Cross posted from Dia Boyle at MercatorNet.com.
“When you discover that you are pregnant, you expect a certain kind of journey. You wonder if your child is a boy or a girl and begin searching for the perfect name….But now prenatal testing has revealed serious problems, problems so serious that your baby is not expected to survive. This is not the journey you planned. It isn’t even on the map…” (p. 1)
This particular journey is relatively new in human experience. Certainly it has happened throughout human history that babies have been conceived with fatal medical conditions, but until recently these problems seldom came to light before birth. Most problems would not have been known until miscarriage or birth revealed them to parents and doctors alike. Accurate prenatal diagnosis was, for the most part, not possible until diagnostic ultrasound and fetal testing became routinely available in the 1980s. With rapid developments in fetal diagnosis in the past 30 years, it is now very possible to know early in a pregnancy there are “catastrophic problems” which will almost certainly result in the baby not being able to survive after birth for more than a few minutes, days, or weeks. It is for this journey, the journey through the remaining months of pregnancy and the birth and death of a child, that A Gift of Time can serve as an experienced and compassionate travel guide and companion.
The capacity for fetal diagnosis has coincided with the legalization of abortion, and this book acknowledges that the medical recommendation in these cases has often been an abortion (or “early induction”). In A Gift of Time the authors choose neither to condemn nor support the choice of abortion. They direct their book to those who, having received a devastating diagnosis, have decided, or are still in the process of deciding, to continue their pregnancy knowing that their baby’s life is expected to be brief. Yet their positive and encouraging approach to these heartbreaking realities paint the choice of abortion as a sad mistake and a missed opportunity for emotional growth and healing.
Author Amy Kuebelbeck herself experienced this journey with the birth and death of her son Gabriel (Waiting with Gabriel: A Story of Cherishing a Baby’s Brief Life). With Deborah L. Davis, PhD, an expert in perinatal bereavement, Ms. Kuebelbeck, a former reporter and editor for the Associated Press, gathered the experiences and insights of more than 120 mothers and fathers who had traveled this path. These experiences and insights are shared in the parents’ own words, organized in chapters such as “Waiting with your Baby,” “Welcoming Baby,” and “Saying Goodbye.” This book is directed to parents who have received a catastrophic diagnosis, and it is offered as an aid to help them think about and prepare for the coming months and years. How do we reveal this news to the people at work? Do we want to take photographs…and how? What about my other children? A Gift of Time offers practical advice and many resources for these parents, along with a great deal of support, affirmation, encouragement, and consolation. It is also a great source of insight for those involved in the care and support of such families: medical personnel, family and friends, clergy and counselors.
It would be a shame, however, if this book only reaches those directly touched by such experiences. A Gift of Time is more than a handbook of practical advice. Like a good novel or painting, it allows readers to look into an intensely human corner of life, one to which they may never travel in person. Because of the shared pain, courage, faith, and, often, wisdom of the mothers and fathers who relate their experiences, any reader can achieve a better understanding of what it means to be a mother and a father:
“As a mother, I have always felt that it was my job to identify what my children need and give it to them. Sometimes those needs are simple and straightforward–clean laundry, a healthy meal, a hand to cross the street safely. Maggie’s needs were not like those of my sons. She needed us to give her a safe and peaceful transition from one world to the next. Carrying Maggie to term did that for me–it gave me the opportunity to ‘mother’ her until she didn’t need me anymore.” ~ Alessandra (p. 345)
Any reader can learn about how to parent his or her own children, healthy or otherwise, in difficult times:
“You still have the opportunity to love this child. You can do this. She loves you and wants to be with you. She needs you to help her–that is your responsibility as her parent.” ~ Katharine (p. 371)
And any reader can come to a deeper appreciation of the worth and dignity of every human life:
“James and I have made a point of never wishing that she would live a certain amount of time. We didn’t want to define the success of her life by how long it was. I guess it’s because I didn’t want to think that she would be a miracle only if she lived a long time. I believed that she was already a miracle. And then I start to think, Well, what about all of the other babies in the world, aren’t they miracles too? And then, what about adults? And I am left with the realization that we are all miracles…” ~ Jill K. (p. 356)
A Gift of Time is a gift. With their beautiful writing, the authors honor the families who contributed to this book, comfort the families who will, sadly, need to make use of this book, and deepen and enrich every reader’s human experience. There are further resources on their website, Perinatal Hospice
A Gift of Time: Continuing Your Pregnancy When Your Baby’s Life is Expected to Be Brief | By Amy Kuebelbeck and Deborah L. Davis, PhD | Johns Hopkins University Press (2011) | Papaerback, 408 pages | $18.95
The New Zealand Herald today had a front page article arguing that expectant mothers diets could be creating an obesity diet ‘timebomb’ for their ‘unborn’ children.
Alongside a front page picture of an unborn child the article argued that what a mother eats and drinks during her pregnancy can alter the DNA of the child conditioning the child to grow obese or be at risk of conditions such as diabetes.
Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, of the Liggins Institute at the University of Auckland who aided the study, said: “For the first time ever, because of what we’ve done, we now have a way of working out what mother should eat.
“It confirms our suspicions that maternal nutrition does indeed influence the offspring’s risk of later obesity and disease.
“It’s a major breakthrough … It’s the biggest, most important finding I’ve made, as the result of 15 years’ work,” he said.
What Sir Peter and his team have done here is most definitely ground breaking and is part of a wave of new research showing that how the child is conditioned in the womb has a large impact on the child later in it’s life.
The EHD Institute has already provided a theory on how this works and it would be interest to see how Sir Peters research fits in with what they have already done.
Sir Peter goes on and nails this on the head:
“The study demonstrates the importance of developmental factors before birth in the pathway to childhood obesity – and we already know that childhood obesity is an important predictor of later diabetes and heart disease,” he said.
“It does imply that attention to mothers’ health and nutritional status early in pregnancy is very important, to get the best for your baby.
“We have to start focusing more on the help of mothers … otherwise we will never tackle this epidemic completely.”
Hopefully this will lead to more research which will continue to prove the importance of a child’s health both before and after birth and lead to good policy which helps mothers to be able to give their children the best start to life possible.
This is cross posted from The Culture Vulture
Today’s blog post could have easily been titled: ‘a tale of two NZ abortion guides’.
You seen, the NZ Family Planning Association (NZFPA) has recently released a new booklet guide on abortion targeted at women considering an abortion, but this is not the first time that such a guide has been published.
Back in September 1998, the NZ Ministry of Health published a guide for women contemplating an abortion.
What’s interesting is that the latest version of this booklet from the NZFPA is missing lots of important information that WAS present in the 1998 version, it hasn’t been updated with vitally important science that women in this position need to know, and it contains several problematic sections.
The missing information…
The following is a list of information that is found in the 1998 guide to abortion, but which is missing from the recent NZFPA version:
-Information about alternatives to abortion
-Information about adoption
-Information about guardianship
-Information about fetal development
-Contact details for organizations other than the NZFPA
The following information has been altered in the new edition, with far LESS information actually provided in the latest NZFPA edition:
-Physical risks of abortion
-Psychological risks of abortion (this section is woefully inadequate and does not reflect actual research on this issue)
The information that hasn’t been updated:
-There is absolutely no mention of the new research which shows that having just ONE abortion, in the first or second trimester, have a 35% increased risk of giving birth to a low-weight birth baby and a 36% increased risk of having a premature baby.
-There is absolutely no mention of the new research which shows that women who have more than one abortion had a 72% increased risk for subsequent low birth weight and 93% risk of subsequent premature birth.
The problematic sections in the new edition…
a) The section on mental health issues associated with abortion…
The ENTIRE section on emotional harm from abortion states the following:
“Every woman is different. If you are sure about your decision and the reasons for having an abortion then you are less likely to have negative or long term emotional effects”
That’s all there is, nothing more.
As stated above this is woefully inadequate and simply doesn’t present the full facts about subsequent mental health risks, let alone advice on where to seek help should such issues arise.
According to Professor David Fergusson (who is pro-choice) from the Christchurch School of Medicine, his longitudinal research shows that abortion is likely to lead to an “increase [in] mental health risks among those women who find seeking and obtaining an abortion a distressing experience.”
I would suggest that this is subtly different from what the NZFPA booklet claims, because a woman can be both certain about her decision, and reasons to abort, while at the same time still distressed by the experience of seeking and obtaining an abortion – which would mean that she was actually still at an increased risk of subsequent mental health problems (according to research).
One thing that is noteworthy is that this new booklet does NOT deny the link between abortion and subsequent mental health problems in some women – which is definitely worth taking notice of, because if the NZFPA truly did believe that there was no link between abortion and mental health problems they would have boldly trumpeted this in the booklet (as they do in the section of the booklet on abortion and breast cancer).
b) The section on abortion and breast cancer…
The entire section on abortion and breast cancer reads as follows:
“There is no scientific evidence that shows that having an abortion increases your risk of developing breast cancer.”
Notice the difference between this statement and the one the booklet makes about abortion and mental health risks? That’s right, the statement on mental health risks doesn’t deny they exist, and it certainly doesn’t try and invoke scientific research, probably because they know that it doesn’t actually support such claims.
What is concerning about this section however is that it is seriously misleading as there is actually scientific evidence which points to a link between abortion and breast cancer (see here, here, here andhere), and on top of this, even if there is dispute about the abortion breast cancer link, there is no debate about the fact that carrying a first pregnancy to full term, and breastfeeding the baby, has a protective effect against breast cancer, especially if you are under 30 years of age.
It seems to me that it would, at the very least, be important to present women with the information that they may be denying themselves a protector against breast cancer by having an abortion.
Remember, the NZFPA are the ones who decided to include the breast cancer issue in this booklet, so surely they should actually present ALL of the relevant information?
c) The section on male involvement…
The section titled ‘What about the guys?’ states the following:
“Unplanned pregnancy can be difficult for men. Men may feel strongly about the woman and her pregnancy and feel they have a right to be informed or involved. Legally they don’t have any rights to make decisions about continuing or terminating the pregnancy.
Deciding to seek an abortion is the woman’s choice. A man shouldn’t pressure the woman to do something she does not want to do, whether that is to continue the pregnancy or to have an abortion.
Men may feel excluded, which can result in strong and uncomfortable feelings. They may be frustrated, angry, or hurt if they don’t agree with the woman’s final decision.
If this is the case, men can look for help and support to come to terms with this.
Men can share responsibility for contraception, and use condoms. Using condoms and lube during sex is especially important for the first few weeks after an abortion, to help prevent the woman from getting infections.”
Any man reading this section would have every right to feel frustrated and angry by the outrageous sentiments it expresses.
Firstly, it rightly points out the woefully unjust ideology which dictates current law in this area, denying men their natural rights to have a say in the future of any child they have helped to create. Remember, in no other area (apart from the legitimate cases of spousal abuse, domestic threats, or rape, etc) does the law try and work to the ludicrous notion that children belong only to their mothers, and not to their fathers. So why do we tolerate this unjust ideology when it comes to issues before birth?
It’s interesting to note that the law does not take kindly to men who try and exercise ‘freedom of choice’ when it comes to opting to not make child support payments for children they have helped to create.
The NZFPA booklet (in this same ‘What about the guys?’ section) actually states the following:
“Men who are named as the father of a baby are legally and financially responsible for that child, until the child reaches his or her 19th birthday. If the man is under 18 years of age the financial responsibility falls on his parents.”
So there you have it in black and white folks – if you’re a man you have no ‘freedom of choice’ while your child is unborn, and of you get named as his father then you have no choice but to pay for that child’s upkeep until it is 19 years of age.
Secondly, the NZFPA makes the bizarre statement that:
“Men may feel excluded, which can result in strong and uncomfortable feelings. They may be frustrated, angry, or hurt if they don’t agree with the woman’s final decision.
If this is the case, men can look for help and support to come to terms with this.”
Why would men feel these feelings, and then need to seek help and support if there is actually no real issue here?
Surely the only reason to seek such help would be if there is actually an issue of injustice, and the fact that the NFPA booklet raises this is actually an admission that there is a serious problem with the prevailing ideology which unjustly, and for no sound philosophical or scientific reason excludes male involvement?
Then to top things off, men are reduced to little more than a negative gender stereotype with the completely condescending statement:
“Men can share responsibility for contraception, and use condoms.”
What’s the assumption here?
That all men can think about is having sex, even with partners who have just undergone a major and invasive surgical procedure, and who will be feeling pain or discomfort, and emotional hurt because of it?
And, more importantly, how the heck is sharing ‘responsibility for contraception’ after an abortion meant to resolve anything for the the man who is emotionally wounded by feelings that he has been unjustly excluded from the decision to end the life of the child that was equally his?
d) The sections on abortion risks…
The section titled ‘Does having an abortion make it harder to have babies in the future?’ states the following:
“It is very unlikely that having an abortion will stop you becoming pregnant in the future.
If you do not have any problems or injuries with your abortion then having an abortion does not reduce your chances of getting pregnant or having a baby in the future. Problems are not common.
If your cervix has been damaged, there is some evidence that you may have a very small increased risk of miscarriage if you get pregnant again.”
As mentioned earlier, this section makes no reference to the research which shows that even one abortion increases the risk of subsequent low birth weight, or premature delivery, both of which are surely factors important to future pregnancies, and therefore shouldn’t it have actually been included here?
Then there is the troubling statement: “If your cervix has been damaged, there is some evidence that you may have a very small increased risk of miscarriage if you get pregnant again.“
In actual fact, cervix damage has serious ramifications for future miscarriage risks, so it is hard to believe that the statement ‘you may have a very small increased risk of miscarriage’ was even used in relation to this particular issue.
Even if we take figures from other organizations which suggest that only 1 out of every 100 abortions will lead to serious complications (one of which is damage to the cervix), this would mean (based on NZ’s current abortion numbers) that approximately 170 NZ women suffer serious complications from abortion EVERY YEAR – and damage to the cervix is one of the very real risks that these women could experience.
Consider also the fact that, according to an earlier section (on the physical risks of abortion) of this same booklet:
“One in 20 women will have a problem after an abortion.”
If we accept this figure, and then apply it to the current number of approximately 17,000 abortions annually in NZ, that means that at least 850 women every year in this country are physically harmed by abortion – this is no small number.
Why does the NZFPA booklet not clearly spell these facts out to women?
e) The section titled: ‘Pregnant? Things to think about’…
This section of the NZFPA book is extremely troubling due to the impact that it is likely to have on any female reader in a distressed state after discovering she is pregnant.
Just look at the list of questions it ask such a woman to consider:
-What do I want out of my life?
-How would a pregnancy and baby change my plans?
-What about my education and career?
-How do I feel about being responsible for a child?
-Is this a good time to have a baby?
-Do I have the skills to cope with a child?
-Will I tell the guy? Will he help me whatever I decide to do?
-What if the guy that I got pregnant to is not someone I like or care about? Do I want to remain connected to him through a child?
-Are we ready to be parents?
-Will I tell my family/ whanau? Will they help me?
-If I have the baby who will help me? Where will I live? Where will the money come from?
-How do I feel about adoption or guardianship?
-How do I feel about having an abortion?
-Do I really understand my options?
-Have I given myself a chance to think things through?
Any counselor of any repute will tell you that many of these questions are negatively geared towards encouraging only one outcome (abortion), and that just ONE of them could act as a powerful enough emotional trigger in an already confused and pressured person.
The extremely problematic thing to note here is that this list actually reads like a list of problems that will be caused if a woman keeps the baby, and then there is the fact that many of the ‘problems’ highlighted in this list of questions can actually be resolved without any need to resort to abortion.
This passage of the book is clearly not consistent with best practice guidelines for non-directive counseling.
I think it is also important to ask why this section does not include questions such as: ‘have I considered the physical risks of abortion?’ or ‘have I considered the emotional risks of abortion?’, both of which are clearly part of later sections of this booklet.
This list of questions is almost an exact replica of a list of questions in an earlier NZFPA pamphlet titled: “Unplanned Pregnancy” (a pamphlet which promoted me to write an article titled: ‘The little pamphlet that seems to want you to have an abortion‘)
All in all this latest booklet from the NZFPA would have to rate as a major FAIL when it comes to proper informed consent regarding abortion.
Not only is too much vital information either missing or downplayed, but it’s section on pregnancy is extremely troubling and lacks balance and perspective that is simply likely to pressure a vulnerable women into wrongly believing that she has no other option apart from an abortion.
What makes this situation even more troubling is that this latest NZFPA booklet has been funded by taxpayer money via the NZ Ministry of Health – that’s yours and my money folks that’s being used to produce ‘healthcare’ information that is woefully inadequate.
Abortion Supervisory Committee Notice of Motion
Hon Tariana Turia; Co-leader of the Maori Party
Thursday 7 April 2011
I move that the motion be amended by omitting the words ‘Reverend Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch’ and substituting the words ‘Dr Ate Moala of Wellington’.
I want to say from the onset that the issues associated with abortion are absolutely central to any understanding of whanau wellbeing, of whanau ora.
The protection and preservation of whakapapa is fundamental to the growth and health of our whanau. I think about the precious heartbeat of every child – and I think about a comment Ngati Whatua leader, Naida Glavish once made: ‘there is no such thing as an unwanted mokopuna’.
And I contrast that with statistics which tell me that in the last five years, close to 100,000 babies were aborted – more than twice the population of my home city of Whanganui.
The Maori Party was pleased to support Dr Tangimoana Habib when her appointment was first proposed. Tangimoana, of Tuwharetoa whakapapa, is a fellow of the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners and currently works as a GP in practice at Te Kohao Health in Hamilton as well as running a satellite clinic in another high need area of Hamilton.
Tangimoana has been involved in Te ORA, the Maori Doctors’ Association, since 2000 and has been a member of Te Akoranga a Maui – the Maori General Practitioner faculty – since its inception in 2002. She is the continuing medical education provider for Te ORA and is also a GP registrar trainer.
But perhaps her greatest qualification is her lifelong proven commitment to improving Maori health status. She believes, as does the Maori Party, that effective work in this area means improved health status for all New Zealanders.
And so we are very pleased to support her appointment to this Board, particularly given the concern we have for maintaining the health and wellbeing of the mother, the child and the greater whanau at any time in which health issues occur.
When I was involved back home with Te Oranganui, we always insisted that any young woman seeking advice of a sexual and reproductive nature be supported with the wisdom of kuia whom we had arranged to work with us.
The thinking for us was that sexual and reproductive health is never just about biomedical or clinical matters. It is about mauri – the lifeforce; it is about wairuatanga – the spiritual dimensions; it is about ira tangata – the ongoing genealogical connections found in our whakapapa.
And so we welcomed the opportunity for Tangimoana to bring issues associated with Te Ao Maori to the debate.
We also supported Dame Professor Linda Holloway as Chair of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.
Dame Linda was previously Pro Vice-Chancellor of Health Sciences at Otago University; she has served on the Medicines Assessment Advisory Committee and was one of the advisers to Dame Silvia Cartwright during the inquiry into the treatment of cervical cancer at National Women’s Hospital.
What our amendment today is to strengthen the representation on the committee to take account of the particular needs of Pacific families.
Dr Ate Moala of Tongan descent, has a distinguished background in Pacific health, and in particular health related to the family. Dr Moala is Clinical Director of Pacific Orthopaedics in Wellington. She is a Fellow of the Australasian Faculty of Public Health Medicine, and has particular experience in working with Pacific communities on a range o health issues including breast cancer, immunisation, asthma and healthy lifestyles.
She is a Board member of the Pacific Health Research and Development Foundation Trust, and has been past President of the New Zealand Pasifika Medical Association.
Mr Speaker, we all know that culture counts. We believe that different cultural frameworks are vital in helping all New Zealanders to see health in a holistic way. And in terms of my amendment we consider it crucial that the issues of Pacific families are considered when coming to such a sensitive issue as abortion.
We have previously – in 2007 – put forward the nomination of Dr Moala as adding value to the cultural competency of the Abortion Supervisory Committee and of strengthening the composition and the professional knowledge available to the Committee.
We would hope that four years on wisdom will prevail and we will see a committee which represents the breath and diverse strengths of Pasifika populations alongside of tangata whenua and other populations.
We have a most solemn duty in this House to ensure that we act in this chamber in ways which enhance the health and wellbeing of all our people. I would hope that my amendment will enable us all to do that.
According to ParliamentToday.co.nz…
Following Question Time today MPs will debate appointments to the Abortion Supervisory Council and legislation relating to Financial Market Regulation.
The Council appointments are made by the following Government Notice of Motion:
Hon SIMON POWER to move, That, pursuant to sections 10 and 11 of the Contraception, Sterilisation, and Abortion Act 1977, this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General reappoint Professor Dame Linda Jane Holloway of Dunedin and Reverend Patricia Ann Allan of Christchurch as members of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, and appoint Dr Tangimoana Frances Habib of Hamilton as a member of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, each for a term of three years from the date of appointment, and appoint Professor Dame Linda Jane Holloway as Chairperson of the Abortion Supervisory Committee.
H/T to Simeon for the heads up…
Today (7 April) is World Health Day. As such I, and some other pro-life bloggers from around and about are doing a blogswarm writing on how abortion is not health care.
Many pro-choicers claim that legal abortion is a necessary component of women’s health care. Given that abortion is closely linked to pregnancy and maternity, it is useful to look at maternal health indicators. This brings us to Ireland, land of the potato, rainy days, and the Irish – also land of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world, and the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world .
Abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of the fetus or embryo (here-after referred to as the fetus for convenience sake) from the uterus, resulting in or caused by it’s death. A direct abortion is an abortion in which the purpose is to cause the death of the fetus, either before or after it has left the uterus.
In Ireland direct abortion is completely illegal, with no exceptions. How does this fit with the belief that abortion is a necessary component of women’s health care? Here is a statement from four Ob/Gyns, three of whom are Professors at prestigious universities in Ireland.
As obstetricians and gynaecologists we affirm that there are no medical
circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, circumstances in which
the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of
her unborn child.
Here is another quote, again from an Irish Ob/Gyn:
After forty years as a consultant obstetrician/gynaecologist I can state:
– There is no conflict of interest between the mother and her unborn
– There are no medical indications for abortion
– There is no risk to the mother that can be avoided by abortion
– Prohibition of deliberate intentional abortion will not affect, in any
way, the availability of all necessary care for the pregnant woman.
They both state that there are no circumstances which medically justify an abortion. Restating, there are no medical conditions, problems, or diseases that are cured by an abortion. None. No strange virus, no cancer, no infection is cured by killing an unborn child. This does not mean that in Ireland the doctors are not able to act to cure actual medical conditions, as viruses, cancers and infections are all treated. Also of course, dangerous complications during pregnancy, such as ectopic pregnancy or pre-eclampsia are treated, and do sometimes result, as an unavoidable side effect, in the unintentional death of the fetus.
It would never cross an obstetrician’s mind that intervening in a case of
pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix or ectopic pregnancy is abortion.
They are not abortion as far as the professional is concerned, these are
medical treatments that are essential to save the life of the mother.
This is shown to be true in the quote below, from a Professor in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, about the medical situation of women in Ireland:
…..the Green Paper [on abortion] found no evidence that doctors in
Ireland failed to treat pregnant women with cancer or other illnesses
for fear such treatment might injure the unborn child.
As stated previously, maternal health in Ireland is the best in the world . This is because abortion, which is actually a rather dangerous procedure, both directly at the time, and for a long time afterwards, is not allowed in Ireland, and instead they focus on solving actual medical problems.
As a side note, abortion is actually quite dangerous. A single issue, and more relevant because it’s New Zealand research, is that having an induced abortion leads to a significant increase in risk of mental health problems. David Fergusson, a professor at Otago University based at Christchurch hospital conducted some studies (not sure how many – google him) that proved a causal link between abortion and an increased risk of mental health problems – 1.4 – 1.8 times the control rate. 98% of abortions in New Zealand are conducted on the grounds of risk to the mental health of the mother. This inconsistency is astounding.
Report on Maternal Mortality by World Health Organisation, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank, 2007
Professor John Bonnar, Trinity College, Dublin;
Professor Kieran O’Driscoll, University College, Dublin;
Professor Eamonn O’Dwyer, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at
University College, Galway;
Julia Vaughan, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, 1992
Eamon O’Dwyer MB, MAO, LLB, FRCPI, FRCOG
Professor Emeritus, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, NUI Galway
Chairman of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Professor John