Health-Medical-Fitness-Diet-zh: 2012

duminică, 5 august 2012

Aborting Female Fetuses In Canada - Action Required

According to a report in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal), pregnant women should not be told the sex of their unborn child until after 30 weeks of pregnancy, in order to combat female feticide, which some individuals in certain ethnic groups in Canada and the U.S. practice.

Female feticide is the decision to terminate a pregnancy based on the grounds that the sex is female. Female feticide is practiced in many countries in Asia including China, Vietnam, India and Korea, although some immigrants in Canada also practice female feticide, contributing to a small, but repugnant problem.

Dr. Rajendra Kale, interim Editor-in-Chief, CMAJ, explains:

"Small numbers cannot be ignored when the issue is about discrimination against women in the most extreme form. This evil devalues women. How can it be curbed? The solution is to postpone the disclosure of medically irrelevant information to women until they are about 30 weeks of pregnancy.
A pregnant women being told the sex of the fetus at ultrasonography at a time when an unquestioned abortion is possible, is the starting point of female feticide from a health care perspective. Although a women has the right to information about herself that relates to her health and medical care, the sex of the fetus is medically irrelevant information (except when managing rare sex-linked illnesses) and does not affect care."

In certain ethnic groups, couples who have two daughters and no son decided to terminate female fetuses until they conceive a male child, according to research in Canada. In the U.S., a small study of 65 immigrant Indian women revealed that 40% previously terminated pregnancies with female fetuses, and 89% of women carrying a female fetus aborted their current pregnancies.

Dr. Kale states that the provincial colleges governing physicians should adopt policies that limit women finding out the sex of their unborn child until at least 30 weeks of pregnancy.

Dr. Kale concluded:

"Compared with the situation in India and China, the problem of female feticide in Canada is small, circumscribed and manageable. If Canada cannot control this repugnant practice, what hope do India and China have of saving millions of women?"

Written By Grace Rattue
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Visit our abortion section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Grace Rattue. "Aborting Female Fetuses In Canada - Action Required." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 20 Jan. 2012. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'Aborting Female Fetuses In Canada - Action Required'

Please note that we publish your name, but we do not publish your email address. It is only used to let you know when your message is published. We do not use it for any other purpose. Please see our privacy policy for more information.

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Note: Any medical information published on this website is not intended as a substitute for informed medical advice and you should not take any action before consulting with a health care professional. For more information, please read our terms and conditions.

Following Abortion, Immediate Use Of An IUD Is More Likely To Prevent Unintended Pregnancies

Women who receive a contraceptive known as an intrauterine device or IUD immediately following a first trimester abortion experience few complications and are less likely to have an unintended pregnancy than those who delay getting an IUD by several weeks, according to a new study at Oregon Health & Science University.

The findings are published in the June 9 New England Journal of Medicine.

Research has shown that IUDs are safe, highly effective, long-term reversible contraceptives that don't require active use once they've been inserted. IUDs are underused, however, in part because federal policy prohibits physicians from providing contraceptive services at the time of an abortion, the investigators report.

"Immediate use of any contraceptive method after abortion has been linked to a reduced risk of repeat abortion with the immediate use of an IUD being the most effective method for reducing this risk. However, federal policy makes access a challenge, particularly for low-income patients," said Paula Bednarek, M.D., principal investigator and an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology in the OHSU School of Medicine.

A primary concern with inserting an IUD immediately after an abortion is the risk of expulsion, or having it falling out. In the study, the researchers found the rate of expulsion after immediate insertion was higher but statistically not inferior to that of delayed insertion.

"Our data add to the growing body of evidence that IUDs are safe and highly effective, and supports expanding access to IUDs to a wider range of women," Bednarek said.

To conduct this research, Bednarek and colleagues enrolled 575 women, ages 18 and older, who requested abortions at Oregon Health & Science University and three other U.S. academic health centers. The women were randomized into two groups: one group received an IUD within 15 minutes of their abortion, and the other group received an IUD two to six weeks later.

At six months, the researchers found the 258 women who immediately received IUDs had no significant adverse affects and no pregnancies, and more than 90 percent of the women were still using the device. Of the 226 women who underwent delayed insertion, there were, likewise, no significant adverse events; however, five of the 226 women became pregnant - all were not using IUDs - and only 77 percent were using the device at six months.

"A significant number of women who were randomized to the delayed insertion group did not return to get an IUD placed and instead chose a substantially less effective contraceptive method or none at all," explained Bednarek. "Our results show that women who would like to receive an IUD after an abortion, but are asked to make an appointment for a later date, may not return to actually receive the IUD, and, therefore are at higher risk to have another unintended pregnancy."

Source:
Tamara Hargens-Bradley
Oregon Health & Science University

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
Visit our abortion section for the latest news on this subject. There are no references listed for this article. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Tamara Hargens-Bradley. "Following Abortion, Immediate Use Of An IUD Is More Likely To Prevent Unintended Pregnancies." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 9 Jun. 2011. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'Following Abortion, Immediate Use Of An IUD Is More Likely To Prevent Unintended Pregnancies'

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Potential Solution To Melanoma's Resistance To Vemurafenib

Researchers at Moffitt Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla., and colleagues in California have found that the XL888 inhibitor can prevent resistance to the chemotherapy drug vemurafenib, commonly used for treating patients with melanoma.

Vemurafenib resistance is characterized by a diminished apoptosis (programmed cancer cell death) response. According to the researchers, the balance between apoptosis and cell survival is regulated by a family of proteins. The survival of melanoma cells is controlled, in part, by an anti-apoptotic protein (Mcl-1) that is regulated by a particular kind of inhibitor.

Their current findings, tested in six different models of vemurafenib resistance and in both test tube studies and in melanoma patients, demonstrated an induced apoptosis response and tumor regression when the XL888 inhibitor restored the effectiveness of vemurafenib.

The study appeared in a recent issue of Clinical Cancer Research, a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research.

"The impressive clinical response of melanoma patients to vemurafenib has been limited by drug resistance, a considerable challenge for which no management strategies previously existed," said study co-author Keiran S. M. Smalley, Ph.D., of Moffitt's departments of Molecular Oncology and Cutaneous Oncology. "However, we have demonstrated for the first time that the heat shock protein-90 (HSP90) inhibitor XL888 overcomes resistance through a number of mechanisms."

The diversity of resistance mechanism has been expected to complicate the design of future clinical trials to prevent or treat resistance to inhibitors such as vemurafenib.

"That expectation led us to hypothesize that inhibitor resistance might best be managed through broadly targeted strategies that inhibit multiple pathways simultaneously," explained Smalley.

The HSP90 family was known to maintain cancer cells by regulating cancer cells, making it a good target for treatment. According to the authors, the combination of vemurafenib and XL888 overcame vemurafenib resistance by targeting HSP90 through multiple signaling pathways.

There was already evidence that HSP90 inhibitors could overcome multiple drug chemotherapy resistance mechanisms in a number of cancers, including non-small lung cancer and breast cancer. Because XL888 is a novel, orally available inhibitor of HSP90, the researchers hoped that it would arrest the cancer cell cycle in melanoma cell lines.

In their study, the inhibition of HSP90 led to the degradation of the anti-apoptopiuc Mcl-1 protein. The responses to XL888 were characterized as "highly durable with no resistant colonies emerging following four weeks of continuous drug treatment." In other studies not using XL888, resistant colonies "emerged in every case," they reported.

"We have shown for the first time that all of the signaling proteins implicated in vemurafenib resistance are 'clients' of HSP90 and that inhibition of HSP90 can restore sensitivity to vemurafenib," concluded Smalley and his colleagues. "Our study provides the rationale for the dual targeting of HSP90 with XL888 and vemurafenib in treating melanoma patients in order to limit or prevent chemotherapy resistance."

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our melanoma / skin cancer section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute. "Potential Solution To Melanoma's Resistance To Vemurafenib." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 1 Mar. 2012. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'Potential Solution To Melanoma's Resistance To Vemurafenib'

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

National Right To Life Responds To Latest Guttmacher Report

Today, the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), the federation of 50 state right-to-life affiliates, disputed claims that restrictions on abortion "disproportionately affect" poor women. The assertion was made in, "Changes in Abortion Rates Between 2000 and 2008 and Lifetime Incidence of Abortion, published online yesterday in the June 2011 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology by researchers from the Guttmacher Institute (originally founded as a special research affiliate of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America).

"Data showing an eight percent drop in abortion rates across the board from 2000 to 2008 are encouraging," said Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., National Right to Life director of education and research.

"Guttmacher suggests that higher abortion rates among poorer woman and abortion restrictions are somehow connected, yet it's a thesis that goes undefended," O'Bannon further noted. "How common sense regulations like right-to-know laws, which tell women about abortion's risks and alternatives which are better for both them and their unborn children, and similar protective measures, are supposed to hurt poor women is hard to fathom."

The overall downward trend seems to indicate that such laws, along with the assistance provided by pregnancy care centers, which provide lifesaving alternatives to abortion, are enabling more women to choose life for their unborn child. However, several states - California, New York and at least a dozen others - publicly fund abortion for poor women. "While the abortion industry saw declines among most demographic groups, it just happened to see growth among women for whom states were covering abortion costs," observed O'Bannon.

The fact is, when tax dollars pay for abortion, you get more abortion," O'Bannon observed.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), according to their own 2008-2009 annual report, showed over $1 billion in revenues, including $363.3 million in "Government Grants & Contracts" (an increase from $165 million in 1998). At a time when the overall number of abortions has decreased, PPFA reports performing 332,278 abortions for the period covered in the 2009 report - accounting for more than 27% of all abortions performed annually in the United States.

O'Bannon noted: "The abortion industry likes to argue that high abortion rates are due to insufficient government funding for 'family planning,' but the record seems at odds with that assertion. As abortion industry giant Planned Parenthood has received hundreds of millions of tax dollars each year, abortions at their facilities have steadily increased at rates that very nearly match their increases in government funding."

"Ultimately, the report says less about pro-life laws and more about the aggressiveness of the abortion industry that, funded by tax dollars in many states, exploited poorer women during the recession and profited from their misery. If more women choose life for their unborn children as a result of pro-life legislative initiatives, the abortion industry knows that it will adversely impact their financial bottom line," O'Bannon concluded.

Source:
National Right to Life Committee (NRLC)

MLA

National Right to Life Committee. "National Right To Life Responds To Latest Guttmacher Report." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 24 May. 2011. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'National Right To Life Responds To Latest Guttmacher Report'

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Abortion Not Linked To Mental Health Risk

Having an induced abortion in itself does not raise a female's chances of developing mental health problems, says a report, claimed to be the largest and most comprehensive ever, published by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AOMRC), UK. The authors added that whether the pregnant woman decides to have an abortion or proceed with her pregnancy has no impact on health subsequent mental health.

The review, carried out by the NCCMH (National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, part of the Royal College of Psychiatrists), was commissioned by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.

The Steering Group sifted through 180 potential published studies from 1990 to 2011 and eventually included 44.

The Review concluded that: When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, her chances of developing mental health problems are increased.Terminating an unwanted pregnancy with abortion does not result in a higher risk of mental health problems, compared to seeing that (unwanted) pregnancy to full term.What does have an impact on whether a woman who has an induced abortion subsequently might have mental health problems is her mental health history, i.e. a woman with a history of mental health problems has a greater risk of developing mental health problems after an abortion compared to a woman with no history of mental health problems who has an abortion.If a woman has a negative overall attitude to abortions, and then has one, there is a greater risk of her having mental health problems afterwards.Women who are under pressure from their partners to have an abortion are more likely to have mental health problems, compared to women who abort without such pressure.The review added that some other stressful life events may increase a woman's risk of having mental health problems after an abortion.The authors stressed that it is not the abortion itself that is the predictor of mental health problems, but rather, other factors.

The authors say future practice and research should concentrate on providing support for all females who have an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.

Chair of the Steering Group, Dr Roch Cantwell, a consultant perinatal psychiatrist, said:

"Our review shows that abortion is not associated with an increase in mental health problems. Women who are carrying an unwanted pregnancy should be reassured that current evidence shows they are no more likely to experience mental health problems if they decide to have an abortion than if they decide to give birth."

NCCMH Director, Professor Tim Kendall, who is also a member of the Steering Group, said:

"This review has attempted to address the limitations of previous reviews of the relationship between abortion and mental health. We believe that we have used the best quality evidence available, and that this is the most comprehensive and detailed review of the mental health outcomes of induced abortion to date worldwide."

AOMRC Chairman, Professor Sir Neil Douglas, said:

"The Academy recognizes that this is a complex and controversial area, where there have been many conflicting research findings. We welcome this extremely high-quality review from the NCCMH, and endorse its findings."

The Family Planning Association (FPA) and Brook said they welcomed the review. They both stated that there is now compelling evidence that when a woman has had, or is wondering whether to have an abortion, that the procedure is safe and does not have a direct impact on her mental health.

They went on to say that forcing women who are having an abortion to have counseling is both "unnecessary" and "patronizing".

The FPA and Brook jointly wrote:

"Giving women accurate and honest information about abortion is essential and is something that FPA and Brook take extremely seriously. However, we know that misinformation about mental health can be used as a scare tactic by third parties, to try and deter women from considering abortion.
"We hope this new report will prevent this type of scaremongering and ensure women receive the non-judgemental support and information they need."

Dr Kate Guthrie, a spokesperson from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) said that this latest Review is welcomed. They have revised their own guidelines regarding the care for females seeking induced abortion according to its findings, which include informing the women of what possible emotional responses are possible during and after an abortion.

Dr. Guthrie said:

"It is important that all women, and particularly those with a history of previous mental health problems, are offered appropriate support and if needed follow-up.
It is essential that healthcare workers identify women that are vulnerable in any way and offer the appropriate aftercare.
Abortion including aftercare is an essential part of women's healthcare services, alongside access to contraception and family planning information."

In a published response placed on its website, SPUC mentioned the following points, which are from stories told by a large number of women. The charity adds that several studies with empirical findings demonstrate that there are psychological consequences from having an abortion: After an abortion, a woman experiences a wide range of negative emotions, such as shame, regret, doubt, grief, guilt, loneliness and sadness.Some women who experience relief after undergoing an abortion, subsequently experience negative emotions.Some females may experience PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder), triggered by an abortion.Even though a history of mental health problems may impact on the risk of having mental health problems following an abortion - it in no way accounts for all of the effect.The following risk factors increase the chances of a woman suffering psychological harm after an abortion: no social and emotional support, uncertainty and ambivalence about whether to have an abortion, partner violence, and a history of mental health problems.Abortion raises the risk of developing bipolar disorder, depressive psychosis, schizophrenia, neurotic depression, anxiety, and depression.Abortion raises the risk of subsequent substance abuse and self harm, especially when a woman who had an abortion gets pregnant again.Women who have an abortion because of a fetal disability are especially susceptible to psychological damage.A list of studies supporting the negative consequences of abortion for the woman are listed on this page.

Written by Christian Nordqvist
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Visit our abortion section for the latest news on this subject. Induced Abortion and Mental Health
"A Systematic Review of the Mental Health Outcomes of Induced Abortion, Including Their Prevalence and Associated Factors. December 2011" (PDF, 252 pages)
Developed for the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges by National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health, London, 2011 Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Christian Nordqvist. "Abortion Not Linked To Mental Health Risk." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 11 Dec. 2011. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

posted by mulberry dew on 30 Dec 2011 at 7:38 am

If the JudeoChristian God is a myth, Gale, why are you using the Bible to support your opinions?
Beleive or don't believe as you choose, but do be consistent about it.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Albert Burton on 14 Dec 2011 at 7:57 pm

Nibble, nibble, nibble... Bite!

When a troll posts a rant as you have done in your post, it is clear that you are looking for a reaction. Well here it is: reaction!

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Anne Daly on 13 Dec 2011 at 2:54 pm

The Coleman study is the stronger of the two, in my opinion.

Women do need to be informed of the possible outcomes after abortion and I am just not satisfied that this is happening in practice. I think, too often, the focus for the provider becomes getting the procedure done, quickly, without a lot of time for the woman to reflect or really be told about her options or the side-effects she is risking.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Jakki Jeffs on 13 Dec 2011 at 1:11 pm

In a 2001 study on hospital outcomes,commissioned by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario it was discovered that in the first three months after abortion there was a five times higher rate of hospitalization for pyschiatric problems among women who had abortions compared to those who did not have abortions. When asked if the College would ensure that physicians informed women of this heightened risk, I was told that nothing unusual had been discovered.

I consulted with a colleague who is a physician and she told me that I needed to understand that you do not get admitted to hospital for a psychiatric problem if you are not a danger to your self or someone else.

As a woman myself, I believe that any medical professional is obliged to tell me every possible risk and that includes regarding abortion as well.

It seems to me that there is ample evidence to suggest that some women will undergo a variety of mental health problems after abortion and I believe they have a right to know.

The Coleman 2011 Metanalysis results were as follows. "Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared to term pregnancy and when outcomes pertained to substance abuse and suicidal behaviour."

The conclusion stated; "This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services."

I do not really care what anyone's opinion is regarding abortion, I have mine and they can have theirs. However, when it comes to being honest and ethical with the women who may consider abortion as an option, the politics of abortion protection must not cost women either their physcal or mental health.

Women have the right to know all and any risks inherent in induced abortion. What we all think about abortion is one question, but when that bias effects the outcome of research or indeed just which studies are publically promoted by the media, and what information is given to women by physicians and the abortion industry, women are in deep trouble.

For those actually interested in protecting women's health and not just sounding off your own opinion. The Coleman, metanalysis (study of studies) brought together data on 877,181 participants with 163,831 having experienced an induced abortion. You can access the metanalysis at the address below.

The British Journal of Psychiatry: Abortion and mental health:quantative syntheseis and analysis of research pblished 1995-2009. Priscilla K. Coleman
BJP 2011, 199:180-186
Access most recent version atdoi: 10.1192/bjp.bp110.077230

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Dr. Philip Ney on 12 Dec 2011 at 12:50 pm

Any medical act is not justified on the basis of its few side effects. Every medical, surgical and psychiatric procedure must first be necessary and beneficial. Moreover those who perform or support the unproven act carry the burden of proof to show that it is justified. Without justification, thrusting a curette into a woman's body is tantamount to criminal assault. These authors have conveniently sidestepped the main issues for they know full well there is no medical justification for 99.5% of the abortions performed in most countries.
And who is mentall unwell following an abortion, those who feel no remorse, sorrow etc. for having terminated a life or those whose post abortion pain arises from a deeper sense they have done something very abnormal, to themselves and others.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by DRF on 11 Dec 2011 at 3:17 pm

I am very glad that the research community addressed the issue of whether or not abortion increases a woman's risk of breast cancer. There was some question as to whether hormonal changes could do that. However, dozens of studies in both the U.S. and U.K. have shown that it does NOT increase a woman's risk of cancer. (And the American studies were performed during the conservative Bush administration.)

It was a legitimate question but it's been answered.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by DRF on 11 Dec 2011 at 3:14 pm

I edit and proofread scientific studies for a living and let me tell you, it is 100% normal for a meta-analysis to include some studies and exclude others, such as 44/180. In the first round, the research team casts as wide a net as possible, then they choose only those studies that they can compare to each other accurately. What the study MUST do is provide the criteria that were used to include or exclude studies. They might use factors such as the size of the sample population, whether or not a control group was used, and whether or not the study covered the exact information they want in the way they want.

If you think abortion is bad, you should discourage it by telling the truth about it. Does it kill an embryo or fetus? Yes, by definition. That really ought to be enough. There is no reason to lie and say that it gives women mental problems or cancer. We should all be 100% birth control and sex ed so that fewer people have these unplanned pregnancies in the first place.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Nathan on 11 Dec 2011 at 8:35 am

If you fully read the conclusions, there are a number of exceptions that make the headline far more believable. I especially noted that women who oppose abortions, or who are pressured to abort against their own judgement, are more likely to suffer mental health problems, which is really what you would expect. What this study really seems to suggest is that women seeking abortion should receive (neutral!) counsel to learn everything about abortion, and they should be encouraged to make up their own mind about it (rather than having, say, a church or an activist group making it for them).

The fact that it is a review of many studies in no way invalidates its findings. In fact, that makes its findings stronger, since it is combining data from many sources to come to a conclusion. Higher sample size increases accuracy.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by gale routh on 11 Dec 2011 at 7:57 am

i do believe, if we taught the science behind pregnancy, the people who are more pro-life that get an abortion--won't be so upset about it.

fetus (NOT A BABY, THEY ARE BORN…GOOGLE THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CHART) is a parasite because the classification of the biological relationship that is based on the behavior of one organism (the fetus) and how it relates to the woman's body:

as a zygote, it invaded the woman's uterus using its Trophoblast cells and hijacked her immune system by using Neurokinin B—-so her body won't KILL it, and stole her nutrients to survive and causes her harm or potential DEATH!

wikipedia org/wiki/Trophoblast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immune_tolerance_in_pregnancy

"it is also possible for a symbiotic relationship to exist between two organisms of the same species."
answers com/topic/symbiosis —–Gale's Science of Everyday Things:
Symbiosis

"an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by it"
thefreedictionary com/parasite

if a man can kill his tapeworm at anytime, so should a woman abort her unwanted human parasitic fetus at anytime, too.

the bible supported abortion:
the 1984 niv footnote of numbers 5:11-31 explained what "to thy thigh to rot, thy belly to swell" meant:
Numbers 5:21 Or causes you to have a miscarrying womb and barrenness” to CAUSE a miscarrying womb IS an abortion.

the judeo-christian god is a myth and historical evidence proves it.
3.3.3 Atheism: A History of God (Part 1)
Evid3nc3

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by One Opinion on 11 Dec 2011 at 7:31 am

The review (as I understand it) looked at many of the studies you refer to (but do not cite) and concluded that either the study was flawed or the results did not follow from the data.

In any case the one thing I think we can all agree on is that fewer unwanted pregnancies would be a good thing.

One Opionion

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Ranger on 11 Dec 2011 at 6:11 am

I know two women personally that have suffered depression and years long guilt as a result of abortion. Perhaps some do not. But I am witness to the problems it can cause.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Dave on 11 Dec 2011 at 6:11 am

That's a great and hopefully healthy attitude / belief for you. However, not everyone believes as you do and as I'm sure you wouldn't want other people or cultures or religions expecting you to adopt their personal beliefs I hope ask that you don't push your personal or religious beliefs on others.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by kww on 11 Dec 2011 at 6:03 am

Their are studies that show a link between women that have had abortions and higher rates of certain cancers like breast.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Father of Two on 11 Dec 2011 at 5:56 am

Based on what I read here, this was less a "study" than a selective survey of other studies. While the article calls this a "review," other commenters and the media are undoubtedly giving this headline more due than it's worth.

And it seems difficult to imagine that deciding to terminate a pregnancy does not carry with it significant prospects for future emotional turmoil. The pro-abortion groups' use of such "data" to promote these procedures soft-pedals what is and should be an extremely grave moral decision to terminate another life.

This fundamental, ethical decision should be the focus of concern. If people can be desensitized to its magnitude, as this review suggests, it says something quite tragic about our world and its throwaway and convenience-based priorities.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by John Ambery on 11 Dec 2011 at 5:32 am

In the eyes of God, abortion is a sin. The focus should not be on the mother, she is the vehicle for new life. The new life needs a chance, everything else is irrelevant.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Amanda Gonzalez on 11 Dec 2011 at 5:31 am

I am American and have lived in the UK. I am grateful for this study. In my country, the land of polarized views, knee-jerk sound-bites, extreme atheists and bible-bashers, and niche politics, such a study would never be done. If if it were, I would doubt its impartiality.

Thank you.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Dr. Spock on 11 Dec 2011 at 5:09 am

This is about the dumbest study out there. Honestly, you people should be shot!

| post followup | alert a moderator |

'Abortion Not Linked To Mental Health Risk'

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

First-Trimester Induced Abortion Not Associated With Increased Risk Of Psychiatric Readmission

Research published in the February issue of Archives of General Psychiatry, one of the JAMA/Archives journals, reveals that for women with a history of a treated mental disorder, who had their first induced abortion within the first-trimester of pregnancy, are not at a higher risk of readmission to psychiatric facilities.

Background information in the article states:

"Diverging results exist as to whether induced abortions negatively influence mental health, and there is a paucity of sound studies on the topic. Mental health problems are associated with women's reproductive decisions, and predict poor mental health outcomes after abortion. Moreover, most abortions are a result of unintended pregnancies, and the effects of induced abortion are often confounded with the effects of an unwanted pregnancy."

Trine Munk-Olsen, Ph.D., of the National Centre for Register-Based Research at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, and her team, decided to assess whether there is a risk of psychiatric readmission in women with mental disorders who had a first-trimester induced abortion in comparison with the risk of readmission amongst women with mental disorders who gave birth.

The researchers collected data on all women with a record of one or more psychiatric admissions at least nine months before a first-time first-term induced abortion or childbirth, who were born in Denmark between 1962 and 1992, and found 2,838 eligible women who underwent a first-time first-trimester abortion between January 1994 and December 2007.

According to the findings, the readmission rate during the study period from 9 months prior to the abortion up to 12 months afterwards was 321 women, in comparison with a readmission rate of 273 women from 5,293 women with records of mental disorders who gave birth to their first live-born child.

The researchers noted that the risk of readmission in the abortion group declined from before to after the abortion, with the basic readmission risk in the abortion group decreasing from 211 per 1,000 person-years nine months prior to the abortion to 39 per 1,000 person-years 12 months following the abortion. Incidence rates of readmission both before and after the event were in general notably higher amongst the abortion group than readmission rates amongst those who gave birth, but were higher during the first month post-partum in those who gave birth.

The risk of readmission was higher in those with a parental history of mental disorders, but reduced in women who had one or more children at the time of abortion. In addition, the researchers established a substantial link in the risk of re-hospitalization with the number of days since previous discharge in both groups of women.

The researchers conclude:

"Risk of readmission is similar before and after a first-trimester induced abortion, contrasting with a marked increased readmission risk within the first month after childbirth. We speculate that recent psychiatric episodes may influence women's decisions to have an induced abortion; however, this decision does not appear to influence the illness course in women with a history of treated mental disorders."

Written by Petra Rattue
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Visit our abortion section for the latest news on this subject. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2012;69[2]:159-165. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Petra Rattue. "First-Trimester Induced Abortion Not Associated With Increased Risk Of Psychiatric Readmission." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 11 Feb. 2012. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'First-Trimester Induced Abortion Not Associated With Increased Risk Of Psychiatric Readmission'

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

The Social Stigma Surrounding Abortion

An international team of researchers says abortion stigma is under researched, under theorized and over emphasized in one category: women who've had abortions. As a result, they're launching a new direction into research that explores the social stigma surrounding abortion.

Their invited paper, "Abortion Stigma: A Reconceptualization of Constituents, Causes, and Consequences," is published in the current journal, Women's Health Issues (Vol. 21, issue 3, supplement). The team of researchers is represented by The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health; the University of Cincinnati Department of Sociology; the University of California, San Francisco, Department of Psychiatry; the Guttmacher Institute in New York; Goldsmiths College, University of London; and Center for the Study of Women, University of California, Los Angeles.

"There is very little research on abortion stigma, and what does exist has focused on women who have had abortions and on those experiences. We're looking at stigma in a broader context," explains research team member Danielle Bessett, assistant professor of sociology, University of Cincinnati.

The authors cite previous research on abortion stigma including that abortion violates "feminine ideals," that abortion is stigmatized because of legal restrictions, and that it is viewed as "dirty or unhealthy."

Bessett explains that each researcher on the project is exploring a specific group that could be affected by stigma, such as health care providers that perform abortions, supporters of women who have had abortions, the male partner of the woman who had an abortion, women's experience in pregnancy after previously having an abortion and women's self stigma after suffering miscarriage.

"This is new territory into research around the social issues surrounding abortion," says Bessett, who adds the research will be conducted in both national and international settings, including the United States, Zambia, Nigeria, Tanzania, Mexico, Brazil and countries in Europe.

"Understanding abortion stigma will inform strategies to reduce it, which has direct implications for improving access to care and better health for those whom stigma affects," state the authors in the paper.

Research funding for the paper was supported by the Charlotte Ellerston Social Service Postdoctoral Fellowship in Abortion and Reproductive Health. The research project is led by Alison Norris, MD, Department of Population Family and Reproductive Health, The Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Health; Danielle Bessett, University of Cincinnati Department of Sociology; Julia R. Steinberg, Department of Psychiatry, University of California, San Francisco; Megan L. Kavanaugh, Guttmacher Institute; Silvia De Zordo, Department of Anthropology,Goldsmiths College, University of London; and Davida Becker, Center for the Study of Women, University of California, Los Angeles.

Source:
Dawn Fuller
University of Cincinnati

MLA

Dawn Fuller. "The Social Stigma Surrounding Abortion." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 29 Jun. 2011. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

posted by Beverly on 23 Nov 2011 at 1:31 pm

Thanks for putting your opinion out there! The same thing happened to me. I wasn't informed of my son's girlfriend's abortion and it has caused him, myself, the girlfriend as well as others much grief!!!

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Carrots on 1 Jul 2011 at 3:13 pm

You are so wrong on so many levels, should've. Don't dictate to me on how to control my reproductive choices. You state that 'There are still MAJOR problems with abortion' and that there is 'still a stigma'. No kidding, with anti choice zealots hanging out at clinics and taunting women mercilessly about her health care choices -YES IT IS ABOUT HEALTHCARE - its no wonder that some women can be traumatized and feel stigma. But isn't that the anti choice side's motive in the first place? To make women feel bad about having an abortion and being sexual in the first place. Her unplanned preg. needs to teach her a lesson, a kind of punishment for being a slut right? How cruel and ugly we are to each other. By the way, there is NO correlation between abortion and breast cancer--this is a scare tactic from anti-science zealots. Stop believing in these frauds and be kind to your daughter. Shame never works.

| post followup | alert a moderator |

posted by Should've been grandma on 29 Jun 2011 at 4:50 pm

There are still MAJOR problems with abortion, which is why there is still "a stigma!!" First of all, it is NOT healthcare! It is the opposite of it! Secondly, it IS unhealthy, as there is a CLEAR link between abortion AND breast cancer!! Women are being traumatized by it (although people try to deny it; the mental health community knows AND sees it), which IS negatively impacting these women. My daughter had one & it caused her--and US--extreme distress & NO ONE EVER mentions that!

I think your time (& money) would be MUCH BETTER SPENT on the topic of women being traumatized!!

| post followup | alert a moderator |

'The Social Stigma Surrounding Abortion'

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Marie Stopes International's Response To The 2010 Abortion Statistics In England And Wales

Official figures released today by the Department of Health show that the number of women having abortions in England and Wales has risen for the first time in three years. In total 189,574 abortions were performed in 2010, representing a 0.3% increase from 2009.

Marie Stopes International, the leading provider of independent sexual and reproductive health services was disappointed not to see a further reduction in numbers as we have seen in previous years. With improvements in contraception rates last year, these figures come as a particular surprise. We were pleased, however, to see that the under-18 abortion rate has reduced from 17.6 per 1,000 women in 2009 to 16.5 per 1,000 women in 2010.

Dr Paula Franklin, Director of Clinical Development at Marie Stopes International the leading independent provider of sexual and reproductive healthcare services, comments: "Although the numbers are similar to those of 2009, we are surprised not to see a further decrease in the number of abortions across England and Wales.

"Improved access to counselling and advice, through services like Marie Stopes International's OneCall, is allowing women to access a full range of information early. In 2010, 91% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation, requiring a simpler procedure with fewer chances for complication and can reduce the stress and anxiety experienced by a woman in making what can be a difficult decision.

"At Marie Stopes International we are committed to providing women with the information, advice and services they need to make informed contraceptive choices. Unplanned pregnancies do of course still happen, and whilst we will always support a woman's access to safe abortion services, we want to be sure enough is being done to help avoid unplanned pregnancies in the first place. Taking a look at today's figures more closely, you can see that the number of under-18 abortions in England and Wales has fallen which we believe correlates with the increased uptake of contraception. From our own experience, as uptake of long acting forms of contraception has increased, we have seen a corresponding reduction in the number of repeat abortions with under 20 year olds.

"Although the rise is small, these abortion figures send a warning for the government's family planning strategy. There are three key areas that need to be focused on: education, access and choice. Education is absolutely vital for effective family planning. Through education, people are able to make informed choices and take control of their sexual and reproductive health. Marie Stopes International believes that comprehensive and standardised sex and relationship education should be delivered in all schools. Importantly though, we can all play a part in this: parents, teachers and trusted health providers like Marie Stopes International and the NHS. If we are to really help young people make informed decisions we have to encourage an open and non-judgemental attitude to talking about sex and relationships ?" both at home and at school.

"We should also be making it as easy as possible for people to access sexual and reproductive health services. At Marie Stopes International, we ensure there are no waiting times for appointments for counselling, contraception and treatment at our centres. Every year more than 100,000 men and women come to our centres for information, advice, professional care and support. In addition to these face-to-face consultations, our 24hr helpline OneCall receives 350,000 calls a year. Giving people as many ways as possible to access services is extremely important.

"The last point to make is around choice. There is a real need to provide people with comprehensive information on all of the contraceptive options available to them. Many people do not realise that there are 16 different types of contraception available to them. LARCs or long-acting reversible contraceptives - including the implant and injection - are the most effective forms of contraception available yet their use in the England and Wales is still relatively low. Choice does of course extend to the choice of whether or not to go through with a pregnancy. In England and Wales a woman has the choice to proceed with an abortion and we hope that in the future this choice will be common to all women across the globe."

"Today's findings highlight the need for organisations like ours to work even harder. There are clear ways we can improve national family planning delivery and we look forward to working with the government to achieve them."

Abortion Statistics, England and Wales 2010: Key Findings

- The total number of abortions was 189,574, 0.3% more than in 2009 (189,100) and 8.0% more than in 2000 (175,542).

- The age-standardised abortion rate was 17.5 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, the same as in 2009, but 3% higher than in 2000 (17.0) and more than double the rate of 8.0 recorded in 1970.

- The abortion rate was highest at 33 per 1,000 for women aged 19 and 20, the same as in 2009 and slightly lower than the highest rates in the year 2000 (34 per 1,000 for both 19 and 20 year olds).

- The under-16 abortion rate was 3.9 per 1,000 women and the under-18 rate was 16.5 per 1,000 women, both lower than in 2009 (4.0 and 17.6 per 1,000 women respectively) and in the year 2000 (3.9 and 18.3 per 1,000 women respectively).

- 96% of abortions were funded by the NHS. Over half (59%) took place in the independent sector under NHS contract, up from 2% in 1981.

- 91% of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation. 77% were at under 10 weeks, compared to 75% in 2009 and 58% in 2000.

- Medical abortions accounted for 43% of the total, up from 12% in 2000.

- 2,290 abortions (1%) were carried out under ground E (risk that the child would be born handicapped)

- Non-residents: in 2010, there were 6,535 abortions for non-residents carried out in hospitals and clinics in England and Wales (6,643 in 2009). The 2010 total is the lowest in any year since 1969.

Source:
Marie Stopes International

MLA

Marie Stopes International. "Marie Stopes International's Response To The 2010 Abortion Statistics In England And Wales." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 24 May. 2011. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'Marie Stopes International's Response To The 2010 Abortion Statistics In England And Wales'

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

Global Abortion Rates Remain Steady

New figures from the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO) show that after a long period of decline, the global abortion rates have steadied. From 1995 to 2003, rates dropped from 35 per 1000 women of childbearing age to 29 per 1000, whereas the new study shows the 2008 rate is stable at 28 per 1000.

The United Nations says the slow down coincides with a plateau in the uptake of contraceptive use in developing countries, where there has been a big contraceptive drive in the last couple of decades, partly because of HIV and partly because of over population issues.

Sadly though, the report also makes a note of the fact that nearly half of all abortions in the developing world are unsafe and almost all unsafe abortions occur in developing countries around the world. The abortion rate is lower in the developed world, excluding Eastern Europe and comes in for 2008 at 17 per 1000 women of child bearing age, dropping slightly from 20 per 1000 in 1995.

Gilda Sedgh , lead author of the study and a senior researcher at the Guttmacher Institute says :

"The declining abortion trend we had seen globally has stalled, and we are also seeing a growing proportion of abortions occurring in developing countries, where the procedure is often clandestine and unsafe. This is cause for concern ... This plateau coincides with a slowdown in contraceptive uptake. Without greater investment in quality family planning services, we can expect this trend to persist."

Alarmingly, WHO figures state that 13% of all maternal deaths worldwide are caused by unsafe abortions, a tragedy considering the procedure is relatively simply and safely performed if the doctor and nurses are trained, have the correct facilities, cleanliness and medicines available to them. Unsafe abortion accounted for 220 deaths per 100,000 procedures in 2008, 350 times the rate associated with legal induced abortions in the United States (0.6 per 100,000). Unsafe abortion is also a significant cause of ill-health: Each year approximately 8.5 million women in developing countries experience abortion complications serious enough to require medical attention, and three million of them do not receive the needed care.

Iqbal H. Shah, of the WHO and a coauthor of the study said :

"Deaths and disability related to unsafe abortion are entirely preventable, and some progress has been made in developing regions. Africa is the exception, accounting for 17% of the developing world's population of women of childbearing age but half of all unsafe abortion related deaths ... Within developing countries, risks are greatest for the poorest women. They have the least access to family planning services and are the most likely to suffer the negative consequences of an unsafe procedure. Poor women also have the least access to post abortion care, when they need treatment for complications."

The figures show conclusively that stricter abortion laws have no bearing upon number of abortions and in fact simply cause women to go through back street channels with unlicensed or unscrupulous practitioners. Whether you are for or against abortion or feel indifferent, it's impossible to argue against the numbers that demonstrate how too much regulation or prohibition simply creates an unsafe and over priced black market, much as prohibition of alcohol and drugs does. For example, the 2008 abortion rate was 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America, regions where abortion is highly restricted in almost all countries. In contrast, in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds, the rate is 12.

In contrast, the South African abortion laws are far more relaxed and the figures come in at only 15 per 1000, very close to European figures. Eastern Europe has a different scenario, with very high abortion rates coming in at 90 per 1000 in 1995 and falling to 44 per 1000 in 2003. There hasn't been much change in the rate since 2003, and it seems alarmingly high. Researchers put this down to low uptake of contraceptive methods such as the pill and IUD, while the population is generally more sexually liberated and less religious than in Africa and Latin America. Eastern Europe is also stereotyped for providing many prostitutes to West Europe, and this attitude towards sex may also increase the number of unwanted pregnancies.

Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet says :

"These latest figures are deeply disturbing. The progress made in the 1990s is now in reverse. Promoting and implementing policies to reduce the number of abortions is now an urgent priority for all countries and for global health agencies, such as WHO ... Condemning, stigmatizing, and criminalizing abortion are cruel and failed strategies. It's time for a public health approach that emphasizes reducing harm - and that means more liberal abortion laws."

Written By Rupert Shepherd
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Visit our abortion section for the latest news on this subject. Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Rupert Shepherd. "Global Abortion Rates Remain Steady." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 19 Jan. 2012. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'Global Abortion Rates Remain Steady'

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

How Chromosomes Pair Up

After more than a century of study, mysteries still remain about the process of meiosis - a special type of cell division that helps ensure genetic diversity in sexually-reproducing organisms. Now, researchers at Stowers Institute for Medical Research shed light on an early and critical step in meiosis.

The research, to be published in the Nov. 8, 2011 issue of Current Biology, clarifies the role of key chromosomal regions called centromeres in the formation of a structure known as the synaptonemal complex (SC). "Understanding this and other mechanisms involved in meiosis is important because of the crucial role meiosis plays in normal reproduction - and the dire consequences of meiosis gone awry," says R. Scott Hawley, Ph.D., who led the research at Stowers.

"Failure of the meiotic division is probably the most common cause of spontaneous abortion and causes a number of birth defects such Down syndrome," Hawley says.

Meiosis reduces the number of chromosomes carried by an individual's regular cells by half, allocating precisely one copy of each chromosome to each egg or sperm cell and thus ensuring that the proper number of chromosomes is passed from parent to offspring. And because chromosomes come in pairs - 23 sets in humans - the chromosomes must be properly matched up before they can be divvied up.

"Chromosome 1 from your dad has to be paired with chromosome 1 from your mom, chromosome 2 from your dad with chromosome 2 from your mom, and so on," Hawley explains, "and that's a real trick. There's no room for error; the first step of pairing is the most critical part of the meiotic process. You get that part wrong, and everything else is going to fail."

The task is something like trying to find your mate in a big box store. It helps if you remember what they are wearing and what parts of the store they usually frequent (for example, movies or big-screen TVs). Similarly, chromosomes can pair up more easily if they're able to recognize their partners and find them at a specific place.

"Once they've identified each other at some place, they'll begin the process we call synapsis, which involves building this beautiful structure - the synaptonemal complex - and using it to form an intimate association that runs the entire length of each pair of chromosomes," Hawley explains.

Some model organisms employed in the study of meiosis, such as yeast and the roundworm Caenorhabditis elegans, use the ends of their chromosomes to facilitate the process. "These organisms gather all the chromosome ends against the nuclear envelope into one big cluster called a bouquet or into a bunch of smaller clusters called aggregates, and this brings the chromosome ends into proximity with each other," Hawley says. "This changes the problem of finding your homologue in this great big nucleus into one of finding your mate on just the surface of the inside of the nucleus."

But the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster - the model organism in which meiosis has been thoroughly studied for more than a century, and which Hawley has studied for almost 40 years - has unusual chromosome ends that don't lend themselves to the same kind of clustering.

"So even though the study of meiosis began in Drosophila, we really haven't had any idea how chromosomes initiate synapsis in Drosophila," Hawley says. "Now, we show that instead of clustering their chromosome ends, flies cluster their centromeres - highly organized structures that chromosomes use to move during cell division. From there, the biology works pretty much as you would expect: synapsis is initiated at the centromeres, and it appears to spread out along the arms of the chromosomes."

The ramifications of the findings extend beyond fruit flies, as there's some evidence that synapsis starts at centromeres in other organisms. In addition, Hawley and coauthors found that centromere clustering may play a role later in meiosis, when chromosomes separate from their partners.

"There's reason to believe that some parts of that process will be at least explorable and potentially applicable to humans," Hawley said.

The work also is notable as an example of discovery-based science, Hawley said. "We didn't actually set out to study the initiation of meiosis; we were simply interested in characterizing the basic biology of early meiosis."

But postdoctoral researcher and first author Satomi Takeo, Ph.D., noticed that centromere clustering and synaptonemal complex initiation occurred in concert, and her continued observations revealed the role of centromeres in initiating synapsis.

"I was staring with tired eyes at the cells that I was analyzing," Takeo recalls. "Somehow I started looking at the spots I had previously ignored - probably because I thought they were just background noise - until I saw the connection between centromere clustering and synapsis initiation. After going through many images, I wrote an email to Scott, saying, 'This is really important, isn't it??' With that finding, everything else started to make sense."

Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release. Click 'references' tab above for source.
Visit our genetics section for the latest news on this subject. In addition to Hawley and Takeo, the paper's authors include Cathleen M. Lake at the Stowers Institute for Medical Research and Eurico Morais-de-Sá and Cláudio D. Sunkel at Universidade do Porto in Porto, Portugal, who provided information on the earliest stages of the process.
Stowers Institute for Medical Research Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Stowers Institute for Medical Research. "How Chromosomes Pair Up." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 3 Nov. 2011. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

'How Chromosomes Pair Up'

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to:

More Docs Refusing Abortions; Religion And Location Named Factors

More and more doctors are unwilling to perform abortions, according to a recent survey, lowering the original percentage of those that were willing according to an alternate survey, 22%, down to 14% or one in seven. Although it is a legal medical practice in most locales, why is there the push back by medical practitioners? However, female specialists were about 2.5 times more likely than males to provide abortions, as were younger practitioners, ages 35 and under.

In the U.S., the demand for abortion is high, they said, given that half of pregnancies are unintended, and half of those end in abortion. More than 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old. There are two kinds of abortion in the U.S.; in-clinic abortion and the abortion pill.

Religious objections may play a role, as may a reduction in training for the procedure in residency programs from the late 1970s through 1996. After that time, abortion training was required for residency.

From a strictly religious viewpoint, the study found that practitioners who identify as being Jewish were more likely to perform abortion, while Catholics and Evangelical Protestants, on the other hand, as well as physicians with high religious motivation, were less likely to offer the service.

Key variables that the researchers asked about included whether respondents had ever encountered patients seeking abortions in their practices, and whether they provided abortion services. Overall, 97% said they had encountered patients seeking abortions, but only 14.4% said they performed the service. However, those aged 56 to 65 were the next most likely group to provide abortions; those ages 35 to 45 were the least likely.

With more insight, the study states geography is a factor as well:

"Access to abortion remains limited by the willingness of physicians to provide abortion services, particularly in rural communities in the South and Midwest."

In the Northeast or West, and in highly urban postal codes, were more likely to do the procedure than those in the South and Midwest or more rural areas, the researchers found. Many doctors choose to avoid being a target of antiabortion activists.

One caveat was that the recent study didn't assess whether specialists who do not perform abortions refer their patients out to colleagues who do. The study was also limited by self report, and by the lack of anonymity involved in reporting and returning the survey.

It's a growing trend among the United States for anti-abortion "protesters" to use intimidation tactics, or now even outright threats, to try to stop doctors from providing legal abortions to women. The intent is that if doctors can be scared out of providing abortions, more women will have to carry to term simply because they have no other safe options.

Abortion in the United States has been legal in every state since the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973. Prior to "Roe", there were exceptions to the abortion ban in at least 10 states; "Roe" established that a woman has a right to self-determination (often referred to as a "right to privacy") covering the decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, but that this right must be balanced against a state's interest in preserving fetal life.

Written by Sy Kraft
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

Visit our abortion section for the latest news on this subject. "Abortion Provision Among Practicing Obstetrician–Gynecologists"
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Stulberg, Debra B. MD, MAPP; Dude, Annie M. MD, PhD; Dahlquist, Irma BS; Curlin, Farr A. MD
Please use one of the following formats to cite this article in your essay, paper or report:

MLA

Sy Kraft. "More Docs Refusing Abortions; Religion And Location Named Factors." Medical News Today. MediLexicon, Intl., 24 Aug. 2011. Web.
5 Aug. 2012. APA

Please note: If no author information is provided, the source is cited instead.

posted by Chardin on 25 Aug 2011 at 2:57 pm

wouldn't it be interesting to survey direct cooperators with the surgeon on their willingness to participate? OR nurses, anesthetists?

| post followup | alert a moderator |

'More Docs Refusing Abortions; Religion And Location Named Factors'

If you write about specific medications or operations, please do not name health care professionals by name.

All opinions are moderated before being included (to stop spam)

Contact Our News Editors

For any corrections of factual information, or to contact the editors please use our feedback form.

Please send any medical news or health news press releases to: