Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Abortion perils debated

Stephen Genuis
CMAJ July 22, 2003 169 (2) 102-102-a;
Stephen Genuis
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The health sequelae of abortion are surrounded by enormous controversy, as indicated by the recent article by David Reardon and associates1 and Brenda Major's related commentary.2 My colleagues and I have also obtained evidence that women's well-being is adversely affected by abortion. We found that Canadian women who had had an abortion were significantly more likely to experience diminished well-being in the postmenopausal years than those who had not.3

However, both research studies (that of Reardon and associates1 and our own3) must be interpreted with caution. Many will rush to conclude that it is the abortion procedure itself that is associated with psychological harm resulting in mental illness or diminished well- being. These studies appear to provide evidence that women who have abortions are significantly less likely to experience health and wellness in the short- and long-term compared with women who have not undergone this procedure. Yet from the data in these studies, it is impossible to determine whether it is the procedure, the life circumstances or demographic profiles of women seeking abortion, or concomitant medical factors more commonly found in women seeking termination of pregnancy that predispose the women to poorer health outcomes. Surely those on both sides of the debate would agree that more research is needed to explore these questions.

Because the abortion debate is highly charged and clouded with ideological, political, religious and economic influences, it is sometimes difficult to objectively determine what is factual and credible scientific information and what represents sexual and philosophical ideology. The medical and academic communities are becoming aware that “researcher neutrality” may well be an oxymoron. CMAJ is to be commended for allowing both sides to present their evidence. With such open debate, it is less likely that the truth will be stretched for theological or philosophical reasons or that factual evidence will be dismissed or negated for ideological and political reasons.

Stephen Genuis Physician Edmonton, Alta.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Reardon DC, Cougle JR, Rue VM, Shuping MW, Coleman PK, Ney PG. Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth. CMAJ 2003;168(10):1253-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Major B. Psychological implications of abortion — highly charged and rife with misleading research [editorial]. CMAJ 2003;168(10):1257-8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Genuis SJ, Genuis SK, Chang WC. Well-being of women in the post-menopausal years. J Soc Obstet Gynaecol Can 2002;22:141-50.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 169 (2)
CMAJ
Vol. 169, Issue 2
22 Jul 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Abortion perils debated
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Abortion perils debated
Stephen Genuis
CMAJ Jul 2003, 169 (2) 102-102-a;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Abortion perils debated
Stephen Genuis
CMAJ Jul 2003, 169 (2) 102-102-a;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Figures & Tables
  • Related Content
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Highlighting obesity as a risk factor for endometrial cancer
  • Hepatitis B vaccination for Canadian children: time for an adult conversation
  • Codesigning a public health approach to preventing firearm-related suicide deaths with rural communities
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Women's health (including abortion)

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. 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 or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire