The latest findings echo an extensive review by the American Psychological Association in 2008 that found no evidence that ending an unwanted pregnancy threatens women's mental health.
A separate review by Blum and his colleagues found that the most rigorous research on the topic did not find a relationship between abortion and long-term mental health problems. Previous studies that suggested such a connection were often poorly designed, had dropout rates or did not control for factors that could affect the conclusion.
Reported in the NZ Herald in 2008;
The long-term Christchurch study of more than 500 women found a link between having an abortion and an increase of nearly a third in the risk of disorders such as depression and anxiety.
Reporting their findings in the British Journal of Psychiatry, the Otago University researchers say that abortions account for 1.5 to 5.5 per cent of the overall rate of mental disorders.
They said their study backed up others overseas which concluded that having an abortion may be linked to an increased risk of mental health problems.
Depending on your own personal viewpoint about abortion, take your pick.
7 comments:
Fair point Lindsay but its not comparing apples with apples.
The current Danish study did NOT look for depression or anxiety short of medical intervention of hospital admission. They looked only at severe cases requiring admission or GP type intervention.
Doug Fergusson's work looked at all cases of mental disorders/disturbances. The reporting system is different.
Fergusson also wasn't funded by pro-abrtion lobby groups like the SPS and the Danish study were. Just like "BigPharma", "BigAbortion" should also be treated with suspicion.
Chris Pemberton
Chris, I copied the quotes that specifically mentioned other research, not just these two particular studies.
It is David Fergusson by the way and I have every respect for his work.
My point is, studies and reviews of studies published in reputable journals - you may want to argue that description also - draw different conclusions. And people will use whichever suits their position, with authentication.
That is stamp collecting, not science.
These studies are social science, which isn't 'science' as in 'scientific method.' Contradictory results in the social sciences mostly reflect contradictory political aims of the researchers.
Causality is damned hard, and Kiwi public health folks are often very bad at it.
If it's the case that women with depression are more likely to get an abortion than women who don't have pre-existing depression, then comparing rates of depression among those who've had abortions and those who haven't ignores differences in base rates. It's then just correlation.
You have to be really damned careful to be able to do causality. NZ media is hopeless at picking up which studies are able to show causality and which aren't. Completely hopeless.
It's so nice to see that "the science is settled" again!
Actually, the differing interpretations here are more to do with methodology than ideology. Blum's study is a population study using public abortion and hospitalization data ( shudder). They would not have been able to gather accurate information on mild to moderate mental illness. Fergusson's study was a linear cohort study which had much cleaner data. Thus , Fergusson's study was better able to detect milder disease.
Having said that, Blum's somewhat disparaging remarks on dissenting studies shows more ideology than science. There are a number of excellent studies that demonstrate increased mental illness with abortion. They are all, of necessity, smaller cohort studies.
I have known some very very unhappy and depressed women who became that way after they became a mother -because they found it so monotonous and tiring and life-limiting and just plain unsatisfying. Funny how there are no stats on the women who wish they didn't have kids....
Post a Comment