|
|
 |
For
Immediate Release
Abortion Causes
Mental Disorders:
New Zealand Study May Require Doctors
to Do Fewer Abortions
Pro-Choice
Researcher Says Some Journals
Rejected Politically Volatile Findings
Springfield, IL (Feb. 9, 2006) -- A study in New Zealand that tracked approximately 500 women
from birth to 25 years of age has confirmed that young women who have abortions
subsequently experience elevated rates of suicidal behaviors, depression,
substance abuse, anxiety, and other mental problems.
Most
significantly, the researchers–led by Professor David M. Fergusson, who is the
director of the longitudinal Christchurch Health and Development Study–found
that the higher rate of subsequent mental problems could not be explained by any
pre-pregnancy differences in mental health, which had been regularly evaluated
over the course of the 25-year study.
Findings Surprise
Pro-Choice Researchers
According to
Fergusson, the researchers had undertaken the study anticipating that they
would
be able to confirm the view that any problems found after abortion would be
traceable to mental health problems that had existed before the abortion. At
first glance, it appeared that their data would confirm this hypothesis. The
data showed that women who became pregnant before age 25 were more likely to
have experienced family dysfunction and adjustment problems, were more likely to
have left home at a young age, and were more likely to have entered a cohabiting
relationship.
However, when
these and many other factors were taken into account, the findings showed that
women who had abortions were still significantly more likely to experience
mental health problems. Thus, the data contradicted the hypothesis that prior
mental illness or other “pre-disposing” factors could explain the differences.
“We know what
people were like before they became pregnant,” Fergusson told The New
Zealand Herald. “We take into account their social background, education,
ethnicity, previous mental health, exposure to sexual abuse, and a whole mass of
factors."
The data
persistently pointed toward the politically unwelcome conclusion that abortion
may itself be the cause of subsequent mental health problems. So Fergusson
presented his results to New Zealand’s Abortion Supervisory Committee, which is
charged with ensuring that abortions in that country are conducted in accordance
with all the legal requirements. According to The New Zealand Herald,
the committee told Fergusson that it would be “undesirable to publish the
results in their ‘unclarified’ state.”
Despite his own
pro-choice political beliefs, Fergusson responded to the committee with a letter
stating that it would be “scientifically irresponsible” to suppress the findings
simply because they touched on an explosive political issue.
In an interview
about the findings with an Australian radio host, Fergusson stated: “I remain
pro-choice. I am not religious. I am an atheist and a rationalist. The findings
did surprise me, but the results appear to be very robust because they persist
across a series of disorders and a series of ages. . . . Abortion is a traumatic
life event; that is, it involves loss, it involves grief, it involves
difficulties. And the trauma may, in fact, predispose people to having mental
illness.”
Journals
Reject the Politically Incorrect Results
The research team
of the Christchurch Health and Development Study is used to having its studies
on health and human development accepted by the top medical journals on first
submission. After all, the collection of data from birth to adulthood of 1,265
children born in Christchurch is one of the most long-running and valuable
longitudinal studies in the world. But this study was the first from the
experienced research team that touched on the contentious issue of abortion.
Ferguson said the
team “went to four journals, which is very unusual for us – we normally get
accepted the first time.” Finally, the fourth journal accepted the study for
publication.
Although he still
holds a pro-choice view, Fergusson believes women and doctors should not blindly
accept the unsupported claim that abortion is generally harmless or beneficial
to women. He appears particularly upset by the false assurances of abortion’s
safety given by the American Psychological Association (APA).
In a 2005
statement, the APA claimed that “well-designed studies” have found that “the
risk of psychological harm is low.” In the discussion of their results,
Fergusson and his team note that the APA’s position paper ignored many key
studies showing evidence of abortion’s harm and looked only at a selective
sample of studies that have serious methodological flaws.
Fergusson told
reporters that “it verges on scandalous that a surgical procedure that is
performed on over one in 10 women has been so poorly researched and evaluated,
given the debates about the psychological consequences of abortion.”
Following
Fergusson’s complaints about the selective and misleading nature of the 2005 APA
statement, the APA removed the page from their Internet site. The statement can
still be found through a
web archive service, however.
Study May Have
Profound Influence on Medicine, Law, and Politics
The reaction to
the publication of the Christchurch study is heating up the political debate in
the United States. The study was introduced into the official record at the
senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Also, a
U.S. congressional subcommittee chaired by Representative Mark Souder (R-IN) has
asked the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to report on what efforts the NIH
is undertaking to confirm or refute Fergusson’s findings.
The impact of the
study in other countries may be even more profound. According to The New
Zealand Herald, the Christchurch study may require doctors in New Zealand to
certify far fewer abortions. Approximately 98 percent of abortions in New
Zealand are done under a provision in the law that only allows abortion when
“the continuance of the pregnancy would result in serious danger (not being
danger normally attendant upon childbirth) to the life, or to the physical or
mental health, of the woman or girl.”
Doctors performing
abortions in Great Britain face a similar legal problem. Indeed, the
requirement to justify an abortion is even higher in British law. Doctors there
are only supposed to perform abortions when the risks of physical or
psychological injury from allowing the pregnancy to continue are “greater
than if the pregnancy was terminated.”
According to
researcher Dr. David Reardon, who has published more than a dozen studies
investigating abortion’s impact on women, Fergusson’s study reinforces a growing
body of literature showing that doctors in New Zealand, Britain and elsewhere
face legal and ethical obligations to discourage or refuse contraindicated
abortions.
“Fergusson’s study
underscores that fact that evidence-based medicine does not support the
conjecture that abortion will protect women from ‘serious danger’ to their
mental health,” said Reardon. “Instead, the best evidence indicates that
abortion is more likely to increase the risk of mental health problems. Physicians who ignore this study may no longer be able to argue that they are
acting in good faith and may therefore be in violation of the law.”
“Record-based
studies in
Finland and the
United States have conclusively proven that the risk of women dying in the
year following an abortion is significantly higher than the risk of death if the
pregnancy is allowed to continue to term,” said Reardon, who directs the Elliot
Institute, a research organization based in Springfield, Illinois. “So the
hypothesis that the physical risks of childbirth surpass the risks associated
with abortion is no longer tenable. That means most abortion providers have had
to look to mental health advantages to justify abortion over childbirth.”
But Reardon now believes that alternative for recommending abortion no longer
passes scientific muster, either.
“This New Zealand
study, with its unsurpassed controls for possible alternative explanations,
confirms the findings of several recent studies linking abortion to higher rates
of
psychiatric hospitalization.
depression,
generalized anxiety disorder,
substance abuse,
suicidal tendencies,
poor bonding with and parenting of later
children, and
sleep disorders,” he said. “It
should inevitably lead to a change in the standard of care offered to women
facing problem pregnancies.”
Some Women May Be
At Greater Risk
Reardon, a
biomedical ethicist, is an advocate of “evidence-based medicine”—a movement in
medical training that encourages the questioning of “routine, accepted
practices” which have not been proven to be helpful in scientific trials. If
one uses the standards applied in evidence-based medicine, Reardon says, one can
only conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support the view that
abortion is generally beneficial to women. Instead, the opposite appears to be
more likely.
“It is true that
the practice of medicine is both an art and a science,” Reardon said. “But given
the current research, doctors who do an abortion in the hope that it will
produce more good than harm for an individual woman can only justify their
decisions by reference to the art of medicine, not the science.”
According to
Reardon, the best available medical evidence shows that it is often easier for a woman
to adjust to the birth of an unintended child than it is to adjust to the
emotional turmoil caused by an abortion.
“We are social
beings, so it is usually easier for people to adjust to having a new relationship in
one’s life than to adjust to the loss of a relationship,” he said. “In the
context of abortion, adjusting to the loss is especially difficult if there any
unresolved feelings of attachment, grief, or guilt.”
By using known risk factors, the women who are at greatest risk of severe
reactions to abortion could be easily identified, according to Reardon. More
efforts should be made to help these women be able to continue their pregnancies
instead of undergoing abortions.
In a recent
article published in The Journal of Contemporary Health Law and Policy,
Reardon identified approximately 35 studies that had identified statistically validated risk factors that most reliably predict
which women are most likely to report negative reactions.
“Risk factors for
maladjustment were first identified in a 1973 study published by Planned
Parenthood,” Reardon said. “Since that time, numerous other researchers have
further advanced our knowledge of the risk factors which should be used to
screen women at highest risk. These researchers have routinely recommended that
the risk factors should be used by doctors to identify women who would benefit
from more counseling, either so they can avoid contraindicated abortions or so
they can receive better follow up care to help treat negative reactions.”
Feeling pressured
by others to undergo the abortion, having moral beliefs that abortion is
wrong, or having already developed a strong maternal attachment to the baby are
three of the most common risk factors, Reardon says.
While screening makes sense, Reardon says that in practice, screening for risk
factors is rare for two reasons.
“First, there are
aberrations in the law that shield abortion providers from any liability for
emotional complications following an abortion,” he said. “This loophole means
that abortion clinics can save time and money by substituting one-size-fits-all
counseling for individualized screening.
“The second
obstacle in the way of screening is ideological. Many abortion providers insist
that it is not their job to try to figure out whether an abortion is more
likely to hurt than help a particular woman. They see their role as to ensure
that any woman who is seeking an abortion is provided one--often without finding
out why she is aborting, whether she even wants to abort or what the
implications might be for her.”
“This ‘buyer
beware’ mentality is actually inconsistent with medical ethics,” Reardon said.
“Actually, the ethic governing most abortion providers’ services is no different
than that of the abortionists: ‘If you have the money, we’ll do the abortion.’ Women deserve better. They deserve to have doctors who act like doctors. That
means doctors who will give good medical advice based on the best available
evidence as applied to each patient’s individual risk profile.”
Fergusson also
believes that the same rules that apply to other medical treatments should apply
to abortion. “If we were talking about an antibiotic or an asthma risk, and
someone reported adverse reactions, people would be advocating further research
to evaluate risk,” he said in the New Zealand Herald. “I can see no good
reason why the same rules don't apply to abortion.”
# # #
Sources:
David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder, “Abortion
in young women and subsequent mental health,” Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry 47(1): 16-24, 2006.
Nick Grimm “Higher
risk of mental health problems after abortion: report” Australian
Broadcasting Corporation. 03/01/2006
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1541543.htm
Ruth Hill, “Abortion
Researcher Confounded by Study” New Zealand Herald 1/5/06, http://www.nzherald.co.nz
APA Briefing Paper on The Impact of Abortion on Women,
http://web.archive.org of
http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html
Reardon DC. "The Duty to Screen: Clinical,
Legal and Ethical Implications of Predictive Risk Factors of Post-Abortion
Maladjustment." The Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy. 2003
Winter;20(1):33-114.
|
 |