UK suspends NRI doctor over sex-selective abortions

16

An Indian doctor is being investigated for carrying out sex selective abortions in the UK. An “extremely concerned” health secretary Andrew Lansley asked the police to investigate the matter.
An undercover investigation found consultant Prabha Sivaraman and another doctor agreeing to terminate a pregnancy based on the baby’s gender. They were suspended after being filmed in the act. 

They have also admitted on record that they were prepared to falsify paperwork to arrange the abortions, the ‘Daily Mail’ said. Sivaraman works for private clinics and NHS hospitals in Manchester. 

She told a young woman who wanted to abort a female fetus, “I don’t ask questions. If you want a termination, you want a termination.” The woman claimed that she had a blood test in France which left her ‘pretty certain’ she was having a girl. She said, “That’s not really appropriate for us right now, we were hoping for a boy. It’s the wrong gender.”
Written By: Kounteya Sinha
continue to source article at timesofindia.indiatimes.com

16 COMMENTS

  1. Que!…The anti-choice brigade response…

    “You see where abortion leads us?”

    Neatly side stepping the religious and cultural imperatives that proscribe this action.

    Ironic that considering the loudest most obnoxious objections in the anti brigades rhetorical armoury have extremely close ties with religious dogma, yet it takes a religious dogma that is culpable of abusing the service for its own ends.

  2. The Royal Free Hospital in London refused to reveal the gender of my wife’s twins twenty two years ago.

    Infanticide was a danger even then, but whether or not the sole source of it is religion I don’t know.

    • In reply to #4 by Stafford Gordon:

      Infanticide was a danger even then, but whether or not the sole source of it is religion I don’t know.

      As far as I am aware it is a traditional imperative to prefer male line births.
      As it is in many countries from China to Afghanistan.

      Part of the cultural hangover from mainly patriarchal societies it must be presumed.

      Most fundy religious seem to have sloped in the side door to promote their maleccentric world views.
      They have the obvious excuse of sexual dysfunction which seems to be a major pressure for their dogma.

      Certainly the RCC are so cursed and quite a few evangelicals seem prone to some inadequacy revolving around sex and further female related issues.

      But in the main where male line is the preferred it seems to be roughly cultural and pragmatic with a religious framework sewn in to give it shape of sorts.

      Where India is concerned it seems that religion has jumped into the front seat next to the cultural dictates, as religion everywhere is prone to do to hide its shame and ignorance, religion there seems to broadly…approve…shall we say of male line over female.

      A study of the problem

      The effect of religion remains strongly significant after controlling for known socioeconomic determinants of son preference, suggesting that religious identity, beliefs and practices especially among the majority Hindus
      may be a key cultural explanation for the persistence of son preference

      I think rule of thumb strongly suggests that anywhere the stench, hypocrisy and general barking perverted weirdness lies, you will be guaranteed to find religion at the bottom of the manure pile propping it up.

      • In reply to #5 by Jon Snow:

        In reply to #4 by Stafford Gordon:Infanticide was a danger even then, but whether or not the sole source of it is religion I don’t know.As far as I am aware it is a traditional imperative to prefer male line births. As it is in many countries from China to Afghanistan.Part of the cultural hangover from mainly patriarchal societies it must be presumed.Most fundy religious seem to have sloped in the side door to promote their maleccentric world views. They have the obvious excuse of sexual dysfunction which seems to be a major pressure for their dogma.Certainly the RCC are so cursed and quite a few evangelicals seem prone to some inadequacy revolving around sex and further female related issues.But in the main where male line is the preferred it seems to be roughly cultural and pragmatic with a religious framework sewn in to give it shape of sorts.Where India is concerned it seems that religion has jumped into the front seat next to the cultural dictates, as religion everywhere is prone to do to hide its shame and ignorance, religion there seems to broadly…approve…shall we say of male line over female.A study of the problemThe effect of religion remains strongly significant after controlling for known socioeconomic determinants of son preference, suggesting that religious identity, beliefs and practices especially among the majority Hindus may be a key cultural explanation for the persistence of son preferenceI think rule of thumb strongly suggests that anywhere the stench, hypocrisy and general barking perverted weirdness lies, you will be guaranteed to find religion at the bottom of the manure pile propping it up.

        I agree with you apropos of religion in general, but I refrained from saying so in this particular case for fear of seeming prejudiced, because I have no evidence, but drill down into it and I dare say you’ll find that blind faith is indeed the prime cause of such viscious behaviour.

        In the North of Ireland the conflict is said to be between Republicans and Loyalists, but I maintain it’s between Protestants and Catholics.

        And in that case I sympathise with the Catholics; they’re trapped between the two intimidatory forces of their church hierarchy and the Protestants.

        There are enough natural conflicts and difficulties in life without compounding them with all this childish superstitious nonsense.

  3. There are proposals to introduce further regulation of foreign doctors registered for working in the UK, but these are mostly focussed on language.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/foreign-doctors-who-want-to-work-for-nhs-must-have-good-english-8508389.html

    Foreign doctors who want to work for the NHS in England will have to prove they can speak English well enough to treat patients, the Government has confirmed.

    The new checks were announced after cases in which foreign doctors were said to have provided sub-standard care.

    Those coming to the UK from outside the EU already face strict language tests. But doctors from within the European Economic Area are said to have registered to work in the NHS without being asked if they can speak English properly.

    The General Medical Council (GMC) pushed for stronger language testing following the case of David Gray, who died in Cambridgeshire in 2008.

    He was killed by German doctor Daniel Ubani who administered 10 times the normal dose of diamorphine.

    Dr Ubani admitted being exhausted after getting only a couple of hours sleep before starting his shift in the UK, and said he was confused about the difference between drugs used here and in Germany.

    His poor English meant he was refused work by the NHS in one part of the country but was later accepted in Cornwall.

    The Government is proposing to give the GMC new powers to prevent doctors from being granted a licence to practise medicine in the UK where concerns arise about their ability to speak English.

    Ministers are also introducing a single national list which every GP will have to be on before treating NHS patients. Previously every Primary Care Trust held a list of GPs.

    It is hoped the change will help protect patients by ensuring poor performers cannot slip through the gaps between local lists.

  4. I’m pro-choice. I don’t know when a foetus becomes human, but a full grown woman is definitely human and has full rights over her body.

    Abortion for sex selection is not black and white to me, but I’m against it for the following reasons:
    You have to wait too long to determine the sex. The earlier an abortion is done the better.
    A world with many more boys than girls causes problems as men cannot find brides. This generally causes a society to make women possessions and second class as the men fight over the scarce resource that women are.

    • In reply to #10 by canadian_right:

      I’m pro-choice. I don’t know when a foetus becomes human, but a full grown woman is definitely human and has full rights over her body.

      Abortion for sex selection is not black and white to me, but I’m against it for the following reasons: You have to wait too long to determine the sex. The earlier an abortion is done the better. A world with many more boys than girls causes problems as men cannot find brides. This generally causes a society to make women possessions and second class as the men fight over the scarce resource that women are.

      I suppose you have to see it as two separate issues. Abortion and sex discrimination.

      Abortions are usually carried out as a result of mistakes that leave women who are do not want to be, (or are not ready to be) pregnant or after discovering fetal abnormalities or risks to the health of the mother. The earlier the better for all concerned, but morally the decision is the womans. It is her body and her choice and it takes priority over the foetus, she is a living sentient being it is not – yet.

      There are always issues about when the foetus can feel pain and it is right to have a time limit to allow for that, even if it is arbitrary. That limit should be adressed and re-adressed as we learn more, but usually sex can be determined well before that point anyway.

      The issue here, however is less to do with abortion and more to do with misogyny and blatant sexism.

      When somebody tries to get pregnant or is ok enough to continue to be pregnant, the outcome they are hoping for is the birth of another healthy human being. To set out to get pregnant in the hope of getting a particular type of human being and then aborting it because you’ve got the wrong type is immoral. Choosing the type of baby you want is discrimination with all the horrors that brings. And that includes gender.

      Sexism in all forms is repugnant anyway, and a feature of problems in men who are inadequate and therefore threatened by women. Combine bringing up a male child with that sort of sexist attitude and a shortage of women and you are into the territory of the Indian bus rapists (and the issue of sex selective abortion was cited as a contributory factor in that rape and murder).

      Even without the shortage of women the consequences of that attitude are bleak. We’ve recently had two high profile cases of groups of men from the sorts of sexist cultures that will abort females abusing vulnerable teenage girls and selling them out to their friends. I don’t honestly think they could even see what they’d done wrong. It was in their upbringing to see women as chattels.

      And just to make the point that it isn’t a race issue, we’ve also recently had high profile cases of past abuses of women by men like Jimmy Saville brought up in the UKs relatively recent sexist past. They got away with raping and abusing younger girls with impunity whilst their colleagues at places like the BBC just sniggered because we had that misogynistic boorish attitude to women. Again they almost couldn’t see what was wrong – sexism was just part of that culture and women were just objects as well. Luckily that has changed and hopefully will continue to improve.

      So I suppose it is wrong not because abortion is wrong but because discrimination is wrong! And this is purely and simply discrimination between one type of foetus over another.

      Aborting on the grounds of sex is illegal so hopefully thd Drs involved will face a jail sentence. And hopefully something will be done to make revealing the sex of the foetus illegal. It’s hardly as if you’re never going to find out after all.

  5. Stafford Gordon:

    The Royal Free Hospital in London refused to reveal the gender of my wife’s twins twenty two years ago.

    Infanticide was a danger even then, but whether or not the sole source of it is religion I don’t know.

    I don’t think religion is the sole or even primary source – it just jumped on the sexism bandwagon and reflected what were the norms I guess. Sexism reaches well beyond religion I’m afraid, it is pretty universal. China for example, has been notorious in its treatment of girl babies.

    Some of the women opting for sex selective abortions have been from religions that aren’t exactly pro choice either. Hinduism seems to suggest only where the mothers life is in danger and Islam is more mixed but generally only if the mothers life is in danger or if not only very early on where sex detection would be difficult.

    The easiest way to deal with it is to make it illegal for any doctor to reveal the sex of the baby I suppose. Two years ago they refused to tell what I was having as well, and said it was to prevent sex selective abortions.

Leave a Reply