Abortion is Maddening
This Month’s British Journal of Psychiatry carries a research paper that should make all doctors signing abortion certificates on the basis of mental health concerns, think twice. The paper elegantly demonstrates that abortion worsens mental health outcomes. Unfortunately, I can only link to this article, rather than the paper itself, which is behind a pay-wall. Fortunately, I have access to the journal itself.
The actual research article reference (for those who have access) is Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ Boden JM. Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health. The British Journal of Psychiatry (2009) 195, 420–426. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.109.066068
First, it should be noted that the research is based around the adverse reactions women felt at the time of their abortion. 283 women took part, of which 117 had had abortions. 85% of women who had had an abortion felt at least one of the measured negative emotions. The research identified that:
“Women who reported at least one negative reaction to the abortion had rates of mental health problems that were approximately 1.4–1.8 times higher than women not exposed to abortion, and between 1.2 and 1.6 times higher than women who were exposed to abortion but did not report any adverse reactions to abortion. All of these findings are consistent with the conclusion that unwanted pregnancy terminated by abortion is an adverse life event that increases risks of mental health problems, with these increases in risk being proportional to the degree of distress associated with the abortion of an unwanted pregnancy. [Emphasis mine]”
The importance of the emphasized sentence is that it means that women do not have additional mental health problems because they are at risk of mental health problems anyway (hence the approval for abortion on mental health grounds). It means that women have increased incidences of mental health problems because of the abortion itself. If a woman has a reaction of guilt, grief or loss or similar reaction, she has nearly double the risk of developing mental health problems within five years. The greater the number of negative reactions, the more likely she is to have mental ill health.
Some might harbour suspicions that this research has been hijacked by conservative religious elements, so damaging is this finding to current abortion practice. However, this is not a viable accusation given the good reputations of the authors. Besides, at one point they make the observation that only 2% of women regretted their abortion and that 90% of women thought their decision was correct. This is hardly good material for the anti-abortion lobby.
Given the excellent quality of this research, it is hard to disagree with the authors conclusions:
“In addition, although recent reviews of the evidence have concluded that abortion is not associated with increased mental health risks when compared with unwanted pregnancies that come to term, no review to date has found that abortion is associated with a reduction in mental health risks. Collectively, this evidence raises important questions about the practice of justifying termination of pregnancy on the grounds that this procedure will reduce risks of mental health problems in women having an unwanted pregnancy. Currently there is no evidence to support the assumptions underlying this practice, and the findings of the present study suggest that abortion may, in fact, increase mental health risks among those women who find seeking and obtaining an abortion a distressing experience.”
It is now high time that this section of our abortion law was subject to a serious review, as, clearly, it is being abused in a way that can only be considered unethical, in the light of the evidence.
Related posts:
- Abortion: A personal look. The sudden interest on abortion in New Zealand on the...
- Bad For Your Health A Christchurch study has confirmed that women who have abortions...
- Abortion and Child Abuse My favorite curmudgeon, Garth George, writes today on how he...
- Right to be Informed Good on Ron Paterson for upholding a woman’s right to...
- There’s got to be a Morning After. There are times when I actually agree with the much-maligned Family...
Nov 3 09 11:19 pm
The evidence abortion is unethical goes far beyond this research MacD.
My sense is that Western liberals are committing cultural suicide.
It is all very depressing for those of us who are trying to raise the next generation – what sort of world will they inherit?
Nov 4 09 12:13 am
"It is now high time that this section of our abortion law was subject a a serious review, as, clearly, it is being abused in a way that can only be considered unethical, in the light of the evidence."
Fat chance. If the State were to remove or damage its current authority over life and death in the womb it elevates the inalienable rights of humans, including fetuses, and reduces its hold as the ultimate authority.. ie the Proxy God.
JC
Nov 4 09 1:32 am
I do not intend to attack those women who have had abortions, but there's no polite way to say this…
It's not exactly surprising that women who have killed their babies have mental health problems. Taking a human life does that to you.
Warning: graphic pictures of what abortion does to a baby.
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures_3.ht...
Nov 4 09 9:21 pm
I've had two unplanned pregnancies in my life. The first I decided to abort, the second I decided to keep. The second one was a far, far more traumatic experience because I had a missed abortion at 13 weeks. To be honest if I had known how the second pregnancy was going to turn out, I would rather have gone the early abortion route rather than what I went through, including having to walk past a sign-waving anti-abortion protester as I went in for my D&C.
I think the missing piece from the puzzle would be comparing incidence of mental health problems in enforced unplanned pregnancy. As your piece mentions only 2% of women regretted their abortion and that 90% of women thought their decision was correct. Sometimes women aren't going to make wise decisions, but making the wrong one is far preferable than not being able to make one at all.
Nov 4 09 10:40 pm
It is hard for me to say anything meaningful in the face of your loss. The article I have cited is discussing delayed mental illness following abortion and miscarriage. Their findings were that an abortion was significantly more likely to cause mental health issues than a miscarriage. This is a statistical finding, of course. Clearly your experience was substantially different to the statistical average.
I have not discussed "enforced" unplanned pregnancy (I assume you mean banning abortion completely). My concern here is solely with the ethical nature of claiming to approve abortion for mental health reasons when you know you are having the opposite effect. Abortion on demand is a whole other debate which should be discussed in the open instead of resorting to this unethical practice of using the mental health provision inappropriately.
Nov 4 09 9:58 pm
"To be honest if I had known how the second pregnancy was going to turn out, I would rather have gone the early abortion route rather than what I went through".
Stef, I don't understand how any mother can say something like that with a straight face. To me it doesn't matter whether your kid was in or out of the oven when you thought about making the decision to get rid of them- when they hear that the thought even passed through your mind, that would be enormously heartbreaking for them- who wants to hear that their own mother only had them because she didn't manage to root them out on the first attempt? The mother is entitled to make the distinction between when the child is a blob of tissue and when they are not- but do you really think that any kid would see the distinction & agree with you?
Nov 4 09 10:27 pm
Johhnieboy a missed abortion also known as a missed miscarriage is a pregnancy that seems to be developing normally but the fetus died several weeks previously so there will be no child to tell this tale of woe to.
Going through 2 months of some pretty nasty pregnancy symptoms before I had 3 weeks of bleeding, a D&C followed by an infection which resulted in a 2 night hospital stay plus 3 weeks on some serious antibiotics is not something to be sniffed at. But it was ultimately my decision to continue with the pregnancy even though there is a risk that not all pregnancies go to term. I can't imagine how horrible it would been to have gone through this not of my own accord especially when a procedure earlier on in the pregnancy would have saved me from so much suffering.
Nov 4 09 10:37 pm
Yes I wsa wondering if that was what you meant after I commented and yes I'm sorry you had to go thru anything like that. A friend recently had a D&C for non-pregnancy-related reasons and it did not go well with her back in hospital soon after. I wonder if any good can come from that cursed operation!
Nov 4 09 11:08 pm
It would be far more honest to have abortion on demand by right, rather than abortion legal only if a medical practitioner makes false decalration.
Another perversity of New Zealand Law is the abortion of a fetus with Trisomy 21 (Down's Syndrome) on the pretense that it is a "serious threat to life". It isn't. Certainly people with Down's Syndrome have disabilities, and a greater predisposition to certain health problems, but no "serious threat to life".
To make the judgement that a person with three copies of chromosome 21 is of less worth as a human being than one with with two copies is an affront to all people with disabilities, and all who care about them.
Again, more ethically consistent, more honest, to have abortion on demand, and be equally unjudgemental if parents do not wish to face the responsibilities of having a child with Down's Syndrome, a girl requiring a big dowry, one with an inauspicious horoscope, or, indeed, a child at all.
Nov 5 09 12:56 am
Researchers have said that because of their genetic abnormality, Downs syndromers actually may hold the key to curing cancer as they are mostly immune from the disease- and yet in the UK mums are aborting about 80-90% of them before they reach birth. It is this sort of irony that would give a sceptic pause when questioning the validity of intelligent design.
Nov 5 09 1:14 am
It is this sort of irony that would give a sceptic pause when questioning the validity of intelligent design.
Or, indeed, cause one to doubt whether there is any intelligent life on Earth…
Nov 7 09 9:45 am
I'm surprised that you think the paper is rigorous. As a commenter above noted, how can Fergusson et al draw conclusions about the mental health ground (that continuing with an unwanted pregnancy will harm mental health) when his data set only includes women who had the CHOICE of having an abortion. i.e. the women in his study who had a so-called "unwanted pregnancy" (or as he puts it elsewhere "adverse reaction to" pregnacy) CHOSE to continue with that pregnancy. (I have read the study twice, fyi). Surely the relevant group to study in order to challenge the mental health ground would be women with unwanted pregnancies who did not have the option of having an abortion but wanted one, i.e. women who were essentially forced to continue the pregnancy. Clearly, he couldn't do such research in NZ — it would be, er, unethical to say the least. But there are countries in which such a study could be done retrospectively and ethically. That said, I think the "grounds" are a crock and the decision should be the woman's, so I'm not going to defend the mental health ground either.
Nov 7 09 10:11 am
WilmaV Surely the relevant group to study in order to challenge the mental health ground would be women with unwanted pregnancies who did not have the option of having an abortion but wanted one
That is a reasonable observation. But the truth of the matter is that there is NO country where that would be an ethical study. Either abortion is , or it is not permitted. There would be no ethical way to deny it, if it was permitted and no way to perform it , if it was not.
It may be possible to compare the mental health status of women in countries that restrict abortion to countries that have abortion on demand, but international comparisons are fraught with problems and it is practically impossible to eliminate all confounding variables.
This particular study demonstrates that the woman's reaction to the abortion is paramount when talking of mental health complications. It seems likely, therefore, that not having an abortion is going to be less traumatic, even if the choice is not offered.
Nov 7 09 6:57 pm
MacD, above you link to a post about the morning after pill. The morning after pill causes an abortion if conception has occurred (a pharmacist confirmed this for me, and he refuses to supply the pill for that reason) and you are in favour of the morning after pill.
Why are you, a christian, in favour of abortion/murder?
http://christianclassicalliberalist.wordpress.com...
Nov 8 09 6:39 am
KP:
You misunderstood the post on the morning after pill. I did not say I was in favour of it, just that it was a much better alternative than abortion – medical or surgical. This is true both medically AND ethically. However oral contraceptive or IUCDs as far, far better than the MAP which is expensive, unreliable and has unpleasant side-effects. Technically, the MAP prevents implantation and is not an abortifascient (does not cause an implanted foetus to abort). It is much the same as the pill in this regard. If you are concerned that fertilised blastocysts are being ejected, and you consider that to be abortion, then your only available methods of contraception are mechanical (diaphragms and condoms)
If you want a more in depth idea of my views on abortion, I direct you to the very first MacDoctor post Abortion: A personal look. Essentially, I believe that abortion is always bad, but that sometime the alternative is worse.
For the record, my practice nurses make sure that abortion requests go to my secular colleagues – unless the woman has not yet made up her mind. I am one of the few doctors who will spend time outlining the alternatives to abortion.
Nov 8 09 7:23 pm
If you are concerned that fertilised blastocysts are being ejected, and you consider that to be abortion, then your only available methods of contraception are mechanical (diaphragms and condoms)
I understand a blastocyst to be a baby post-fertilisation and pre-implantation: any point for defining the beginning of life other than fertilisation is arbitrary. When you have new DNA you have new life. I do consider ejecting/killing a blastocyst/baby to be abortion, and there's also the rhythm method.
From your earlier post:
I have little difficulty with abortion as a treatment for a woman who is otherwise in serious danger of losing her life, if the pregnancy continues. Given a choice of neither party surviving or just the mother surviving, I see little alternative to aborting the foetus.
I refer to them as 'babies', for that is what they are as soon as fertilisation has occurred. I do agree that one death is better than two deaths. My concern is that the medical profession far too readily decides that there is 'serious danger' and recommends killing the baby. It is very difficult for a woman to find a realistic assessment of the risks involved in continuing her pregnancy because the vast majority of doctors have a low threshold for saying "Kill the baby and save yourself'.
I am one of the few doctors who will spend time outlining the alternatives to abortion.
I am very glad to hear that. Adoption seems to be almost forgotten these days.