 Advertisement | ||||||||
 | ||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
||
Electronic letters to:
|
|
Electronic letters published:
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
David Reardon, hero
Statistical hogwash
Re: Abortion study seriously flawed
This article helps validate a common experience
Abortion study seriously flawed
|
|
|||
|
Jeff M Ostrowski
Send letter to journal:
casimir_hofmann{at}juno.com Jeff M Ostrowski
|
Dear friends, David Reardon is one of the brightest and bravest men in the United States of America. He is not discouraged by the fact that so many people (who should know better) ignore the evidence. Reardon continues to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that abortion hurts men, women, and children. He does so in a way that is kind, patient, scholarly, and eloquent. David Reardon, never give up! Regards, Jeff Ostrowski |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Steen Goddik, M.D. University of South Dakota Residency Corporation
Send letter to journal:
sgoddik{at}usd.edu Steen Goddik
|
Dear Editors, I have noted that once again, Reardon's polical manifestos are published as research. To claim any significance to strict correlation with absolutely no attention to confounding factors is utterly useless for the medical profession. Correlation can be shown between almost any two subjects, regardless of causation is meaningless and is a disservice to physicians. And notable, the article claim no competing interests. For an author, whose purpose in publishing is to further his religious/political fight against abortion rights, this is an outrageous claim, and I am saddened to note that the CMAJ editors were not paying attention. This merely results in CMAJ loosing credibility, becoming a mouthpiece for the vocigerous, but but fact-poor anti-abortion movement. Steen Goddik, MD. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Annie D. Banno Silent No More
Send letter to journal:
smok22{at}earthlink.net Annie D. Banno
|
Responding to Gail ERlick Robinson's letter: Do you perhaps mean the former Surgeon General C. Everett Coop, who supposedly denied the existence of post-abortion trauma? His report was made almost 20 years ago and the findings were inconclusive, precisely because -- as he himself pointed out -- not enough studies had been done. He did not actually deny Post Abortive Stress. If you reread his actual report, this will be obvious. It was, however, not reported faithfully in the general press. It is certainly time to conduct all of these overdue studies. It is well-known that the process by which the APA adds a diagnosis to the body of disorders is exceedingly lengthy, and when it is politicized, no one wants to touch it at the APA. However, the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM III-R)[25] does officially list abortion as a life event which **can produce** PTSD. Koop's and the APA's reports both admitted that most of the research they used to reach their "findings" was flawed scientifically. Even a study Brenda Major did almost three years ago found that as time passed the women surveyed had an increased dissatisfaction with their abortion decision, and an increase in negative emotions. Please, for the sake of all women everywhere, do not trot out the same trite and inaccurately reported "facts" from the APA and from Koop, any longer. Women are suffering daily and for decades because of this kind of political denial of reality. Sincerely, Annie Banno OPERATION OUTCRY: SILENT NO MORE, CT State Leader, 203-820-9898; E-mail: smok22@earthlink.net , www.silentnomorecampaign.com, National Helpline: 1-800-395-HELP. www.CatholicExchange.com Columnist |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Leslie Graves, Facilitator Rachel's Vineyard
Send letter to journal:
LBGraves{at}aol.com Leslie Graves
|
As a volunteer counselor with Rachel's Vineyard, I have worked with many women who have experienced significant levels of psychiatric distress after abortion. Our culture has a tendency to avoid any discussion of how a woman might feel after the choice--unless she feels relief. For those women who do experience a negative emotional aftermath, it's helpful for them to know that they are not alone and not crazy. Articles like this support via statistics a reality that I have seen borne out many times over in individual lives. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Gail ERlick Robinson, psychiatrist Professor of psychiatry, University of Toronto
Send letter to journal:
gail.robinson{at}uhn.on.ca Gail ERlick Robinson
|
Dear Sirs, The study by Reardon et al. is seriously flawed and presents misleading conclusions. He compares two groups as if the only difference between them is whether or not they had an abortion. With the control group he does not know whether these were women in stable relationships with planned and wanted pregnancies. For the case group, he knows only that they had not had a psychiatric admission in the last year - no proof of their mental health status. He has no knowledge of the reasons for abortion. These women may have been very troubled before they even got pregnant. We already know that women who are mentally ill, under stress and without supports will comprise the group who would most need an abortion because they would not be able to cope with a pregnancy or having a chil but will also have the most difficulty coping with an abortion. The fact that the most common diagnosis for those admitted was a psychotic depression strongly suggests that some of these women had a previous history of mental illness. To relate any admission over the next four years to the abortion without no any other variables is totally incorrect science. Even if one assumes that admissions within 90 days were related to the abortion, this results in a problem rate of 0.2% - hardly impressive. Dr. Reardon bolsters his alarmist conclusions by quoting a select group of studies which have supposedly also found major negative consequences. He ignores the thorough reviews by both the American Psychological Association and the Surgeon General of the United States who found no evidence of harm. It is surprising that CMAJ would publish such poor quality reasearch. Gail Erlick Robinson |
|||
| HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | HELP | SEARCH |
|
|||||
|
Copyright 1995-2010, Canadian Medical Association. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329
(e) 0820-3946 (p)
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association. |
|||||
eLetters: