decide that they can reveal or conceal health information based on how it might be used... I'd like for women to have the right to access as much information as is available about their bodies, their health, and their pregnancies (if they want it), and for them to decide how to use that information, themselves. It seems creepy to think that there might be an ultrasound tech (or an ob who performs amniocentisis) who would know the gender of a baby I was carrying when I would not...
I dont think a hospital should have that right to hold back medical information.
I think they should be allowed to hold back the information, you are having a scan not to check the sex, but to check the functioning of the baby inside. What if the sonographer is incorrect? This happens, what if this leads to someone aborting the baby due to this and finding out later it was the sex they desired? It is full of legal ramifications. Like they say, the sonographer is actually not legally allowed to tell you anything, if you want to know then your doctor should ask for it and it will be in his report. Here at least the sonographer is not the end of the line, the films get checked by a doctor before the letters are written.
Technically they only need report if there is something 'wrong' with the sex.
I agree though, there are problems with abortion rules when you can choose to have one at a late stage due to sex or for no reason at all. Changing the time limit to have an abortion without question to say 13 weeks and then you would need a physical reason between then and 20 weeks would help.
And killing the baby when it is born, is just plain sick! I can't even go there.
Yes, I quite agree to your point of view.http://www.cleaningcassette.com
Well, they always give the disclaimer that this is not an exact science. That same logic could be applied to any of the results that they give you. Any of them could be wrong. There was that couple in the news that had a Downs baby after a CVS told them the baby was normal. You can always sign something to release them from legal liability, if that is the worry. There is always a chance that a scan can miss something or misidentify something. But my thought is that you have a right to know what *they* know. After all, this is your baby, your body.Quote:
Originally Posted by glory
As far as the tech telling you vs the doctor telling you, that's just semantics. Sure, have the doctor tell you the gender when he discusses the rest of it with you. I have no problem with that. But that would not solve the problem of gender abortion, which is the reason that hospitals were withholding the information. It wasn't that they did not want the techs to tell, they just did not want to tell at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by glory
Well, this is true, but even if the information is not medically relevant, such as gender, why should someone else decide that you are not allowed to have this information, when it is available. By doing the scan they obtain this information. It wasn't the point of the scan, but now they have it anyway. So what gives them the right to withhold it from you? It's about you, about your baby, medically relevant or not. Why should someone else (in this case hospital admin/government) decide that you should not have this information?Quote:
Originally Posted by glory
Deleted.