Hospitals Refusing to Tell Gender at 20 Week U/S

[nuthinbutpink]

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.

[RedCanoe]

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."

[sugarNspice]

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...

[julez12]

I dont think a hospital should have that right to hold back medical information.

[glory]

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.

[gender]

Yes, I quite agree to your point of view.

[RedCanoe]

What if the sonographer is incorrect?

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.

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.

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.

you are having a scan not to check the sex, but to check the functioning of the baby inside.

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?

[Waiting4Daisy]

Deleted.