The Right to Choose

It's not rocket science.

I've just came back from my morning lecture with an extended break, so thought I'd hit a few points that are on my mind. I'll go onto the ever contentious issue of abortion soon. A quick couple before, though.

The AM lecture was unfortunately cut short, but I'm quite glad. The course has tried to make a session on the massive problem of domestic violence into half a session, which I think is plain offensive. It would've been the arse end of the session, too, which is when most of the morons I sit in lecture theatres with are itching to stop learning and go for their second overpriced cup of coffee of the day. They don't have any money, obviously.

Staying on the point of the sections of my year group who don't seem to care much for the learning part of learning, I was quite amused to be sat in front of a row of girls (actually quite young, in respect to the average age of someone on my course) who talked all the way through the lecture. And I mean talk. Not whisper. And it's not even a big lecture theatre. It amused me more than it disturbed me, to tell the truth, as I can actually multi-task. But I feel bad for the lecturer (a person I quite like) who shouldn't really have to work with the behaviour generally reserved for a group of Year 11 girls sat at the back of a R.E. class. I've made a mental note to sit closer to the front, just in case. Anyway, the girls were shouted at (in hushed tones) by other colleagues, to much cringing and looking away. Funny old world, certainly. This afternoon's session is ran by someone with much more strength of character, shall we say? It should be interesting.

During the AM session, though, an idea came up. Can a nurse be an advocate if a patient is partaking in something they do not agree with? Should they feel guilty if they don't? The side of the room featuring me has to say a nurse shouldn't feel guilty, and we moved onto abortion. Boy, did I end up biting my tongue.

If someone doesn't agree with abortion on 'moral' grounds, or out of some other personal opinion, then fine. Feel free. But once, /especially/ as a nurse, you start to press your own opinions onto someone, onto someone's choices and treatments, you're so wrong it's untrue. I think smoking is a silly idea. Not a 'sin', or against the view of some great deity who may or may not existed, just silly. I do not, however, state clearly that I think someone should be denied treatment because of this choice (which will harm them and do very little good, so is almost against my stance on the 4 pillars of ethical practice) they've made. If someone has had an Myocardial Infarct and subsequently needed a CABG (a 'bypass') to repair it and yet continues smoking I would not deny them treatment, or deny them (in the above case) my advocacy. Nurses don't get to choose who they help in this country, and that's a good thing. Murderer, paedophile, terrorist - nurses should not be casting judgement which will influence their care and treatment on any patients who come their way.

EDIT: It was sad to see and hear most of the anti-choicers bringing out familiar old anecdotes from the Nadine Dorries school of fearmongering. Dead babies, floating in toilets and in kidney dishes, or maybe still alive, gasping for air. Same old biased bullshit, which does in no way reflect the wide range of cases, issues and types of abortion. And portrays abortion, as well as the woman who make such a choice, in a negative, prejudiced light. I was sad, but not surprised. Fear is a powerful tool.

My stance on abortion is similar to my standpoint on most life choices. Noone else matters except the person making the choice. I don't care if, in this example, a baby could survive outside the womb at 2 weeks. That's immaterial. It's the woman in questions right to choose. Not rocket science. The fact that I've met several student nurses who seem to think this isn't the case is downright wrong. Advocates, as it states we should be in the Code, nevermind ethical practice, they are not.

Foetal Pain

The above title is, I hope you realise, riddled with sardonic overtones.

There are a 'journalist' on Question Time on Thursday going on about the 'studies' that have went into 'foetal pain' and I couldn't decide whether to laugh or throw my TV out of the window. The option of both crossed my mind, too. A TV chucking lunatic I almost could've been.

These 'studies' are about as scientific as the usual would-be-emotive '3D' videos of foetuses sucking their thumbs. Foetuses apparently move away from an unpleasant stimulus, like pain. Newsflash? Hardly. Reacting to a threat does not a life make. Mice that scientists regularly experiment on react to, and indeed display such human concepts as fear when they come into contact with, pain. Why isn't Nadine Dorries standing up for their right to life, too, I wonder?

In fact, single celled bacteria respond to pleasant stimuli. Maybe we should address this issue of 'microbial pain', too?

The concept of pain is a tricky, abstract one. It's hard enough to apply to full grown humans, nevermind under developed organisms. Until these pro-lifers begin to campaign for everything that lives, they are illegitimate losers with no respect for women's rights. Dorries reckons she's pro-choice to a point. That's no choice at all. To paraphrase a wise American gent: She who gives up freedom for "safety" deserves neither.

Abortion and my day

Firstly, my day. It was a good one, thankfully. I had a few new people in one of my main bays who were fun to nurse. One of the patients was due for discharge, which is good because they are quite young and have experienced their first MI. Another patient and I spoke to this person about heat conditions, and it was very interesting to watch them share experiences and help each other out. With me facilitating, of course! They are also the main carer for a child with autism, so getting them home was a big relief. They expressed worries to me about bringing their children into hospital, as it can be a very sad occasion for the patient, as well as the kids. I was glad to wave goodbye to the patient and one of their offspring at around 12.

I got a little more experience and importance today in looking after a GTN infusion, due to one of our patients experiencing chest pain that was no longer abated by the GTN tongue spray. I personally think the patient needed a lie down and some peace and quiet, but I got to put the infusion together and help administer it, once the Doctor had (eventually) found a vein.

This also caused a bit of a rift with support workers which, as DGN has told me, is a necessary part of being an effective nurse. I was needed as a spare set of hands to help lift another patient back into bed, but this patient told me they didn't feel steady on their feet so the group agreed to get a hoist. Three people are not needed to use a hoist, so I went back to check on the GTN patient. When asked to help again (I repeat, a hoist does not need three people to operate it) I told them I had to watch the observations for my first patient. (NB. Being on a GTN infusion, which is when GTN is slowly administered directly to a vein, can cause vasodilation [dilation of the veins and arteries]. This can, in turn, cause blood pressure to drop [increase the volume and the pressure decreases] hence patients on GTN need constant observation. Every 15 minutes, you ask me). This obviously pissed some of the support workers off, however - one of their rank had already left early, and I am *not* an extra pair of hands.

So, I feel like I did good and I feel good even though everything is not good. If that makes sense. I've been looking after a patient in End Stage Heart Failure who is basically dying. I read the dispassionate medical notes about the patient's anxiety, and was further convinced of how I would never become a doctor.

There is little to be done for the patient except let them go home and live out the rest of their life outside of a hospital with their loved ones. It's sad, but it happens.

----------------------

Now, abortion. 24 weeks stands, which is the important thing. I would've liked very much to be down, outside the Houses of Parliament when Dorries came out. Instead of rousing, well thought out chants by the pro-choice groups, I wouldn't grabbed some rowdy folk and sang, in the style of football fans everywhere:

You can stick your 20 weeks up your arse!
You can stick your 20 weeks up your arse!
Your arguments were full of shit,
And noone stood for it,
You can stick your 20 weeks up your arse!

So, not a good result but not a bad one, either. My opinion will be improved if this silly legislation requiring the signature of two doctors is taken out. Given Dorries thinks we're the 'abortion capital' of Europe (which Unity and others have proven is a pile of steaming manure) we have some draconian acts stopping women from actually getting one.

So, a half victory. Even so, I've been pissed off royally by the reaction of the right wing, man-led media of this country. 3D images of organisms in the womb and the words: "What about THIS baby's rights?" are examples of the typical ridiculous, wannabe emotionally charged pap pedalled by newspapers like the Daily Mail. This 'arguement' (I use 's because it barely counts as one) that organisms within the womb feel 'pain' is riddled with flaws. Firstly, pain is not a reliably measurable concept, even in adults. I'm not sure if Nadine Dorries has conferenced with the seemingly huge amount of foetuses she has watched be aborted (and on that note I'd like to say that if she, for religious reasons, did not want to have a nursing experience on a ward performing abortions she should've said so) and asked them if they're in pain and if she did whether she recorded this on a scale of 1-to-10. Secondly, other concepts like organisms 'walking' and 'sucking thumbs' in the womb are similarly pointless. They are would-be emotive snippets as opposed to actual logical, scientific debate - which is what the pro-lifers try to pedal, most of the time. If these simple behaviours mean something is fully alive and worthy of saving despite the mother's wishes then I hope all these pro-lifers are die hard vegans. Otherwise, they must have a hard time digesting their bacon on toast in the morning. Bacon that used to be a smiling, teet-sucking, happy-go-lucky newborn piglet. But I jest.

Here's the bottom line: Do you support women's rights? You do, or you don't. If you support women's rights, then control over her body belongs to her. If you think that some almighty gentleman living in any sort of Heaven should have any say in the abortion debate, you don't support women. You're pushing your ideas onto a massive slice of the population on the say so of an old, poorly translated book. Any reduction in the 24 week limit is an act akin to turning back the clock on women's rights. It's nothing but blatant patriarchy and I'm fucking sick to the back teeth of it. Old men (in dog collars or in silk ties) with their female stooges wanting to keep the yoke of control tightly around the neck of the female population.

[As for the decision that a father is no longer a prerequisite for a family (in the IVF context) also reported by papers like the Daily Mail in spectacular style, you'd think I was against such a thing, perhaps? The shite pedalled by right wing hacks and religious zealots gives the impression that fathers have been thrown to the wayside, which is a typical exaggeration. My view? I don't give two flying fucks. IVF is a precious waste of money in a system that can barely afford to hire enough nurses to do the necessary jobs that need to be done. If a couple, of a single woman, do not have the biological set up to have children naturally, I'm sorry. Ish. There's more to this world than self-replication, I believe, especially when the world and the country is already overpopulated. On that note - you know which other places are overpopulated? Orphanages. If you're desperate to have a young vassal to pass on your worldly wisdom to go and adopt a child. Sub-rant over.)

P.S. Good posts to look at re: IVF and Abortion and current affairs are:

Here
Here
Here
And here

I *do* know what I'm yelling about

Stupid fucking knobheads like this

They annoy me. Well, specifically, Nadine annoys me. A quick look at that article will tell you a few things.

A cross-party selection of MPs are happy with the 24-week limit.

Most Doctor groups believe insignificant improvements have been made to warrant anything less than a 24-week limit.

So, in short: MPs and Medical Organisations agree the current limit is fine. But this idiot, who I am quite worried to mention she used to be a nurse (I think her new vocation of political zealot is much more suited to her ridiculous character), thinks she knows better.

"I respect a woman's right to choose. But we are close to being the abortion capital of the world and it is now time to adopt a more moderate, commonsense approach to abortion."

I.e. "I don't think women having control over their own bodies is a good idea. I should. 'Cause I'm big and clever. Unlike those silly sluts in the real world."

If this is one person I would like to smash, repeatedly, in the face with a sledgehammer it's Nadine Dorries. Not only was she once a nurse, but her arguments have been disproved constantly and yet she still clambers for publicity.

One of my major dislikes is, clearly, sexism. Some people tend to assume that women are more apt and suited to talk about issues of abortion and choice. Which, let's be honest, is bollocks. Firstly - are men effected by these issues? Yes. Do (some) men care? Yes. Does the fact that men do not have the capability to physically give birth to a child make their views less valid? No. It bloody well shouldn't. I don't see how a woman who is physically unable to give birth is more suitable to talk about abortion has automatically more important views because of their gender alone.

Now for something completely serious...

Excellent post by Unity over at MoT

Nadine Dolt-iss might be dangerous if she rubbed her brain cell onto the other one, but she is still a minor annoyance, especially when channelling the far-right zealot views she propagates.

Thankfully, there are people like Unity around to pick their propaganda apart.

One of the more important issues, to me, is simple. So what if babies survive more earlier than 24 weeks? Just because they do, doesn't mean women should be obliged or forced to have them. It's the choice of that individual as to whether they wish to give birth or not. That's not the view of the religious nutjobs out there, clearly, but I'll keep shouting to make it heard, and I'm glad others will, too.