#cherryorchard: Video showing those trying against ALL odds to keep this old folks home open.

#NHS : Court refuses Family ' Right To Die '

M and others v NHS Primary Healthcare Trust – read judgment
For the first time the courts have been asked to consider whether life-supporting treatment should be withdrawn from a patient who was not in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) but was minimally conscious. The patient’s family sought a declaration for the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration withdrawn and said the woman, referred to as M in court, would not want to live “a life dependent on others”....read moe

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/09/29/court-refuses-familys-right-to-die/

#NHS #CPS to investigate why it refused to prosecute any of the NHS staff accused of abusing 18 disabled people at day centre

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) is to investigate why it refused to prosecute any of the NHS staff accused of abusing 18 disabled people at a day centre.

The decision not to bring any charges over the alleged abuse at the Solar Centre in Doncaster was made just three days after the head of the CPS, and a leading chief constable, spoke publicly of their determination to correct their organisations’ past failures in dealing with disability hate crime.

Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, and Stephen Otter, the equality and diversity lead for the Association of Chief Police Officers, spoke out last week at the launch of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s (EHRC) major report into disability-related harassment.

The report accused public bodies of a “systematic, institutional failure” to recognise such harassment.

The latest decision by the CPS in south Yorkshire follows a three-year battle for justice by families of former users of the day centre.

An internal NHS investigation, which reported in 2008, found evidence of 44 incidents between 2005 and 2007, involving abuse of 18 people with learning difficulties and high support needs.
The report by the trust which runs the day centre, Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust (RDaSH) – which was leaked to the media last year – provides few details of the incidents, although it makes it clear that nine different members of staff claimed they had witnessed abuse.

But Disability News Service (DNS) has seen safeguarding reports into the abuse of two of the 18 service-users, which detail clear evidence against at least three former staff members.
These two reports raise serious questions over why the police and CPS have twice failed to bring any prosecutions against the three members of staff, referred to as “A”, “B” and “C”.
In 2007, South Yorkshire Police investigated allegations of physical assault, but the CPS said there was “insufficient evidence” to bring charges.

Last year, after the RDaSH report was leaked, the force reopened its investigation. This time it investigated possible allegations of ill-treatment under the Mental Health Act, after DNS questioned why such charges were not considered in 2007.

But last week, the force said it had been told by the CPS that there was still “insufficient evidence to proceed” with any charges.

Now, after DNS questioned why no charges were possible when RDaSH appears to have taken at least nine witness statements describing ill-treatment, the CPS has agreed to re-examine its decision.

Martin Goldman, the chief crown prosecutor for Yorkshire and Humberside, has told DNS that his deputy will “look into the issues”.

A CPS spokeswoman said that Naheed Hussain, who is responsible for the South Yorkshire area, would examine whether the statements detailed in the RDaSH report were passed to the CPS by the police....read more

 http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.proudlockassociates.com/news/crown-prosecution-service-to-look-again-at-abuse-allegations-failure/&ct=ga&cad=CAcQARgBIAIoATABOAFAprCD9ARIAVgAYgVlbi1HQg&cd=hkx7eTySj9E&usg=AFQjCNGwcZxgkcyOH6ewerUJ6iRZ_Y3T6g

#cherryorchard: 'STOP Closing Care Homes You Are KILLING The Elderly !

Strong words from Yvonne Hossack, who has survived a witch - hunt to defend the fate of us ALL, one day we will be old  . Cherry Orchard, another care home to be closed and already those elderly folk who called it 'home' no longer wish to eat, they are afraid ,with good reason , for their fate now lies in the hands of a cold heartless Goverment who have taken it upon themselves to close yet another care home....Sarah Evans said today 'Goverment Euthanasia ? ' ...and I cannot help but agree with her.

This article from Yvonne Hossack 2009...

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-20784384.html

http://therighttodieathomewiththoseilove.blogspot.com/2011/09/cherryorchard-decision-already-causing.html

#cherryorchard : Reaction To The Closing Down of Cherry Orchard Care Home

Residents, friends and relatives have been left bitterly disappointed as Hampshire County Council has chosen to shut down an Andover care home.

Since May, Cherry Orchard on Windsor Road has been threatened with closure and yesterday its fate was sealed after Councillor Felicity Hindson agreed with recommendations to close the home.

The 1970's facility no longer meets modern standards of care and would be too expensive to modernise, that was the message continually put forward at the meeting in Winchester yesterday.

The head of adult social care also repeatedly pointed out that the need for residential places in Hampshire has fallen and that ‘at home' services are the preferred option.

Cherry Orchard will not close until all residents have been found a suitable alternative and Councillor Hindson says there will still be plenty of choice in the town: "It's so important that we offer choice to people, some people will want care at home but some people will be able to move into extra care.

"We have one absolutely new extra care facility in Andover, Lion Oak Court, and this gives people the opportunity to live independently in their own homes and at the same time it has care on site 24 hours a day, 7 days a week."...read more

http://www.andoversound.com/pages/extranet/cherry-orchard-reaction-i-12162.php

#CherryOrchard : Decision already causing old folk to give up on life and refuse food

A local campaign group has promised the fight has only just begun after a decision by Hampshire County Council has left them angry but determined.

On Friday, the authority chose to close the Cherry Orchard care home on Windsor Road.

Residents, friends, family members and others joined together to try and fight the plans - they came up with answers to all the Council's reasons as to why the home needed to close, but it proved not to be enough.

After the announcement decision maker Councillor Felicity Hindson was heckled with phrases like 'shame on you', ‘disgraceful' and ‘there'll be blood on your hands'.

But Sarah Evans who helps run the campaign group says they have a plan: "We have been preparing for some time for this day and basically what we'll now do is explore our legal options with a view to taking this decision further and taking it to court.

"What needs to be resolved is that if Hampshire County Council have made a flawed decision, if their decision is endangering the lives of people and their wellbeing and their health, that needs to be rectified."...read more

http://www.andoversound.com/pages/extranet/fighting-for-cherry-orchard-i-12164.php

#CherryOrchard : Sarah Evans Speaks From The Heart...

sarahevansk sarah evans

Dead proud that this is our lawyer 2 fight 4 #CherryOrchard (Daily Mail article about Yvonne Hossack)

Follow Sarah on Twitter...

Victory: Lawyer Yvonne Hossack with daughter Ellie

There can be few crusaders as selfless in their pursuit of justice on behalf of the helpless as lawyer Yvonne Hossack.

Her campaign has consumed her life for seven years. It has also brought her to the brink of bankruptcy, jeopardised her health and exerted such intolerable pressure on her personal life that it has ended her 23-year marriage.

She has lost her home, her car, her peace of mind and every penny of her savings. She has worked tirelessly and without remuneration on behalf of clients who would otherwise not have a voice.

She estimates, had she charged for her services, she would today be as much as £2million better off.
Yvonne, 53, has prolonged the lives of thousands of vulnerable and frail people in care homes. Indeed, she has saved at least 80 homes from closure by representing their residents.
Her success came through forcing councils to consider that the effects on those being relocated when a home closed are so traumatic they can prove fatal.

Yet this selfless woman has been the subject of an extraordinary witch hunt, which ended yesterday in the 'miracle' of her acquittal on charges of breaching rules of solicitors' conduct.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1214566/Lawyer-victimised-saving-80-care-homes-tells-ready-lose-win-dignity-elderly.html#ixzz1Z4qsdROc

#NHS:Royal Marsden Denies Cuts

http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news/local/topstories/9263919.Royal_Marsden_denies_cuts/?ref=twtrec

#savecherryorchard : Cherry Orchard Meeting.

It's less than 24 hours until Hampshire County Council decide the fate of an Andover Care Home.

Cherry Orchard on Windsor Road is being threatened with closure and a formal announcement will be made tomorrow.

Campaigners have expressed concerns that a decision has already been made but will be at the meeting to make a final plea and present a petition with over 4,000 signatures opposing the closure.

A 13 week consultation was held after a decision to close the home was announced in May, but Save Cherry Orchard Campaigner Mary Burke - whose father is currently a resident - thinks it's been on the cards for a while: "They haven't updated it, they've left it for a long long while because they knew what they wanted to do with this home, although they deny it they've known for a long long while that this was going to be closed....read more

http://www.andoversound.com/pages/extranet/cherry-orchard-meeting-i-12130.php

Terminally ill patients told their benefits may be cut

Disability campaigners criticise government for sending out letters about welfare reform bill, which has not yet been passed

• 

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said working could give terminally ill people 'a sense of being useful'. Photograph: Kirsty Wigglesworth/PA

 

The government has been criticised by disability campaigners for warning some terminally ill patients that their benefits may be cut from next April if its welfare reform bill, which has not yet passed all its parliamentary stages, is enacted later this year.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is sending letters to claimants saying the contributory employment support allowance (ESA) will be time-limited to one year for people deemed capable of returning to employment, meaning those already receiving the benefit could lose their financial help in six months' time.

The provision is included in the bill, which has still to go to the House of Lords for scrutiny.
Neil Coyle, the Disability Alliance's director of policy, said: "The impact of cutting support will be devastating for people already told they only have a limited time left to live. Many will have worked for years and will feel they deserve a little support in return until they pass away.
"The government has time to change its plans before terminally-ill people and their families have this avoidable and quite nasty cut imposed."

The alliance claims that 700,000 people will eventually be affected by the change in support, and alleges that 400,000 would have to lose all support if the government is to meet its target of cutting the welfare bill by £2bn. Liberal Democrat delegates voted against the imposition of time limits at their party conference earlier this week.

But the DWP insisted the terminally ill would not lose the allowance if they were unfit to work, and said the 12-month time limit was intended to act as an incentive for those capable of returning to "work-related activity". Those assessed as in need of support because of illness or family circumstances would continue to receive the allowance, it added.

A spokesman said: "It will depend on the individual's capacity to work. Everyone will be assessed on an individual basis and if the decision is that they are able to start the journey back to work there will be a time limit.

"Speaking of terminal illness is clearly emotive and if they are on their deathbed they will clearly not be going back to work, but if someone is not in that position they may be able to lead a normal life which could involve work. The process of working may even be helpful in giving them a sense of being useful and prolonging their lives.

"There is no benefit or advantage in just cutting the ESA. It is not some arbitrary target."
The spokesman said the letters were being sent out in advance of the legislation being passed in order to give claimants maximum warning of the possible change.

"It would be completely wrong not to alert people well in advance that there is a possibility that their benefit entitlement may change. From next April people in the work-related activity group will only be able to claim ESA for a year, to bring it into line with other benefits. ESA is not designed for people to claim for the long term unless they are in the support group.

"We must ensure that the benefit system has to be fair to taxpayers as well as disabled people."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/sep/21/terminally-ill-told-benefits-cut

#NHS #torymurder : Terminally ill warned over health cuts

Thousands of terminally-ill people have begun receiving letters warning them their benefits could be cut in April, even though Parliament has yet to approve the changes.

Under proposals in the Welfare Bill, which is being scrutinised in the Lords, contributory Employment Support Allowance will be time-limited to 12 months from April 2012.

The change will be retrospective, so people who have received the payments for 12 months or more when the rule comes into force will have their benefit cut immediately.

Earlier this week, delegates at the Liberal Democrat conference in Birmingham passed a motion calling on their MPs to oppose the "arbitrary" time limit and the plans are likely to face stiff opposition in the Lords.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14999755?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

#savecherryorchard :Campaigners to lobby County Council on ‘decision Friday’

by Sarah Evans

 

SCOCH condemns ‘heartless’ tactics as elderly residents again left in tears

RELATIVES AND  supporters of elderly residents at Cherry Orchard Care Home will lobby Hampshire County Council from 1.15pm on Friday (September 23) to demand a reprieve for the threatened Andover facility.

 Save Cherry Orchard Care Home (SCOCH) members will deliver a 4,000-signature petition to Felicity Hindson, HCC’s executive member for adult social care, when she sits at 2pm on Friday, and is urging supporters to mount a dignified lobby before the meeting.

The call comes as campaigners reveal that residents have once more been left shocked and in tears following unannounced visits by HCC staff who told residents that the council’s recommendation is that Cherry Orchard should close.

The campaign is planning a legal challenge should the council go ahead with its already stated intention to close the home on grounds that SCOCH describes as baseless.....read more

http://savecherryorchard.wordpress.com/

#NHS : The #Konnolsky Files, New Health Service ProvidersFiles. In praise of Louise Mensch !

 #NHS

 http://konnolsky.tumblr.com/post/9974537849/new-health-service-providers

#NHS :The end of the #NHS as we know it, by Colin Leys

The A&E area of Birmingham Heartlands Hospital. Photograph: David Sillitoe for the Guardian

 

What Wednesday's vote on the health and social care bill shows more clearly than anything is that many, if not most, of the political elite no longer care whether they are carrying out the wishes of the electorate, and barely pretend that we are any longer a democracy.

The prime minister promised before the 2010 election not to introduce any "top-down reorganisations" of the NHS; to say he, Andrew Lansley and Nick Clegg lack an electoral mandate for the bill is an understatement. It is also an understatement to say that they have not told the truth about the bill's intentions, and that they have reduced Department of Health statements, such as its latest so-called MythBuster document, to a level of brazen mendacity that demeans a once great office of state.

The principle seems to be that if an official lie – such as that the bill does not imply privatisation – is repeated often enough, most people will feel it must be true. And by using existing powers to abolish PCTs and set up "pathfinder" so-called GP consortia, and making arrangements with foreign private companies to take over NHS hospitals, the government has also pre-empted such debate as MPs are inclined to have. The Conservative MP Dr Sarah Wollaston, who originally denounced the bill, now says that changes have already gone too far to oppose it any further – a remarkable statement of political impotence.

The bill will end the NHS as a comprehensive service equally available to all. People with limited means will have a narrowing range of free services of declining quality, and will once again face long waits for elective care.

Everyone else will go back to trying to find money for private insurance and private care. More and more NHS hospital beds will be occupied by private patients. Doctors will be divided into a few who will become rich, and many who will end up working on reduced terms and with little professional freedom for large corporations (the staff of the hospitals that are being considered for handing over to private firms will have noted that the firms in question want "a free hand with staff").

The costs of market-based healthcare – from making and monitoring multiple and complex contracts, to advertising, billing, auditing, legal disputes, multimillion pound executive salaries, dividends and fraud – will soon consume 20% or more of the health budget, as they do in the US. Neither the Care Quality Commission nor NHS Protect (the former NHS Counter-Fraud Unit) are remotely resourced enough, or empowered enough, to prevent the decline of care quality and the scale of financial fraud that the bill will introduce.

What we are witnessing is the completion of a project begun some 25 years ago to restore healthcare to private enterprise. The key players have not been MPs but private healthcare companies and consultancies like McKinsey and KPMG. The war has been waged by the lavish corporate funding of pro-market thinktanks – the quiet subversion of some of those, like the King's Fund, that are still rather quaintly described as "independent" – and the deep penetration of the Department of Health and Labour's senior ranks. No countervailing argument has come from pro-public thinktanks, because none exists with resources equal to the task. And how many MPs have actually read through the bill they are in the process of endorsing, or even the explanatory notes that accompany it?

The one serious obstacle to the bill's promoters has been the impact of social media: 38 Degrees, Facebook, expert bloggers and tweeters. Along with the million-plus people who work for the NHS, a steadily growing portion of, especially, younger voters, have been exposed to a different narrative and see through the spin. At the moment most of them may be more cynical than politically active. But if the bill becomes law and the reality begins to be felt in people's daily lives it is this counter-narrative that will make sense. MPs – and now the Lords – would be well advised to ponder the implications of this.

#NHS  http://bit.ly/r4RfSJ

#NHS David #Cameron 100% full proof liar !

name

twitter username

@reply to tagged user

http://twitpic.com/6hgsqm

#NHS: Letter to a Tory MP about the health bill.

Subject: Health and Social Care Bill

Dear Mr Harrington

You are doubtless aware of the grave damage the enactment of the proposed Lansley legislation will do, not only to the NHS which is held in such affection and regard by the public at large, but also to the image and reputation of the Conservative Party.  The full impact of the destruction of the present NHS, still seeking to offer a patient-centred, coordinated and collaborative service, and its replacement with a disintegrated, competitive, market-driven parody of the dreadful US commercial system will be only too apparent when the next General Election comes around.

It is particularly revealing to me to note the Prime Minister’s treachery to an NHS to the superb performance of which he has so often and so fulsomely paid tribute in the past.  I have had the good fortune to spend the whole of my professional life working in what has been a morally rewarding organisation with the simple goal of doing as much good as was possible for the public it served.  Along with the great majority of my doctor and nurse colleagues I totally repudiate the government assertion, based upon zero evidence, that the provision of care for the sick and the prevention of disease in the community will be better driven by a business ethic with its commercial bottom line.

To me this Bill is a democratic deception which the government, without mandate, is inflicting on the British public.  You know full well, despite subsequent weasel words, that nothing of this sort was set before the public at the Election.  But it also an historical tragedy that, out of ideological spite, the destruction of a great and successful social enterprise will be the indelible legacy of your Party.

As my representative in Parliament, I call on you to oppose this act of politically inspired vandalism with all possible force

Yours sincerely

Harry Keen

Professor Harry Keen CBE MD FRCP
Unit for Metabolic Medicine
Diabetes & Endocrine Clinical Unit
3
rd floor, Southwark Wing
Guy’s Hospital Campus, KCL, London SE1 9RT

http://abetternhs.wordpress.com/2011/09/05/letter-to-a-tory-mp-about-the-health-bill/

We Need Toothpaste: A loving caring blog , daughter takes care of mum who suffers from dementia and their day to day lives.

http://weneedtoothpaste.blogspot.com/

#NHS errors in care of dying man (video)

A confidential report into the care of a dying, elderly man on an NHS ward has found a catalogue of failings.

Parkinson’s disease sufferer Ken Rasheed, 80, was admitted to the Godstone ward at East Surrey Hospital last autumn following a stroke, and was secretly filmed by Channel 4's Dispatches.

The documentary, made by Hardcash, revealed systemic failures at East Surrey Hospital; it says Rasheed was not fed properly, occasionally not given his medication, and that some staff there were not always trained adequately.

Channel 4 News has seen a copy of the report ordered by the hospital management following the documentary's broadcast.

Referring the feeding of Rasheed, it says: "Oral feeds problems were not robustly identified when the patient's intake first reduced," adding: "Additionally, when concerns about oral feeding and swallowing were identified by staff and the patient's family, a multi-disciplinary assessment of the reasons for his poor intake was not conducted."

The report also states that medical notes were written, claiming that Mr Rasheed had gained in weight, even though it is now claimed this could not have been possible.

An attitude that if you reach a certain age, and you are not well, we are not going to give you time and dignity - Tamina Rashell

It was because Mr Rasheed's family were so concerned about his treatment following his relocation to Godstone ward, that they agreed to the secret filming.

His daughter, Tamina Rashell, told Channel 4 News she had told staff that her father was having trouble swallowing.

"From day one, there was cheese sandwiches sitting there. And I said ‘why have you put cheese sandwiches, he needs soft, moist food.’ In the end we would pack soft food to give to him," she said.

Before he was moved to Godstone ward, the report says, Mr Rasheed was assessed as needing to be restricted to thickened fluids.

This assessment does not appear to have been passed to Godstone ward.

There were also major problems with the administering of Mr Rasheed’s medication, according to the report. It was missed entirely on a number of occasions and there were doses not signed for or accounted for.

As a result of those inconsistencies, Mr Rashid’s Parkinson's condition - which had been controlled for 15 years - deteriorated.

He began to suffer from fits, and the report notes a further failure: doctors were not always called.

It states: "The patient did not always receive his PD (Parkinson's Disease) medication and anti-seizure medications at the prescribed frequency."

It adds that the medications were not switched to liquid form 'in a timely way'.

The report does say - and Mr Rasheed’s family agrees - that he received excellent care when he was first admitted to the hospital: it was only when he was moved to Godstone ward that the litany of errors began.

"What I witnessed was what appeared to be an attitude that if you reach a certain age, and you are not well, we are not going to give you time and dignity. It was a value judgement," Ms Rashell said.

She added that in her opinion, her father had effectively starved to death, despite the best efforts of his family to feed him, although the report does not share the conclusion.

In a statement, the Chief Executive of Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, Michael Wilson, said: “Like everyone, I was saddened by the Dispatches programme on end of life care. We asked an independent chair to lead a review and have shared the results of the investigation with the patient’s wife to whom we have also extended our sincerest apologies. Out of respect for her wishes we are unable to comment on the patient’s individual care.”

On Monday, the charity Age UK announced a joint initiative with the Local Government Association (LGA) and the NHS Confederation on dignity in care.

http://www.channel4.com/news/catalogue-of-nhs-errors-in-care-of-dying-man

#Dorries:Case study: One woman’s story of having an abortion under existing rules.Take Action! Contact your MP ahead of the debate on 5th/6th using either the templates from Abortion Rights or FPA to urge them to oppose these amendments.

http://www.humanism.org.uk/news/view/884

#Dorries:The ‘Dr Death’ slur against Dr Evan Harris by Sunny Hundal.

The editor of ConservativeHome, Tim Montgomerie, likes to style himself as the leader of the moderate, conservative movement in the UK. But his nastiness is increasingly on show with the upcoming abortion vote.

For the past few days, his website has been referring to Dr Evan Harris as ‘Dr Death’ – picking up the slur frequently parroted by Nadine Dorries MP.

In his article for the Telegraph today, Tim Montgomerie repeats it again.

Keep this in mind: the ‘nickname’ isn’t widely at all, except by some internet commenters, and mostly by Nadine Dorries. Christina Odone did use it but as stopped as far as I can tell. The Daily Mail columnist Gerri Peev used it in the past but apparently apologised for it afterwards.

It was the Daily Mail that first made the slur prominent here.

That article refers to Dr Evan Harris as ‘Dr Death’, and to his Jewish origins...  article in full at Sunny's blog.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/09/04/dr-evan-harris-and-dr-death/

#Dorries on 'His Grace'....

http://blog.dorries.org/

#Dorries on #Cameron 'he made me do it '

Quote:

'It was he who insisted the word “independent” was inserted into the amendment and I left the meeting feeling supported and encouraged.'Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033505/Cameron-branded-gutless-Tory-MP-caving-Clegg-abortion.html#ixzz1WySbluDT

#Dorries: PILLS the modern day 'Back Street Abortion' Does Dorries have these figures to hand of how many women use this method ?

Women are risking their health and even their lives by taking illegal abortion pills bought online - and young girls who want to keep their pregnancy secret are particularly vulnerable. As experts warn of a dangerous trend, Your Life investigates

She had never thought she would consider an abortion. But when 19-year-old Lara got pregnant after a one night stand, she knew it was her only choice.

But forced to keep her pregnancy a secret, Lara went online and bought abortion drugs to take at home.

Despite it being illegal to take the drugs without the supervision of a medical expert, some women like Lara now feel they have no other option but to risk their health by terminating their pregnancy alone at home.

For most women who go the official route for an abortion, even in the earliest stages of pregnancy, they will visit their clinic as many as four times.

They will sit through a consultation, come back to take a pill under supervision, return up to two days later for another that will induce the abortion, before a final follow-up meeting.

The law says abortion pills must be taken in the presence of a doctor or nurse. And as much as the second pill is administered under supervision, women are allowed home straight after they take it. In fact, some have told harrowing stories of being sent home bleeding on public transport and doubled over in pain in public toilets.

But for some women, the experience gets even worse than that. Desperate to terminate their pregnancy, they are buying abortion pills for £15 online, opting to break the law and put their health at risk rather than work their way through the official system. Young girls wanting to keep their pregnancy secret are increasingly taking this dangerous route.

And with no assurances about what the drugs really are, and no medical advice about what to do if things go wrong, this could become a very dangerous trend.

Patricia Lohr, medical director of the largest dedicated abortion provider, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, says: “One of the biggest risks with buying drugs over the internet is that in most cases they’re uncontrolled and unregulated so there’s no way of telling that they are what they say they are. This means they could be ineffective or even harmful.

“When you go through the proper channels, you’ll be asked about your medical history. Not everyone is suitable for an abortion pill – for instance it shouldn’t be prescribed for women on certain medications or with particular conditions.

“It’s also vital to know exactly how far along in the pregnancy you are as this determines how the pill should be taken and whether or not it will be effective. This may not happen online.”

Lara, from the Republic of Ireland, felt she had no option but to take the risk. She was always against abortion, until she got pregnant herself.

“I was in my final year at an all-girls’ Catholic school and had won a provisional place to study at a top university in Dublin,” Lara explains.

“When I got pregnant after a one-night stand over the Christmas holidays in 2009, I wanted to scream. But I could tell no one. Having a baby would have meant getting expelled and having to give up my uni place for life as a teenage single mum.”

Lara tried all the old wives’ tales to end the pregnancy herself. None worked, so she went online.

“I went out to an internet cafe to research the abortion pill. I was looking over my shoulder the entire time I was there.

“Being pregnant was scary enough, but the idea of being arrested for having an abortion illegally was terrifying.

“I got a tip from a chat forum for pregnant girls, and bought mifepristone and misoprostol online for £60 each. I got up at 6am each day to wait for the postman so I could hide the package as soon as it arrived.

“It was an agonising wait, because I was six weeks pregnant and they need to be taken before nine weeks.

“A few hours after taking the pills the cramps and the bleeding were excruciating, but I felt I deserved that pain.

“Of course I couldn’t go to a doctor or I could’ve faced jail.

“The pills worked, and I’m at uni now. But every time mum or dad tells me they’re proud of me, part of me wants to confess that actually I think I am the most shameful person in the world.”

At BPAS clinics, women will also be given information about what is normal after the abortion. “There’s a small risk of potentially serious complications, such as severe bleeding and infections, and it’s vital that women understand when they may need to seek medical advice,” adds Patricia.

“Finally, a clinic will check whether the treatment has worked. It’s hard to do this yourself as pregnancy tests may give inaccurate results.”

But with the process for legal abortions bound by complicated laws that date back to the 1960s, some experts are concerned the system is outdated and could drive more women to take extreme measures.

Last month, BPAS failed in its bid to change the law to allow women to take the second element of the abortion medication – misoprostol – at home, as women in the United States, France, India, Ethiopia and North Korea already can.

BPAS’s associated director, Clare Murphy, says a major pressure on women having abortions is the long distances they have to repeatedly travel.

“Women regularly travel more than an hour to access early medical abortion, often on public transport,” she says. “Our clinic in Cardiff sees women who have driven for three hours to get there.”

But, warns Clare, that is no reason to opt for playing Russian roulette with online drugs.

She says: “We believe when women have a choice they prefer to be treated by someone they can trust, rather than obtain the medication from an unknown source online.

“You do not know what you’re getting, you may not know the correct dosage, and one of the main risks is that it simply will not work.

“Even though all the evidence shows that for early abortion it is safe and effective to administer misoprostol at home, it is important women receive comprehensive advice as to what to expect, what is normal, and what might indicate a problem.

“And they know they have someone to turn to – for medical and emotional support.”

As things stand, early medical abortion typically involves taking two sets of medication – mifepristone, which detaches the pregnancy, and then misoprostol, which induces the abortion – 24 to 48 hours apart.

It is increasingly requested by women seeking abortion in the first nine weeks of pregnancy, with more than 70,000 treatments carried out in 2009.

Considered safer and less traumatic than a surgical procedure, it is strongly opposed by pro-life campaigners, although experts say there is no medical evidence to show that taking one set of the pills at home would endanger the woman’s health.

The process can often involve four trips to the clinic: the consultation, one for each dose of medication and a follow-up.

“We want to take out the misoprostol appointment,” says Clare, “and give women the drugs to take away with them when they attend for mifepristone.

“This would eliminate all the stress about travelling home, knowing the cramping and bleeding could begin at any moment, the financial difficulties of coming back or problems organising childcare.

“But if access to abortions became harder, with cost or other barriers growing, online abortion drugs could become the backstreet abortion of the 21st century.”


Read more: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/health-news/2011/03/08/are-online-pills-the-new-backstreet-abortion-115875-22973709/#ixzz1WsvZBgwv

#Dorries: Do NOT force your abortion views onto my body ! (archived article)

By Niklas Albin Svensson

Wednesday, 15 October 2008

Parliament will once again be discussing the Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill in October. Once again battle is joined between those who defend the right for women to decide over their own bodies, and those who want the state to do it for them. This time, however, there is room for improvements to existing legislation - not just calls to turn the clock back fifty years. 1967 Act In 1967, abortion was made legal under certain provisions. Women who want an abortion within 24 weeks had to get the approval of two doctors, who had to sign a paper that a continuation of the pregnancy involves a greater risk to 'the physical or mental health' of the woman or her existing children than a continuation of the pregnancy. In practice, most doctors would sign such a statement but it establishes the principle that the doctors are the one to judge the woman's situation - rather than the woman herself. After 24 weeks, abortion is restricted to cases where there is 'risk of grave physical or mental injury'. If you live in Northern Ireland, it is almost impossible to get a legal and safe abortion - the 1967 Act does not apply. Since 1967, Parliament has, particularly in later years, received persistent demands for the lowering of the 24 week limit. The so called "pro-lifers", in reality a coalition of various reactionary Christian groups, appeal to "developments in science". The professional associations such as The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and The Royal College of Nurses are firm defenders of the current time limit, and even want to improve access to abortion within that limit. The less sophisticated argument, that abortion is murder, is usually appealing to emotions evoked by images of foetuses, in a completely unscientific way. The Christian right around Europe and the world have time and time again shown their complete contempt for human life. In Poland and the U.S., for example, there have been several instances of attacks on and murders of doctors that perform abortions. More significantly, prohibition of abortion does not necessarily reduce the number of abortions. Around the world it has been estimated that 20 million unsafe abortions take place every year, resulting in the death of some 80,000 women. The so called "pro-life" groups do not seem to care much for the life of these, mainly poor women. Pro-choice Most of these issues were brought to a fore in May this year, when the Human Embryology Bill was debated in parliament (see Defend a woman's right to choose, by Rachel Heemskerk, 07 May 2008). The anti-choice ("pro-life") amendments were soundly defeated, with 304 to 233. This was no thanks to the media who in the run-up to the vote broadcasted and published plenty of images of foetuses in an attempt to put pressure on the MPs, primarily of the Labour Party. Neither did the government help, calling for a free vote, since it was a "matter of conscience". Abortion is of course to some extent a "matter of conscience" - to the women that have them - not to the MPs that legislate. In preparation for the bill's return to Parliament in October, a number of MPs have submitted improvements to the bill. The perhaps most heated discussion will be on Northern Ireland - an amendment have been introduced to remove the disgraceful exception. The second most important is the one that would remove the requirement of two doctors' permission, replacing it with the same phrase that is used for cosmetic surgery: abortion is to be conducted according to 'the conditions and principles of good medical practice'. Matter of conscience? Others suggest that nurses can perform the early abortions (the one that only require administration of a pill) and the performing of earlier abortions in GPs surgeries. All of these have the backing of the aforementioned professional associations. Socialist Appeal naturally supports these important steps to improve women's right to choose. Improving access to abortion will make it easier for working class women as well as students to access these services when they are needed. Yes to improved access to abortion - no to a return to the back streets!

http://www.socialist.net/no-return-back-street-abortions.htm

#Dorries: Get your rosaries off my ovaries...OR if it ain't broke DON't fix it !

• 

article by Suzanne Moore

Back to the 50s … Imelda Staunton plays an abortionist in the film Vera Drake. Photograph: Momentum Pictures/PA

 

I do remember leaving the party very fast. I must have been about 11 and in a haze, looking through magazines while the women ooohed and aaahed over plastic boxes. God knows why my mum had made me go to a Tupperware party with her. In no shape or form did it resemble a party – it was just full of boring neighbours feigning huge enthusiasm for salad spinners. Nonetheless I felt the atmosphere change suddenly as the plastic lids were snapped back on the boxes. The women were no longer talking about the storage of leftovers but about getting "rid" of things. And "the right thing to do". It was tense. My mum, menthol cigarette in a holder – an affectation she had picked up in the States – got to her feet and said: "Christ, you really don't know what you are talking about. If it wasn't for abortion I'd have a football team by now."

In a blur, we knocked over mountains of sandwich containers as we were given our coats. Safe to say we never went to any more Tupperware parties. I thought at the time that it was because we were too good. I now see it's because we were too bad.

On the way home she told me what it was like getting pregnant in the glorious 50s, years before she had me. Sitting in the bath, drinking quinine from the chemist she worked in then, eventually scraping together the money to go to London. There, in a small room, another woman clipped the neck of her cervix and told her to "just go".

She collapsed bleeding in the toilets of Liverpool Street station. That's where she miscarried or aborted the foetus, or the baby, or whatever you wish to call it. I am not squeamish about these words. I have no desire to reduce every abortion to a meaningless bunch of cells or cytoblasts as some feel compelled to do.

I know what having an abortion is like myself so I could make a terrible joke about it running in the family. Actually, my point is that abortion is a very common experience. Nor am I trying to suggest that the proposed amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill concerning counselling mean a return to these dark old days. The reason I am telling you all this is because I admired my mother's refusal to be ashamed of her own experience. Now this new breed of anti-abortionists snip round the edges of the process with their strategies of delay ... er, sorry, "independent counselling". But beware their language of care. This is not about care but about control. This control absolutely depends on shame: sexual shame. This shame keeps us quiet. Shame keeps us locked into individual guilt. Shame even makes us stupidly grateful that we are allowed to have any choice at all.

This whole debate around counselling pivots on the idea of deep and private shame, positing the idea of counselling being used to sell an evil procedure. Women are always "vulnerable" dupes, never simply adults who have made decisions. Some weird pension analogy has been brought in, though health care is nothing like it as advice and services do often come from the same people ie: doctors.

The truth is that, in theory, the argument about abortion is won. Most people, however uncomfortably, support a woman's right to choose. We feel that pushing a woman to give birth to a child she does not want is heartless. We know the lengths women go to. The moral cowardice of the Irish polity results in those women, often alone and shivery, whom you see on Ryanair flights.

There is little point trying to persuade those who are religiously opposed to abortion (though I am intrigued at the Catholic attitude to the foetus – miscarried babies are not buried as they are not baptised) but we can simply remind ourselves we are living in a largely secular democracy.

Loving the unborn more than the born is politically convenient, as the unborn do not have to be housed or educated or parented. The 60,000 abortions that Nadine Dorries and Frank Field hope to stop via "unbiased" counselling will presumably produce 60,000 children that someone has to look after. (I am not sure where this figure of 60,000 comes from, but then to be fair I am not sure Dorries does either.)

We are repeatedly told this is an "emotive" issue. The new vocabulary of the anti-abortion lobby is full of vaguely feminist platitudes – not feminist enough to counsel the men who walk away from pregnancies but still. Underneath, we are fallen women, damaged goods and so terribly stupid that we can be persuaded to have a quick abortion by wicked charities. When we could be what? Wombs to provide babies for "proper couples" or go it alone as the root of all evil: single mothers?

This is nauseating. A vote of conscience? If MPs had one they would say it is not the business of the legislature to control women's reproduction. They would stop telling us what is "emotive" and ask what actually is. I didn't want counselling in order to have an abortion. I certainly did after a miscarriage – again an awfully common experience – but none was offered. No, instead let's bring on an army of "independent" zealots who can tell us that abortion leads to cancer, mental health issues and infertility, and sod the evidence that having a baby is more risky than having an abortion. Anyone who talks about how easy it is and how the reality is glossed over is ignorant. You have a scan. You know and see what you are doing. It's not a walk in the park but it is a huge relief. The emotive part is the enforced waiting.

Now the tactics are to further that wait. This is nothing short of cruelty dressed up in the language of concern.

As Field and all his cronies are so concerned about my reproductive cycle, I am happy to give them my gynaecological CV. Abortions! Miscarriages! Natural childbirth! Caesareans! He and his fellow legislators can pore over it with their expertise, right? Their laws are important. My body isn't.

For they have learned their lessons from America. As the public do not support an outright ban on abortion they will fiddle at the edges on time limits and counselling. In states such as South Dakota, pregnancy "help centres" have been set up where counselling means being lectured by unqualified, faith–based volunteers who are resolutely anti-abortion. Make no mistake, counselling is the route by which access to abortion is limited.

This smokescreen of language is worthy of George Orwell's Newspeak. In the guise of impartial advice, the opposite will be offered. As illiberal as these times are, even Cameron is backing away, finally.

All fundamentalisms seek to control female sexuality. It's the same old game. Get your rosaries off my ovaries, as we used to say. You trust me with a child but not with a choice? If MPs want to help women then they can make access to abortion and contraception more efficient. Who has the authority over my body – some geezer in the House of Commons? Or me and my doctor?

Like my mother, I feel no shame and I refute this language of "care".

You want a definition of a nanny state?

How about one that thinks it's OK to poke around in your uterus?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/02/abortion-counselling

#Dorries praises Graeme Archer BUT what do the extremist's who are backing Nadine think of homosexuality ?

http://blog.dorries.org/

#Dorries: Graeme Archer, as you say you are GAY so BUTT out this does not and will NOT ever be a problem for you .

The MP Nadine Dorries at her home in mid-Bedfordshire  Photo: JOHN ROBERTSON

By Graeme Archer

8:11PM BST 02 Sep 2011

185 Comments

Nadine Dorries and Frank Field, the Tory MP for mid-Bedfordshire and the Labour MP for Birkenhead, plan to move an amendment to the Government’s health reform Bill. This would ensure that pregnant women who seek a termination can have access to counselling and advice that is “independent” of the providers of the procedure itself. Predictably, all hell has broken loose. I put “independent” in quotation marks, deliberately, because it is that word that is contentious, and that word – and not abortion – I want to talk about.

Termination is a topic I normally avoid. Mainly, I refrain from stating an opinion because I’m a very happily civilly-partnered gay man, meaning that there are no circumstances in which I could be directly involved in a decision concerning a pregnancy. Wittgenstein’s quote seems apt: whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. (Would that some people with strong views on my own life obeyed the same dictum.) It is not that I don’t have a strong opinion, or cannot make up my mind. But any theoretical argument I could advance to support my view would be just that – theoretical. Not that of a real person facing the real decision. And so I hold back.

Strangely enough, this reticent disinterest (not indifference) is exactly what is desired by both Ms Dorries and her political opponents. Ms Dorries makes the point that there is a potential conflict of interest in having the same organisation provide counselling and receive payment for carrying out the post-counselling procedure.

Her opponents fear that these independent counsellors whom Ms Dorries foresees in these independent clinics will bring their own dogmatic prejudice, and dissuade more women from either proceeding, or seeking help in the first place. Both sides make valid points.

Which raises the question: who is a disinterested observer? Liberals think they know the answer to that question: disinterested policy-making arises solely from inspection of “evidence”, by which they mean surveys of opinion and experience. Desperate to avoid reference to any religious or even man-made ethical framework for the resolution of political dilemmas (because to admit to such a framework, even implicitly, would turn them into Tories), they have fetishised “evidence” as the ultimate arbiter. As I’ve mentioned before, the belief that an action, or political decision, can be assessed by data alone, free from contaminating personal opinion, is not only seductive, it’s wrong... read more 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/8737694/Abortion-reform-listen-to-your-prejudices.html

#Abortion groups attack Mensch's proposal.

by Sunny Hundal     September 3, 2011

Abortion groups informed Liberal Conspiracy late yesterday night that they were deeply concerned by a new amendment by Conservative MP Louise Mensch on abortion counselling.

Tabled yesterday afternoon, Mensch’s amendment was proposed as a more acceptable alternative to Dorries & Field MPs amendments.

It would not bar Marie Stopes and BPAS from offering counselling to women seeking abortion, but seek to rule out any “faith-based” and “ideologically based” service providers.

But Mensch’s amendment was also dismissed by the former Libdem MP Evan Harris, who said it was a “valiant effort” but “fundamentally flawed”.

Abortion Rights’s Darinka Aleksic sent a statement to Liberal Conspiracy that said:... read article in full at Sunny's blog

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/09/03/abortion-groups-attack-louise-menschs-proposal/

#Dorries :she is a religious extremist whose additions to this very tricky subject do far more damage than good.

British elections - indeed, most elections in western democracies - are won and lost on economic matters. Who can make money go further, fund public services better, guarantee jobs and investment, ensure taxes are fair, and so on. "It's the economy, stupid" rings through history and permeates our futures.

Morality and moral choices tend not to envelop British elections particularly prominently. During the general election of 18 months ago, the repeated memes were almost entirely financial or fiscal; tax, funding for public services, cost of education. The tone of the election was markedly similar to those in previous years - tax bombshells, tax u-turns, only our party can be trusted on this, on that, on the other.

Across the Atlantic Ocean, tone during election periods has little resemblance to their British forefathers (and for the basis of most American elections across all layers of representation, 'period' means 'all year round'). The rise of the Tea Party Movement and its infiltration into the Republican Party has changed irrevocably the manner in which USA elections are conducted. The rise of the morality brigade, avowedly Christian, right-wing, suspicious of the State, wary of welfare; there are very few British equivalents: imagine the very worst of UKIP and Tories combined with a script written by a greatest hits of Thought for the Day contributors.

Two people who represent the Tea Party ideals on English soil characterise two very different poles of their respective parties; Nadine Dorries (Conservative, Mid Befordshire) and Frank Field (Labour, Birkenhead). They could not be further apart in their political histories or heritages, and yet together they are spearheading repeated attempts to alter British law on abortion with language and attitudes not experienced in this country for generations. They represent the increasingly palpable sense of religious attitudes fighting back after years of secularisation within politics and political debate.

They represent the Tea Party in spirit..... read more

http://liampennington.blogspot.com/2011/08/morality-manifesto.html

#Dorries: Right to know: Paul Martin has a FOOL for a client !

Right to Know presents itself as a “pro women” campaign and argues that women have a right to know about certain ‘facts’ before they proceed with an abortion. It further accuses those charged with caring for these women of deliberately keeping these ‘facts’ from them because of what they describe as a “financial vested interest”; they claim and imply quite starkly that named health care providers/organisations care more about the money they can generate from abortions than they do about the women who seek their help.

Perhaps these accusers see a financial vested interest as the only possible source of corruption, because the group Right to Know has a hidden vested interest, and is keeping that information from these same women while basing their entire argument on their right to know about such things.

The blogger Unity has already covered in detail the plan by fundamentalist-led Christian groups to reduce access to abortion through a series of seemingly secular arguments, and how Right to Know fits into this:..read article in full at Bloggheads.

http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2011/04/right-to-know-paul-martin/

#Dorries / Field: Questions and Answers.

http://www.spuc.org.uk/campaigns/alerts/2011/dorriesqanda20110901

#Dorries: Ant-abortion bid in disarray..

Nadine Dorries has confirmed that the organisations supporting her campaign include an advisory service often linked to religious anti-abortion activists. Photograph: David Levene for the Guardian

 

The campaign to toughen Britain's abortion laws was losing momentum as Tory MPs on Friday backed a rival amendment and questions emerged about links to Christian counselling services that might benefit from the proposed reform.

Legislation initially proposed by Nadine Dorries and Frank Field would strip abortion providers such as Marie Stopes of their counselling role and hand it over to "independent" organisations not linked to abortion clinics.

But Dorries confirmed to the Guardian that the organisations supporting her campaign include a "crisis pregnancy centre" (CPC) – a type of advisory service often linked to religious anti-abortion activists....read more

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/02/anti-abortion-critics-nadine-dorries?CMP=twt_gu