Stuart Campbell Op-Ed
From: JOE ANTONY (joeantony@hotpop.com)
Thu Oct 5 00:28:47 2006
Dear Art,
That was very eloquently worded indeed. You have made a case against
abortions.
One of the problems that we face in India is female feticide and worse,
female infanticide.
I support your attitude to the problem of abortions, and despise feticide,
female or otherwise.
But I donot believe, that, the law should be amended or modified to prevent
abortions.
This is, I believe a social problem, and should be handled socially, by,
possibly the church/religious institutions and/or welfare organizations.
Bringing the law into play, would only compound the problem. What is the
guarantee, that the parents would care for an unwanted child.
If prostitution and liquor cannot be banned, does anyone believe that these
parents would not resort to backstreet abortions?
Joe.
India.
free to view ultrasound gallery>>
http://drjoea.googlepages.com/
Healthcare in Cochin and more>>
http://cochinblogs.blogspot.com/
The no.1 search engine of the future:
http://www.searchbigdaddy.com/drjoea
(They pay you per search)
>----- Original Message -----
From: "art fougner, md" <evsono@pipeline.com>
To: "Multiple recipients of list ULTRASOUND" <ultrasound@dns.obgyn.net>
Sent: Wednesday, October 04, 2006 8:06 AM
Subject: Stuart Campbell Op-Ed
> Folks
>
> As I carefully don my Flame - Retardant Hazmat Attire, I post this op ed
> from Stuart Campbell. It behooves all Ultrasound Professionals to
> consider Professor Campbell's eloquent plea.
>
> Don't tear a smiling foetus from the womb
>
> By Professor Stuart Campbell
> (Filed: 04/10/2006)
>
> There is something deeply moving about the image of a baby cocooned
> inside the womb. When four-dimensional scans first became available
> three years ago, I sat with parents who trembled at the sight of their
> soon-to-be newborn. They told me they wanted to stroke its downy head.
>
> Advanced scanning means we have a window on the secret life of foetuses.
> At 11 weeks we can see them yawn, and even take steps. At 22 weeks,
> they begin to open their eyes.
>
> Between 20 and 24 weeks we watch as they seem to cry, smile and frown.
> Understandably, these incredible images have influenced the debate on
> abortion. I pioneered the 4-D scanning technique in the UK and it has
> certainly caused me to question my own opinions.
>
> I now believe the maximum age for abortion should be cut to 18 weeks so
> we do not abort foetuses who exhibit the signs of humanity these images
> portray. Of course, I have been accused of "sentimentality". Maybe
> this is right, but I defy anyone to see these pictures and not pause to
> wonder if they might be wrong.
>
> With the 1967 Abortion Act, terminations could be performed up to 28
> weeks for "social" abortions. In 1990, the law was changed to 24 weeks.
> At that time, a baby born at 23 weeks had less than a 10 per cent chance
> of survival. Now, it has a 66 per cent chance and we must change the
> law again.
>
> My most vocal critics, Dr Donald Peebles at University College, London,
> and Dr Huseyin Mehmet at Imperial College, London, claim that these
> facial expressions are developmental reflexes. They are defending the
> abortion law as it stands.
>
> But I am equally keen to protect a woman's right to choose. I've
> watched women die from the after-effects of backstreet abortions. But
> we have to draw the line somewhere and 24 weeks is too late.
>
> Pain is a very difficult thing to measure in an unborn baby. Foetuses
> have no memory of pain, and no anticipation of it. But if you stuck a
> pin into a foetus, I believe it would make a crying face and flinch.
> Clearly, that's an experiment we can't carry out, but we can weigh up
> the evidence we have and make the best judgment possible.
>
> Babies born at 22 weeks are never treated without analgesics. Why, if
> there is scientific evidence to prove their brains are too
> under-developed to feel pain or distress, would they be given medication
> to protect them from pain? And if we accept that these babies may feel
> pain, why is it so difficult to imagine they would feel the same
> sensation inside the womb?
>
> I know if I gently push a baby in the womb at 28 weeks, it will make a
> crying face because it has been disturbed. How can we tell so precisely
> the point at which these expressions stop being simple reflexes and
> start to mean something?
>
> And even if they can't feel pain, they can certainly survive outside the
> womb. A study at University College Hospital found that 72 per cent of
> babies born at 24 weeks survive. Another study in Minneapolis between
> 1996 and 2000 reported that at 23 weeks, 66 per cent survive and, though
> they may suffer serious medical complications, 30 per cent of babies
> born at 22 weeks will live.
>
> Those casting doubt on whether a smile is really a smile are, in my
> opinion, defending the indefensible. If a baby has reached a stage
> where it could survive in a neo-natal unit, then the pregnancy shouldn't
> be terminated for social reasons.
>
> And we must focus on terminations for social reasons if we are talking
> about amending the law. There are 1,200 terminations a year between 22
> and 24 weeks, 70 per cent of which are for non-medical reasons.
>
> We must grasp the nettle now. These are healthy babies, not brain-dead,
> feelingless creatures. When I see a foetus that can smile at me, I know
> absolutely that we should not tear it from the womb.
>
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/10/04/do0403
.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/10/04/ixopinion.html
>
> Respectfully posted to generate discussion ...
>
> Art
>
> --
> art fougner, md
> "May The Wings of Liberty Never Lose a Feather." - Jack Burton
>
|
|
