Talk:Abortion and mental health/Archive 2

message: In the 3rd paragraph of the article it notes that abortion was mentioned in DSM III.
Was it clear from the description in DSM III that "abortion" was referring to a "medical intervention to terminate a pregnancy"?  
Abortion, in a medical context, is somewhat ambiguous; (in lay terms) it can be "miscarriage" (i.e. spontaneous pregnancy loss before 20 weeks) or a "medical intervention to terminate a pregnancy." 
Does someone have the text of the DSM III-- to clarify?  
If the DSM III does not clarify, it should be noted that abortion (unqualified), in a medical context, is essentially "pregnancy loss before 20 weeks and can be spontaneous or medically induced." Nephron  T|C 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This clarification is important. --131.216.41.16 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSM III's mention of abortion as a stressor 

message: The Elliot Institute is a non-academic 501(c)3 organization, not affiliated with a university or college, and is dedicated to dispensing information about "abortion risks," "ending abortion with compassion" and influencing politics on behalf of pro-life causes.http://www.afterabortion.info/elliot.html  The Elliot Institute is not named after anyone in particular.  Their website claims the name "Elliot" was chosen for marketing reasons. http://www.afterabortion.info/elliot.html
;Elliot Institute Studies
David Reardon is the director of the Elliot Institute, and along with Cozzarelli, are the primary researchers in many of the studies published first in the Elliot Institute's jounal The Post-Abortion Review.http://www.afterabortion.info/PAR/V8/index.htm
Accordinng to one Elliot Institute study that involved a followup study of women two years after their abortion and concluded that 1.4 percent of the women had all the symptoms of PTSD and each symptom was attributable to their abortions rather than another cause.Pro-Choice Researchers Recognize PAS: Half a Million Women May Suffer From Post-Abortion Syndrome. The Post Abortion Review 8(3), July-Sept. 2000, citing Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Cooper M.L., Zubek, J., Richards, C.,  Wilhite, M.,  Gramzow, R.H. (2000). Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 57(8):777-84.  A second PAS specific study surveyed 217 American women who had a history of abortion and queried them about symptoms they attributed to their abortions.  Slightly over 14 percent had all the symptoms of PTSD which they attributed to their abortions, and over half reported at least some of the symptoms.Rue VM, Coleman PK, Rue JJ, Reardon DC. Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women. Med Sci Monit, 2004 10(10): SR5-16.  
Many of Reardon's studies garner criticism from academic researchers.  One article written by Reardon and Jesse R Cougle titled, "Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study" garnered the following criticism: (reference: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7330/151#18850)
*Deborah L Billings, Senior Research Associate at Ipas, Chapel Hill, NC writes, "Several methodological flaws in the analysis carried out by Reardon and Cougle undermine the conclusions stated by the authors."   
*Dr. Ellie Lee of the Department of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Southampton writes, " [Reardon's] argument is best understood as an attempt to use the language of psychology, and relate to a culture in which ‘trauma’ has become a ubiquitous term, in order to discredit abortion, in a context where moral claims for the ‘right to life’ are rejected by many. As Mr Reardon has argued elsewhere, ‘post-abortion issues are the key to converting hearts – the key to winning the battle for life’ (2). The fact that many thousands of British women have abortions each year, yet our psychiatrists are not inundated with requests for assistance, may suggest that Mr Reardon has a long way to go in his battle."
*Steen Goddik, M.D., Psychiatry Resident at the USD School of Medicine writes, " Reardon & Cougle starts out making unwarranted claims from an article by Major, et al. That article makes conclusions opposite of the Reardon/Cougle claim."
*Robert S. Kahn, Assistant Professor at the Division of General Pediatrics, Children's Hosptial Med Ctr writes, " The paper by Reardon and Cougle raises at least three concerns.1 First, the stated hypothesis is not addressed by their analyses. No results indicate whether indeed "prior psychological state is equally predictive of subsequent depression among women…regardless of whether they abort or carry to term." Nevertheless, their unstated hypothesis focused on abortion and depressive symptoms may be the more central question."
:::::If no one objects, I'll start slowly replacing the text on section 2&3 on the article page tomorrow or the next day.--131.216.41.16 22:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Influence from the Elliot Institute

message: The section titled "Reactions to abortion which may be part of PAS," references many articles that have nothing to do with PAS, but rather studies that do not stipulate a causal relationship between abortion and stress (see "academic research" section). Some of the studies cited indicate the stress is higher for women who have had miscarriages.--131.216.41.16 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed title change on section

message: I just wanted to say, before I start making changes/additions to this article, that I am going to start making changes/additions to this article.  Currently I have 26 different studies ranging in publication date from 1998 - 2007 (some are already mentioned in the article).  I don't think the article reflects a lot of the recent research done, though, as many of its citations are from the 70s and 80s.  If I think I'm making a drastic difference to the article, I will bring it up here first. Stanselmdoc 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, no, these studies are from published journals like the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Social Science and Medicine, European Journal of Public Health, etc. Unfortunately unexpected events in the real world will prevent me from making lots of updates in the near future, so this will have to wait.  Stanselmdoc 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just before I start things

message: There are some problems with the way the articles represent the empirical research. 
A major problem is that there seems to be confusion between an empirical study and a review article. The University of Chicago article, which claims PSA is a "myth," was not an empirical article. It was an editorial. It is misrepresented here as an empirical study. This section should be deleted, and reserved only for empirical studies with data and conclusions drawn from that data, not opinions.
Second, the New Zealand study listed here was a LONGITUDINAL STUDY. For those of you who do not have a good understanding of research methods, a LONGITUDINAL STUDY is generally able to establish the causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables, because the sequence of events is controlled for. This is because the same participants are viewed over a long period of time. 
Note: In the New Zealand study, the same group of young women were observed over a period of time, and those who had an abortion, when compared with those women who did not have an abortion, were more likely to develop post-abortion mental problems. Because of the longitudinal nature of the study, the researchers have ruled out pre-existing mental conditions. Currently, this study is misrepresented as being unable to establish the direction of causality, and that is incorrect. This needs to be corrected, or else the comment represents obvious bias and unscientific reasoning--and then the whole article by implication lacks credibility. Brobbins 01:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply because the study is longitudinal doesn't mean it necessary establishes a causal connection.  Please cite further evidence from the actual source if you believe the study supports the existence of PAS.--Justine4all 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done. It is included in on the page as a quote: “Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors”.LCP 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I included direct quotes taken in context from both articles. In contrast, you have interpreted those articles--at length (above), going even so far as to talk about “The sociology of abortion,” and you used your interpretation as warrant to remove those quotes. That amounts to original research, and that is contrary to Wikipedia rules, WP:No original research. In the case of the NZ study, you went so far as to replaced a direct quote with a statement that directly contradicts the research findings, which state “This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors”. The sections I changed have nothing whatsoever to do with the “British Royal College of Obstetricians,” any other group, or the “Sociology of Abortion”. Again, by interpreting one set of study results in light of another, you are engaging in original research. And as you make clear, all of your original research supports a POV that is anti PAS. I do not mind you expanding the sections in question with more information taken directly from the studies. I do, however, reject your attempt put your interpretation on top of the conclusions stated by the authors of the studies.LCP 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in a rush yesterday, and corrected my error - I did not intend to imply that I wrote the above analysis.  It was written by Dr. Ellie Lee, a lecturer in social policy at Kent University, UK.--IronAngelAlice 16:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I missed your ref. My fault. If Since this is published, I think it would be good for you to quote it in ref to the New Zealand study and indicate what weight it holds in relation to the study. In other words, what is it? Is it an editorial in the Times? Is it a valid peer critique in a scientific journal? If it is a critique, how did the authors of the study respond?LCP 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure.LCP 18:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that it is entirely unsuitable POV drivel as the comments are op-ed and "Dr Ellie Lee is a ... co-cordinator of Pro-Choice Forum.”LCP 23:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the "Journal" in which Dr Ellie Lee's comments were published, "Abortion Review", is published by bpas, "The leading provider of abortion services in the U.K."' Please, do tell how this source meets NPOV rules.LCP 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with Representation of Empirical Studies

message: Voice of Experience  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.192.110 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your personal story, however, it isn't really appropriate here. Please see WP:TALK for the talk page guidelines. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. They are not a discussion board for airing personal experiences. On wikipedia, all article content must be verifiable, and we do this by attributing text to reliable sources through citations. A personal anecdote is not a reliable source by our standards. We simply cannot publish your personal experiences on wikipedia, so discussing them seems moot. If you have something along the lines of journal articles that support your experiences, then we can work to incorporate those articles' findings in this article. I hope you understand. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, contact me personally on my talk page, or go to the help desk. Finally, if you are going to contribute to talk page discussions, please "sign" your comments, as described in the notice right above the edit window (which states: This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).)-Andrew c [talk] 01:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Voice of Experience's comment

message: We have received a lengthy email on OTRS saying that our article was biased against the existence of the post-abortion syndrome. A NPOV tag has been added on top of the article and the person who emailed has been invited to present arguments here. If that person does not bring arguments, feel free to remove the template. (I think the above unsigned post is from that person.) David.Monniaux 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing has been offered as of November 13, 2007.--70.173.47.6 06:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the tag. MastCell Talk 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protests on [[m:OTRS]] 

message: I just discovered this article, and I was tempted to add  myself, but realised this is a controversial topic and decided to try to seek consensus here first. I believe this topic meets the criteria for that category, specifically 'fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects' - even if the word 'pseudoscience' itself hasn't been used, it's clear from reading the articles opposed to this 'syndrome' that many people think of it along those lines. Ultimately, what we have here is a supposed 'syndrome' based on extremely sketchy and disputed evidence, which some claim exists, but is not recognised by any mainstream medical organisation. That sounds like pseudoscience to me; what does everyone else think? Terraxos (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the thing - categories aren't intended to present a controversial view of a source. They're intended to be solely for ease of browsing (spelled out in more detail at WP:CAT). Calling it "pseudoscience", particularly when no reliable source has used that specific term, is probably not appropriate for categories. If there were a category for "Disputed medical entities" or "Controversial medical syndromes", that might be more appropriate. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be in Category:Pseudoscience? 

message: Phyesalis added some material under United States that was a bit redundant and confused in facts.  I moved a few new quotes relatated to Koop, Stotland, and the APA positions to the sections already covering them.  Also, Reardon had no studies published when the APA task force published its findings in 1990, so the inserted inference that this task force reviewed Reardon's studies and rejected them is simply wrong.  PLEASE READ THE STUDIES YOU CITE AND QUOTE THEM ACCURATELY WITHOUT YOUR OWN INFERENCES AS THESE INFERENCES ARE FREQUENTLY WRONG!
The following is harder to deal with:
::Soon after Koop’s refusal in 1987 to report on the health effects of abortion, the American Psychological Association appointed a panel to review the relevant medical literature. It dismissed research like Reardon’s, instead concluding that “well-designed studies” showed 76 percent of women reporting feelings of relief after abortion and 17 percent reporting guilt. “The weight of the evidence,” the panel wrote in a 1990 article in Science, indicates that a first-trimester abortion of an unwanted pregnancy “does not pose a psychological hazard for most women.” 
There are inferences and time issues wrong here.  Koop was asked to do the study in 1987.  The APA panel was formed in 87 or 88 and gave their own internal report to Koop.  In January of 89 Koop issued a letter to Reagan saying he could not issue a definitive report due to the lack of sufficiently impeccable studies available at that time.  (He did not "refuse" the assignment but after review felt he could not fulfill it and stated that a prospective study would need to be done before an authorative report could be issued).  The APA task force then distilled their own report to Koop (which Koop had seen but not endorsed) into a position paper that was published in Science.    
I moved the 1987-1990 task force quote Phyesalis has supplied to it's own APA section in context with the task force's input to Koop. (Additional quotes from the Task Force could be added here, if desired.)  I also reordered Rue, Koop, Stotland and the APA task force into a sequential order which may be helpful for future development as a way to chart the history of this debated issue. Strider12 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, perhaps you didn't check my source? It wasn't a study but a 10 pg retrospective on the debate in the NY Times. The article felt it important to contextualize Rue as an ally of Reardon, and Reardon's centrality to whole issue, I don't see how that's wrong. Just because this page has scant treatment of the political aspects of the "syndrome" doesn't mean the article is in error. It would be nice if you didn't shout at people in capital letters. Inside voices are much more pleasant, particularly when opening up a discussion. But thanks for moving the info you did like! As for the objection to "refuse", I'll have to go back and check. If the source says he refuses, and there is no cited disputation of this, I don't really see what the problem is. I specifically mentioned that he refused because he didn't feel that the pysch effects of abortion were a public health issue. It's not like I left it open to interpretation. Phyesalis (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: With all due respect, you're fundamentally wrong about sourcing. Primary sources, like Koop's letter, can be used only for basic descriptive purposes. Reliable secondary sources, like Bazelon's article, are necessary and appropriate to provide context for primary sources like Koop's letter or Reardon/Rue's relationship. Putting your own spin on the Koop stuff or Reardon/Rue is original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. We rely on secondary sources like Bazelon's article to contextualize primary sources, rather than using our own interpretation. MastCell Talk 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

text: While I don't object to attributing information to the article if it is introduced properly, I do see an issue with Strider's argument for primary sources. The problem, as I see it, with the argument for primary sources is the question of what constitutes a fact? Names, dates, numerical figures, anything strictly objective, sure a primary source is fine, but outside of that secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. Phyesalis (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The goal is not to present each party's view in their own words. Primary sources do that. This is an encyclopedia. The goal here is to contextualize the primary sources - not just to report Reardon's words, but to describe how they've been received, how much credibility they have, what role they play in the debate, etc. We can't do that without reliable secondary sources, of which Bazelon's article is one no matter how you try to spin it into an advocacy piece. Arguing "peer review" is a red herring here - Bazelon's piece was published in a highly respected newspaper with high editorial standards, which makes it a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. MastCell Talk 04:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There wouldn't even be an article without Reardon, but let's not mince words. Reardon is not good science. Hell, he's not even a scientist. He's an engineer who got a degree in bioethics from an online university. While he deserves his 15 minutes, there's no need to give him undue weight. Additionally, it is not our job as editors to do the judging but to rely on what other reliable secondary sources have to say on the subject. Bazelon constitutes a far more reliable source than primary sources, particularly because the piece is a retrospective it has a better perspective than immediate impressions of the primaries. Phyesalis (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up of Wrong Inferences added Start of a Sequential History of this Debate 

message: Again there is a lot of material being inserted which is problematic. Here is a brief summary of some concerns:
* One or two sentences from the conclusion of a single primary source (Fergusson's paper) are being juxtaposed as "strong criticism" of the APA, and being given even more weight than the APA's expert panel. Aside from the obvious WP:WEIGHT violation, Fergusson did not "strongly criticize" the APA. He and his coauthors noted, as would any responsible author, that their findings conflicted with those of the APA and offered some possible explanations. The idea that this is "strong criticism" exists only in partisan literature.
* Making serious allegations against a living person requires better sourcing than an appendix of a pro-life book published by an obscure publisher.
* Stotland's paper is again misused to give the appearance that she had a change of heart after realizing the true impact of abortion. This is simply not the case, as anyone objectively reading the paper or hearing her commentary in the 2007 PBS special could attest.
* Again, Fergusson's paper is one paper. There have been dozens and dozens of papers published on this topic, as well as a number of reliable secondary-source evidence summaries from professional organizations. The insistence on highlighting a narrow interpretation of Fergusson's paper (not found in the original) violates WP:SYN, and the prominence given the paper over all other evidence violates WP:WEIGHT. These are not new problems, either.
* I'm not sure why Strider12 de-wikilinked the Washington Times, but please be a little more careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. MastCell Talk 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More of the same 

message: The editor who added this study to the page is editorializing a bit.  This is the actual text from the study:
The weight of evidence suggests that women who freely choose to terminate a pregnancy are unlikely to experience significant mental health risks, however some studies have documented psychological distress in the form of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in the aftermath of termination. Choice of anaesthetic has been suggested as a determinant of outcome. This study compared the effects of local anaesthesia and intravenous sedation, administered for elective surgical termination, on outcomes of pain, cortisol, and psychological distress. METHODS: 155 women were recruited from a private abortion clinic and state hospital (mean age: 25.4 +/- 6.1 years) and assessed on various symptom domains, using both clinician-administered interviews and self-report measures just prior to termination, immediately post-procedure, and at 1 month and 3 months post-procedure. Morning salivary cortisol assays were collected prior to anaesthesia and termination. RESULTS: The group who received local anaesthetic demonstrated higher baseline cortisol levels (mean = 4.7 vs 0.2), more dissociative symptoms immediately post-termination (mean = 14.7 vs 7.3), and higher levels of pain before (mean = 4.9 vs 3.0) and during the procedure (mean = 8.0 vs 4.4). However, in the longer-term (1 and 3 months), there were no significant differences in pain, psychological outcomes (PTSD, depression, self-esteem, state anxiety), or disability between the groups. More than 65% of the variance in PTSD symptoms at 3 months could be explained by baseline PTSD symptom severity and disability, and post-termination dissociative symptoms. Of interest was the finding that pre-procedural cortisol levels were positively correlated with PTSD symptoms at both 1 and 3 months. CONCLUSION: High rates of PTSD characterise women who have undergone surgical abortions (almost one fifth of the sample meet criteria for PTSD), with women who receive local anaesthetic experiencing more severe acute reactions. The choice of anesthetic, however, does not appear to impact on longer-term psychiatric outcomes or functional status.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.41.16 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 December 2007
I just wanted to note that Under local anaesthesia, the woman receiving an abortion is awake. Under intravenous sedation, the woman is asleep. is incorrect. The study itself says "with many clinics now providing supplementary medication in the form of conscious/intravenous sedation (IS)". Please note the word conscious. IV sedation is not the same thing as general anesthesia (which does put you to sleep). I'm not trying to be rude, but please be more careful when editing wikipedia. If you are not an expert in the field, then please don't add your own interpretations. Always stick to the cited sources.-Andrew c [talk] 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also add that editors should not rely solely on the abstract of a paper.  Unless the text clearly contradicts the abstract, it is likely that the contributing editor (as in my case) has read the complete paper and has described the results as discussed in the complete paper. Strider12 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editors should also not disregard the abstract, which summarizes the author's most salient points, and mine the text of the article for quotes which advance their agenda. This is covered in WP:OR and WP:SYN. MastCell Talk 17:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: South Africa Study

message: Saranghae honey's edits of the Norway entry compound factual errors regarding the study. The abstract describes that the psych measures were taken "at 10 days and six months."  That means the researchers know only what was measured on those days.  It does not mean, as Saranghae and other editors have written, that there was "higher anxiety scores for only ten days."  The researchers don't know what the rates were on days 12, 15, or months 5, 24 or 48.  They only know and report what the rates were on day 10, and (approximately) at six months.  I'm reverting to the reorganized article. 
I'd suggest that editors with limited experience in the literature should take greater care to use the exact terminology used in abstracts (which is exact for a reason), or better yet study the entire study before attempting to comment on it.  As often as not, inferences will introduce misleading errors.--Strider12 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inferences Introducing Factual Errors

message: MastCell has argued that certain material should be omitted because inclusion would throw off the "balance" of the article according to Wikipedia policy on WP:WEIGHT.
That policy provides, as an example, that just because a few people still believe in a flat earth an article on the planet earth need not contain an equal amount of material on flat earth theory.
In this case, where the weight of evidence lies is exactly the point of controversy.  Koop said he couldn't tell because the studies were too poor.  Much better studies in the last ten years are now shifting the weight toward acknowledgement that many women do experience post-abortion problems. Among these studies is the New Zealand study and that finding prompted Fergusson, who previously believed the argument that abortion was benign, to review the literature and conclude the APA was out of step with the literature. That in turn has prompted a new APA task force to review the last eighteen years of research.
So, it is premature, and presumptive, of MastCell to say the WEIGHT of evidence justifies exclusion or minimization of peer reviewed research finding mental health problems associated with abortion.  I have over eight of these studies in my files, and if people would stop purging my contributions, I and others, can share them with you.
Moreover, one must be very cautious about accepting claims of consensus without evidence.  MastCell, please look a the articles from Grimes, the APA task force, or any other which claims that the "consensus" of medical opinion is that abortion is benign.  Do they cite any national (much less international) poll of physicians?  No.  They are citing themselves.  I'm doubtful there has even been a poll of abortion providers on this question.  So please find some data on what the majority view is of physicians before assuming it is what abortion proponents just claim it is.
Moreover, it is the WEIGHT of the studies, not the number of people who have opinions about them, which should matter most.  So let us just put the studies forward and let the article's weight follow them. Strider12 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper WEIGHT 

message: Some of you may be interested in this gem:
:Hi,  would you be willing to jump into the discussion page at post-abortion syndrome -- and bring some friends.  A group of editors have openly discussed "viligent" "purging" of information from peer reviewed sources which support the "controversial" idea that women who have abortions may suffer subsequent emotional problems.  Though I have lots of expertise in the area, the "abortion is benign crowd and anyone who disagrees is untrustworthy" are in a revert war with me.  I need more voices in there to remind them that deleting peer reviewed material goes against Wikpedia policy.  I'd appreciate you adding this post-abortion syndrome to your watch page and some periodic comments of support--Strider12 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wow... But he's still a new editor so... Did you tell Strider12 that this is against the Wikipedia policy? mirageinred (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: T is being sarcastic. I did warn Strider12 and direct him toward the WP:CANVASS guideline, as did another editor (see User Talk:Strider12). MastCell Talk 17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inexperienced canvasing

message: The following is a long standing text.  It points to the research done by the Boston Globe, NY Times, and Washington Monthly which concludes that the notion of PAS is a political and religious tactic, not a medical condition:
Post-abortion syndrome (PAS), post-traumatic abortion syndrome and abortion trauma syndrome, are terms used usually by  opponents of abortion to describe a set of adverse psychopathological characteristics which are proposed to occur in women following a induced abortion.
The above statement is different from saying: "Abortion proponents have argued that PAS is a myth created by opponents of abortion for political purposes."  In fact, C. Everett Koop is an opponent of abortion but is not of the professional opinion that PAS exists.
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead paragraph acknowledges that it is primarily used by pro-lifers, but it doesn't need to be in the first sentence. mirageinred (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your statement "the medical community on the whole asserts that PAS is a myth" is simply unverified.  Nada Stotland's eighteen year old commentary claiming PAS is a "myth" hardly constitutes an empiricle statement regarding what the medical community on a whole believes.  Please find statistics of a nationally representative poll of physicians before asserting as a fact what you believe the medical community believes on this controversial issue.--Strider12 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Term used by opponents of abortion

message: * http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9505E4D71E3EF933A05756C0A9629C8B63
* http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0D6113CF93BA15755C0A96F948260
Also, the study acknowledges that abortion in Spain is difficult to obtain, is illegal in most cases and comes with a stigma.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read Abortion law, which says that Spain allows abortion except for on demand or socioeconomic factors. And we shouldn't have to explain every study that seems to teensy bit in favor with the pro-life view. The study didn't establish a causal relationship between abortion and adverse effects on women. Should we explain the abortion laws in Norway, Finland, and the United States? mirageinred (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm not trying to explain.  I'm just trying to offer as much information as possible. That way the reader can make up his/her mind.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the article says that "Abortion is illegal in Spain" then what would the reader think? And why just Spain? There are different abortion laws in US, Norway, Finland, and South Africa. If abortion laws in these countries are added to the article, then it suggests that the studies are biased and that they are influenced by views on abortion laws in those countries, which may have more liberal laws than Spain. While it is plausible that they are biased, we do not know for certain that they are. Speaking of this, it might be relevant to add abortion law in the see also section.mirageinred (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Alright. mirageinred (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abortion in Spain

message: There are two broad components of weight: (1) the weight of facts (data points) as reported in peer reviewed literature, and (2) the weight of conclusions and inferences offered by experts as expressed either as part of the individual studies or through review articles or by committees.
In medical science, the trend is toward evidence based medicine which ranks the value or weight of studies based on objective criteria. Wikipedia's evidence based medicine article is pretty good, and in it you will see that the opinions of experts are the lowest ranked of all evidence regarding the benefits or risks of a medical treatment (in this case, abortion). 
 
This low ranking for expert opinion reflects the experience of the medical profession that new research will often displace previously held beliefs, even widely held beliefs, about even non-controversial treatments, much less controversial ones.  Moreover, it reflects what Michael Crichton, M.D., has rightly noted: "[T]he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."
I by no means oppose including expert opinions or consensus statements from Wikipedia articles.  I do object to using these, especially selected statements which support a POV-push, as an argument for deleting verifiable information from peer reviewed studies which run counter to the POV of certain editors.
Also, it is unreasonable to exclude mention of recent research from an article simply because it has not yet been included in pre-existing literature reviews.
It is absolutely absurd to continue to delete studies published since 2000 based on "consensus" statements made in 1989 and 1992 -- especially since these statements were made by parties who are clearly biased in favor of abortion and their overall conclusions "most women don't experience trauma" conceal the details even within their own reports that some women (perhaps even a very small number) do experience negative mental health effects associated with abortion.
Repeatedly citing the 1989 Adler et al article (misrepresneted as the view of the APA) and Stotland's 1992 commentary gives these pieces disproportionate weight.  They should be cited and discussed only once.  Furthermore, the repeated deletion of Stotland's subsequent admission that she had treated a patient who was traumatized by an abortion is also merely "blanking" -- a form of vandalism. 
I continue to submit that the version here servers as a better structure for a more balanced article. --Strider12 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abuse of WEIGHT Argument  

message: Deleting entire paragraphs of verifiable material should stop.  It is evident that these deletions are entirely designed to "blank" this article of any material that does not conform to the POV that abortion is benign. 
Readers are looking for a complete reference on this subject. All the material I and others are adding (much of which was purged months ago in an openly discussed campaign to purge this article to refelct a POV) is material that at least some readers are looking for.
If editors perceive that any material I have added is presented in a way that violates NPOV, please feel free to correct my wording.  But that is not permission to delete the fact, study, quote or basic verifiable fact being presented.
This is supposed to be a collaboration, which requires respecting the material added by others and the right of others to add that material.  While I may seek to clarify or NPOV the additions of others, you will notice that I take pains not to delete their contributions in their entireity.   I hope other editors will show the same respect to my contributions.--Strider12 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Inserting one's point of view should also stop.  Indeed, readers are looking for a complete reference on this subject.  However, I would qualify that by saying that are looking for a complete, medically accurate reference on this subject. Not a pro-life diatribe.  Please be more precise on what you think was inappropriately deleted.  Thank you for your consideration.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass deletion of material should stop 

message: Sorry if I jumped the gun reverting Fishiehelper2's edit.  With so many POV edits on this and other pages concerning abortion and science, I believe it best to first hash things out in the talk page.  
At first glance, the edit FH's edit seemed to be repetitive and strange.  The raw data can be meaningless out of context (or perhaps give the wrong meaning), and for those who are not familiar with this kind of statistical analysis or research, it can be confusing.  The conclusion would therefore fit the summary and encyclopedic style of the article.  Fishiehelper, would you explain why you think quoting statistical analysis is better than quoting the conclusion or results?  
These are the last three paragraphs of the study:
Low social class and poor social support have been connected with risk factors for suicide after birth. The risk for postnatal depression is greater for women with low income or with occupational instability,20 21 and puerperal psychoses are more common among young mothers and women with poor social support.5 Social class has also been found to be associated with all mental disorders after an abortion.19 22 Data from the abortion register showed that women in the lowest social class were highly over-represented among women who committed suicide. We did not, however, have complete information on social class in our data. No control group for social class after birth and miscarriage and for the general population was available. In addition, the social class was based only on the mother's occupation.
The proportion of divorced women who commit suicide was more than double after an abortion and eight-fold after a birth, which suggests that low social support is associated with suicide. Similarly, in a Danish study, a fivefold rate in admissions to psychiatric hospitals after abortion was found for separated, divorced, or widowed women compared with that of other women.
The relation between suicide, mental disorders, life events, social class, and social support is a complex one.23 Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons. Increased risk for a suicide after an induced abortion can, besides indicating common risk factors for both, result from a negative effect of induced abortion on mental wellbeing. With our data, however, it was not possible to study the causality more carefully. Our data clearly show, however, that women who have experienced an abortion have an increased risk of suicide, which should be taken into account in the prevention of such deaths.
On a final note, since this is an article about Post-abortion syndrome, establishing causality vs. correlation is essential.  In fact, it's a stretch for this study to be included in the post-abortion syndrome category because the purpose and the structure of the study was not to establish any kind of causation, let alone establish the existence of PAS.  The purpose of the Finland study was to examine possible correlative indicators, and with those findings direct resources to curb suicide incidences in Finland (which has the highest rate of suicide in Europe next to Lithuania).  I think we should keep the purpose of the study in mind when contextualizing the Finland study for this article.
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Finland study