Abortion Counselling: Case Unproven

because a woman doesn't choose to call into a radio show and discuss the most personal aspects of what would be a very traumatic experience, doesn't mean that these women don't exist.

Very basic reasearch would have led you to an indication that they do. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy article starts....

"Recently, an anonymous patient sued the NHS because she wasn’t offered counselling after an abortion. Nor was she warned that psychological complications could follow the operation."

http://www.bacp.co.uk/media/index.php?newsId=360&count=166&start=144&filter=&cat=2&year=

Sadly, they do. Abortion campaigners seem to suggest the system as it oeprates is absolutely perfect. Nadine has suggested a very minor change, which has resulted in a huge overeaction.

I fully support Ms Dorries' amendment.

Here's an analogy: if I were considering veganism, I wouldn't go to a butcher to ask advice on whether I should or not. He *might* be impartial, but the likelihood would be that his vested interest - i.e. the continuation of his livelihood - would get in the way of a completely unbiased opinion.

BPAS, Marie Stopes, etc can't provide genuinely unbiased advice because, even though they are not necessarily profit making concerns, the people who work for them draw their livelihoods from their jobs. They may consider themselves honourable people (although I wouldn't, since I abhor abortion in all cases) but there's no getting away from the fact that they have a vested interest, even if only a personal one. And working, as they do, for an organisation that carries out abortions, they will most certainly approve of the procedure.

Any vulnerable woman who attends such a clinic - a young unmarried woman who is being pressured by her parents, for example, or by a partner who does not want the responsibility of bringing up a child, etc - may find herself giving in to expediency as a result of that pressure or not being the required information about alternatives and letting desperation take hold.

Counselling needs to be given from an independent standpoint by those whose livelihoods do not depend it. That means denying employees of Marie Stopes or BPAS .... *AND*.... denying employees of SPUC and others like it from acting as counsellors because they have a conflict of interests. It will minimise bias. And surely that has to be a good thing, when faced with a vulnerable woman who's only seeking the best advice she can find?

Nadine Dorries' proposal is eminently fair and reasonable. And it's hideously unfair and unreasonable that people should attack it because she's the one proposing it. The very fact that one side says it goes too far and the other says it doesn't go far enough persuades me that there's nothing wrong with it.

Iain, this doesn't fully answer your question, but the latest research demonstrates that women who abort their pregnancy have a 55% higher risk of subsequent mental health problems compared with women who deliver their baby as a result of unintended pregnancy.

Apologies, my comment posted too early.

In addition it is worth noting that LIFE charity, are not religious fundamentalists, LIFE are a non-denominational organisation, who employ atheists.

I thought it might be worth pointing that out. It is a shame that you did not choose to have any of their representatives appear on your show.

Iain, your approach fails to understand the trauma that women experience. Sharing a very personal experience which in their eyes involves the death of their child can be extremely upsetting and traumatic. That is why you are very unlikely to get people calling up in response to the kind of announcement you made. Women need to psyche themselves up and prepare for this type of experience and how they will feel afterwards. It will always be easier for them not to make this call.

Be in no doubt they exist and please understand that although we live in a media hungry, 24/7 world these are real women who have to carry on with their lives as best they can.

In essence i don't think that your radio show should be the basis on which to make a decision. The lack of calls can be very easily explained.

Iain, I suspect you "could hardly believe what [you] w[ere] hearing" when you interviewed me because you seem to have misunderstood SPUC's position. We at SPUC have not "attacked" Nadine Dorries because we "reckon she's selling out by not wanting to ban abortion altogether." She's always been clear that she supports legal abortion so she never had an anti-abortion position to "sell out". We at SPUC have in contrast said that "we cannot support" Mrs Dorries' amendments because they are flawed in their own terms. Those flaws mean that the amendments are unlikely to achieve Mrs Dorries's claims for them (counselling independent from abortion providers and pro-abortion influence, reductions in abortions etc) and could actually make the situation worse. So the question of whether pro-lifers should adopt a pragmatic approach to abortion law reform is irrelevant. Even the pro-life groups most commonly associated with a pragmatic approach to abortion law reform (LIFE, ProLife Alliance) have not come out in support of Mrs Dorries' amendment. Anthony Ozimic, communications manager, SPUC.

Antony is correct, and I was not implying that SPUC are religious fundamentalist organisation. Simply answering Iain's question about who else is clamouring to provide this advice.

Half an hour ago, the ProLife Alliance (which, in contrast to SPUC, supported strongly Mrs Dorries' 2008 attempt to reduce the 24-week limit on social abortions) issued a statement saying (inter alia): "It is unclear how the current amendments, which we believe have been proposed with the right intentions, would work in practice. For example, who would be responsible for ensuring that information provided to women was objective and accurate? We are concerned that these amendments will not achieve the aim of providing appropriate counselling to women." Anthony Ozimic, communications manager, SPUC

I totally agree that there is little evidence to demonstrate that the counselling provided by BPAS or Marie Stopes is anything other than independent - even the Daily Mail has struggled to demonstrate otherwise.

However, it is interesting that some Tory MPs are taking an interest in how "independent advice" may be distorted by financial motives. Perhaps they should now take a long hard look at the Independent Financial Advisers (IFAs) were the evidence of poor advice being coloured by the level of commision paid to IFAs are legion (even in the pages of the Daily Mail!). However, given that there are not a few IFAs among the ranks of Tory MPs and Party members I will not hold my breath.

Iain you over look the facts. These are companies and by law they must try to maximise their profits. That doesn't need proving. If an employee advises you to go to a competitor or not buy the product then they would get sacked. Same with an abortion councillor.

I don't understand your argument. You need to explain why a company wants to reduce their own profits. I understand some some counselling would be needed but this would be to protect the company from getting sued if the patent dies. So the risks need to be explained to a patient. Im sure the doctors insurance requires it. So it depends what you mean by counselling. You need to enumerate all the different types of counselling for your argument to mean anything.

Iain in answer to your question about who can give advice there are plenty of qualified psychotherapists who can deal with this. Of course the time frame is limited and should involve several visits over a short period of time.

Every patient is unique and will react differently.

I expect the doctors at the clinic can deal with the medical issues. But the issue of trauma, regret, mental health and psychological impact can be dealt with by psychotherapists who also deal with death, trauma and birth on a regular basis. They are trained to deal with issues from a perspective of psychological health without being medical experts - for example cancer.

Just wanted to clarify I meant psychotherapists - and not councillors.

Psychotherapists are qualified to at least an MA or post MA level. They can be recommended by clinicians to deal with medical issues.

"Councillors" on the other hand are not necessarily educated to degree level and as far as I know cannot be recommended by clinicians to deal with medical issues - only personal and relationship issues.

As this Bill was defeated - but the Government says it may move forward on the spirit of this Bill I'd like to give a little helpful advice.

First I have no interest in abortion - but do have an interest in psychotherapy - as my partner is one.

What the Government need to do is to go and talk to the British Association of Psychotherapists or the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy - and ask them to look into the counselling given to women in this situation?

I am sure senior practioners in both associations will throw themselves in convulsions - primarily because they have had alot of experience in dealing with women who have and have not had abortions - and the consequences of those actions.

I'm sure they would say that it is VERY difficult to offer counselling in such a short period of time. I'm sure they will separate the clinical from the psychological advice. I'm sure they will accept the offer to go to the abortion clinics, and sit in consultations. I'm sure they will both offer independent and ethical views on the advice that is given by the clinics. I'm sure they will offer independent and professional advice on what sortof advice should be given and how to regulate moving forward.

That seems to be the best way forward.