Abortion raises risk of mental health problems by 81% says major new review

In the largest study of its kind researchers have concluded that women having abortions experience an 81% increased risk of mental health problems.

Published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry, the review also found almost 10% of all mental health problems are shown to be directly linked to abortion.

The Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and Press Association have published reports but interestingly not the BBC. Amongst the broadcast media CBS and ITN have so far covered it.

A much fuller analysis of the study has been posted on the CMF website. Mary Davenport's review on the American Thinker blog is also worth reading.

Separate effects were calculated based on the type of mental health outcome with the results revealing the following: the increased risk for anxiety disorders was 34%; for depression it was 37%; for alcohol use/abuse it was 110%, for marijuana use/abuse it was 220%, and for suicide behaviours it was 155%. Nearly 10% of the incidence of all mental health problems was shown to be directly attributable to abortion.

Significantly women who had had abortions had a 55% increased risk of experiencing any mental health problem when compared to women who had delivered unintended pregnancies.

This new review, titled Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research, was conducted by Priscilla K. Coleman from Bowling Green State University, Ohio, USA, and is based on 22 published studies looking at 36 effects. Only the strongest studies were included, with a combined number of participants totalling over 850,000. Overall the review brings together data on 877,181 participants 163,831 of whom experienced an abortion.

The ‘strongest’ studies are based on a sample size of 100 participants or more, use of a comparison group, and employment of controls for variables that may confound the effects such as demographics, exposure to violence, prior history of mental health problems, etc.

On Tuesday 6th September MPs in the House of Commons are set to vote on an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill 2011. Tabled by MPs Nadine Dorries and Frank Field it seeks to change the law to ensure women seeking abortion are offered independent advice on their decision to seek a termination.

As MPs prepare to vote on introducing independent counselling for women considering abortion, it’s imperative women are made aware of the real risks of developing mental health problems post-abortion.

Guardian claims Cameron is caving in to appease abortion industry over Dorries amendment – but is it just more spin?

The Guardian newspaper is tonight claiming that Prime Minister David Cameron has decided to vote against an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill that would give women a right to pre-abortion counseling that is independent from the abortion industry.

In an article titled ‘Downing Street forces U-turn on Nadine Dorries abortion proposals’ the paper, which has been waging a war of words against the amendment, is claiming that ‘No 10 decides to vote against Tory backbench amendment seeking to stop charities offering abortion counselling’.

But how much of the report is actual fact and how much is just spin?

If we look at what Downing Street has actually said (ie. what is in quote marks rather than the Guardian’s interpretation) we might come to a different conclusion altogether.

So what has Downing Street actually said?

‘The prime minister believes that women should have a choice, a proper choice, not any one selective group of organisations,’ the source said.

Well that is no different from what the government has said already. Dorries and Field had asked that women be given an offer of counselling that was independent from the abortion industry which surely rules out the abortion industry alone (BPAS, MSI etc) doing all the ‘counselling’.

‘The discussions currently under way do not represent any moral shift in the government's approach to abortion as an issue, and there are no changes to the Abortion Act involved.’

Well there never was any change to the Abortion Act proposed, just a new duty for GP consortia to provide independent counselling. The actual text of the amendment adds an additional item to a list of commissioning duties/powers to be conferred on GP consortia by the bill as follows:

after paragraph (f) insert a new paragraph as folllows—
“(g) independent information, advice and [sic] couselling services for women requesting termination of pregnancy to the extent that the consortium considers they will choose to use them.”.’.

In this section, information, advice and counselling is independent where it is provided by either—
(i) a private body that does not itself provide for the termination of pregnancies; or
(ii) a statutory body.”.’.

The Downing Street statement concludes:

‘Instead the concern is to ensure that women, in what is an extremely difficult and often traumatic situation, have access to information and counselling that best meets their needs. We will continue to discuss this with all involved in the debate. We plan to consult widely on these proposals later this year.’

So there is going to be a consultation. Well that is what we all expected anyway.

So summing it all up there is still a commitment to give women a proper choice and not leave them at the mercy of the abortion industry with its ideological and financial vested interests. And there is nothing in the statement that indicates the government is committed to allowing the abortion industry to carry on doing any of the ‘counselling’ that has been the subject of so much criticism.

It seems that Cameron is caught somewhat between a rock and a hard place.

If he caves in to the demands of the abortion industry and liberal elite in order to appease his coalition partners he will be leaving women at the mercy of the abortion industry and will lose the support of much of the right wing of his own party along with the Labour Catholics – both sizeable groups.

But if he votes for the Dorries amendment he will arouse the ire of the Liberal Democrats, trade unions and Labour left.

No wonder he is tempted to kick the thing into the long grass for a few weeks with a consultation. What will he decide? And what will be the next step in this intriguing drama? We will have to wait and see. I suspect there are still some fascinating twists and turns to come.

In the meantime let’s not take the Guardian too seriously. In fact I have just heard that Newsnight has said that Downing Street is denying the story.

The abortion industry and its ideologues are clearly rattled by the events of this year and fear they are losing ground. And rightly so. They are. And it’s not over yet. No, this is just the beginning.

Tragic story of Sophie Tyler demonstrates triumph of hope over adversity

The media today carry the tragic story of a teenager left paralysed from the waist down by a hospital error.

An epidural spinal anaesthetic was wrongly left in place after Sophie Tyler, 17, of Risca, near Newport, had a gall stone operation.

Birmingham Children's Hospital has now apologised and admitted liability and a medical law expert is calling for it to ensure lessons are learned from the devastating error.

The hospital’s admission of liability has left the way open for a full settlement, providing Sophie with financial support for the rest of her life.

You can read the details of the case in the Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and Independent but I was particularly drawn to this young woman’s testimony which is not atypical of young people who suffer these kinds of horrendous injuries.

According to the BBC her initial reaction was not unsurprisingly one of deep despair:

‘When I first came home I was depressed - I wouldn't get out of bed. I would just lay there wishing it had never happened or wishing they had killed me because I had to live with the reality and the consequences of somebody else’s mistake.’

But now she is speaking of her personal battle and her dreams for the future. She has recovered from her earlier depression, although she still has dark days, and is back at school, although cannot attend full time due to ill health:

‘I still go to school, but everything is a lot harder…The money will provide the support and will mean I can look at living on my own without worrying about my mum being there with the other kids. I can look at going to university rather than living at home.’

The case demonstrates how the overwhelming majority of young people, with the proper support, are able to adapt to devastating injuries and find meaning and purpose in a very different life than that they would have chosen for themselves.

Spinal cord injury is actually not uncommon – about 11,000 new cases occur in the US every year and about 250,000 people are estimated to be living with the condition.

On a population basis we would therefore expect about 2,000 new cases a year in the UK and 50,000 living with the condition at any one time. About half of these would involve the cervical spine, with the strong risk of tetraplegia.

It is not unusual for young people immediately after such an injury to suffer depression or even be suicidal – but these feelings almost always are not permanent.

A 1985 British Medical Journal study of 21 people who were paralysed from the neck down and needed ventilators to help them breathe, found that only one person wished that she had been allowed to die. Two were undecided, but the remaining 18 were pleased to be alive.

In other words the number of people with spinal cord injury wanting to kill themselves is very low indeed as a percentage of all those with the condition.

The Guardian reported in 2009 that amongst over one hundred people who had killed themselves at Dignitas over ten years only two had tetraplegia.

I recently blogged about the inspiring story of Matt Hampson, the Leicester rugby player who suffered tetraplegia after a scrum collapsed, and now runs a charity to raise money to support people who he sees as ‘less fortunate’ than himself.

Such stories of triumph over adversity should get many more media column inches and

I wish Sophie every blessing as she adapts to her new life.

Morphine kills the pain, not the patient but some people still just don’t get it

One of the most depressing aspects of campaigning against the legalisation of assisted suicide is dealing with misinformation propagated by the pro-euthanasia lobby and sadly at times even by members of the medical profession.

One of the ‘myths’ used to prop up the failing case for the legalisation of assisted suicide is the false belief that doctors all over Britain are killing people with analgesic drugs like morphine because they need to administer these drugs in lethal doses in order to kill pain effectively.

It is particularly wearying to hear doctors putting this argument as it reveals either that they are ignorant of the medical facts or, even worse, are seeking deliberately to mislead people in order to advance the pro-euthanasia cause: ‘We are killing people anyway with morphine so why not just be honest about it and legalise euthanasia’.

The latest example of this kind of misinformation appears in the Daily Mail this morning in an article by Nick Maes titled ‘I'll always be grateful to the GP who eased Mum's pain - even if it hastened her death’.

Maes relates the story of Dr William Lloyd Bassett, a Shropshire GP, who has been censured by the General Medical Council for giving an overdose of morphine to a man dying with lung cancer. Last week, a GMC hearing decided that Dr Bassett should continue to practise, but issued a warning of serious misconduct against his name.

He then goes on to describe how the same doctor ‘eased his own mother’s passing’ in a similar way.

The fact is that in good hands morphine kills the pain and not the patient. The real need is for better education of doctors in good palliative care – so that they know how to administer the drug effectively and safely – and better education of the public about the facts so that the pro-euthanasia lobby cannot continue to pull the wool to advance their agenda through misinformation and scaremongering.

For those interested in more detail about this issue I would highly recommend the article ‘Morphine kills the pain, not the patient’ published in Medical News Today, which I have reproduced below in full:

Professional and public anxieties about the effects of morphine continue to hinder adequate prescribing of this vital painkiller for genuine pain relief, claims a Comment in this week's edition of The Lancet.

Nigel Sykes, of St Christopher's Hospice, London, UK, says that the notorious Dr Harold Shipman's use of morphine as a murder weapon has further increased disquiet among UK medical professionals.

Dr Sykes claims that the best known fact about morphine among the public and physicians is that it can be addictive, when in fact less than one in 10 000 patients prescribed the drug as part of treatment becomes addicted.

He adds: "For physicians, the second best-known fact is that morphine can precipitate respiratory depression. As a consequence, if offered enough confidentiality, clinicians can be readily found who will confess to having shortened the life of their patients to achieve pain control."

The Comment goes on to say that it is hardly surprising in light of these points that the media view everyday medical practice for severe pain control as increasing the dosage of morphine until the patient dies.

Dr Sykes welcomes the recent study from the US National Hospice Outcomes Project, which studies morphine/opioid use and survival at the end of life - as it provides facts with which to explode the myths about morphine.

The study assessed 725 patients with end-stage cancer, lung disease or heart disease, and found that length of survival was not linked to either absolute or percentage change in dose of morphine or other opioids.

No combination of factors was capable of explaining a variation of more than 8% in survival time, which points to an overwhelming influence of the individual's disease severity.

Only patients who have no experience of opioid treatment are at significant risk of respiratory depression.

Dr Sykes says: "A patient with moderate-to-severe chronic pain, malignant in origin or not, who is given the incremental dose-titration practised in pain and palliative care centres is not at such risk. A physician who truly is killing his or her patient in the name of pain relief is not merciful, just incompetent."

He adds: "This problem matters because underprescribing of opioids remains a major barrier to effective pain control."

Dr Sykes also expresses his concerns for pain relief in developing countries, saying: "If ineffective pain management is still an issue in high-income countries, it is nearly universal in low-income countries where access to morphine is limited or absent, but where most people dying from cancer or AIDS reside."

Amendment giving women option of independent abortion counseling is a step in the right direction

On 6 September MPs will debate an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill, which seeks to enshrine in law the right of women to have full and free access to independent information, advice and counseling before going ahead with an abortion.

The amendment would also prevent charities such as Marie Stopes (MSI) and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) – which between them carry out about 100,000 abortions a year – from providing advice or counseling to women seeking abortion.

The MPs placing the amendment, Nadine Dorries and Frank Field, argue that because MSI and BPAS carry out and profit from abortions, they are conflicted from offering independent advice at the same time. Nadine Dorries has accused them of having a commercially charged ‘vested interest’ and believes this amendment could reduce the total number of abortions by as much as a third, or 60,000 a year.

The Department of Health, regardless of what happens in the Commons next week, is already promising to ‘develop proposals to introduce independent counseling for women seeking abortion’. In doing so, it has seemingly accepted that the advice given by BPAS, Marie Stopes and others is not independent.

CMF Head of Public Policy Philippa Taylor has written an excellent blog giving an overview of the amendment and explaining why Christians should support it.

In it she urges readers to write to their MPs urging them to support the amendment and points them to the website of the Right to Know Campaign for further information about how to do it.

A fascinating article in the Daily Mail today by Jenny Stocks raises very disturbing questions about the quality of abortion counseling currently available through BPAS and MSI.

CMF has previously highlighted the fact that those countries with laws requiring the offer of counseling or a cooling off period before abortion have abortion rates on average that are a third lower than those, like the UK, which don’t.

It also cites a 2008 Comres survey showing that 51% of British women felt they had no choice but to have an abortion and that 37% wish their decision could have been different.

I have previously outlined how private abortion providers gained a stranglehold on taxpayer funded abortions under the last government. In 1991 the NHS funded 84,369 abortions in total. By 2010 that figure had more than doubled to 181,304. The growth of NHS-funded but privately-provided abortions entirely accounted for this increase.

Women are currently are not given the information, support and time necessary to make an unpressured decision about abortion and this amendment is a small step in the right direction in giving them that opportunity.

At present there are over 2,000 abortions in Britain for every baby adoption. This is a staggering statistic.

I am convinced that given the opportunity to reflect, and with the right support, many thousands more women would choose to give their babies a chance, either by keeping them or offering them for adoption.

This amendment is a good move that deserves our support.

Christian Medical Comment – 12 months, 200 posts, 100,000 page-views – time for a holiday break!

Christian Medical Comment (CMC) was launched in December 2009 with a post titled ‘Goats and kitchen sinks for Christmas’ but I didn’t start regular blogging until September 2010, almost a year ago.

In the last twelve months I have uploaded over 200 individual posts and there have been just over 100,000 page-views – at an average of 450-500 views per post.

Last month CMC finally scraped into the top 500 UK blogs on the wikio rankings and into the top 20 blogs in the Religion and Belief category.

Currently it stands at 17th in Religion and Belief and 438th overall amongst wikio’s 211,354 registered blogs. It also, last November, just snuck into the Jubilee Centre's seven best blogs giving a Christian perspective on social and political issues.

CMC is a specialist blog majoring on issues at the interface of Christianity and Medicine with specific focus on the beginning and end of life. But my broader aim is to bring to the attention of Christians issues that I believe they should be informed and concerned about.

My three most popular posts have been ‘the Chilean Miners’,‘What Terry Pratchett didn’t tell us’ and ‘Homophobic or homosceptic?’ all of which have been reposted several times by other bloggers.

The blog has at times come to wider attention, playing a significant role in exposing Lord Falconer’s sham commission on assisted suicide, and bringing to national media attention the scandal of transplanted organs being taken from Belgian patients after euthanasia. It also counts the Telegraph and the BBC amongst its ten top referring urls.

I’m particularly grateful to those other blogs (especially Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, MercatorNet, Anglican Mainstream and the Official CMF blog) which regularly republish my posts giving them wider distribution and also to the Christian Institute, Christian Concern and Westminster Declaration which frequently link to or quote from them.

Blogging can be a lonely business and the 150,000 or so words on this blog have taken quite a while to write – often late at night at the end of a long day.

But I have been constantly encouraged by readers to keep going – and so I have endeavoured to do so. The readership is wide – with 64% of my readers coming from the UK, 16% from the US and 7% from Canada, Australia, Germany, Ireland, Russia and the Netherlands. The remaining 13% come from all over the world.

So let me take this opportunity to thank all my readers for your support and wish you God’s richest blessing.

This will probably be my last update for a while as we take a family holiday break.

Hopefully I’ll see you next month.

To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy — to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen. (Jude 24, 25)

What Abdel Al-Megrahi and Ronnie Biggs teach us about the fallibility of ‘safeguards’ in assisted suicide laws

Tomorrow, 20 August, marks the second anniversary of the release from a Scottish prison of Abdel Baset Ali al-Megrahi, the only person convicted for the Lockerbie bombing.

A leading article in today’s Times, ‘Dodging the bullet’, highlights the fact that he was sent home to Libya on compassionate grounds by the Scottish government after medical advice that his advanced prostate cancer would probably kill him within three months.

Al-Megrahi has now lived eight times that long, although the Libyan Government says he is now suffering from a growth in his neck.

When Ronnie Biggs, the Great Train Robber, was released on compassionate grounds in August 2009, his family hoped he’d last until Christmas. But Biggs is also still with us.

The Times suggests we should celebrate the longevity of these two men but their survival is also a reminder of how inaccurate doctors’ forecasts of life expectancy are.

The pressure group Dignity in Dying (formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) champions a change in the law to allow assisted suicide for ‘mentally competent adults who are terminally ill’, but they have recently resisted any specific definition of what they actually mean by ‘terminally ill’.

They have said it again today in relation to the case of ‘Martin’, a 46 year old man with ‘locked-in’ syndrome, who wants his doctor (or lawyer) to be able to help him kill himself.

The US state of Oregon, which legalized assisted suicide in 1997, defines ‘terminally ill’ as ‘six months left to live’ but DID CEO Sarah Wootton has even suggested twelve months on national media, and the organization has run a campaign around multiple sclerosis sufferer Debbie Purdy whose life expectancy probably runs to decades.

Six years ago a select committee of Parliament reported on a bill that would have legalised assisted suicide for those with less than six months to live. They consulted a wide range of experts on how safe such a law would be and commented specifically on the definition of ‘terminally ill’.

The references, unless otherwise indicated, are to House of Lords Report HL 86 (Session 2004-05).

So just how accurate is a prognosis of ‘six months or less’?

Here is what the experts say:

'It is possible to make reasonably accurate prognoses of death within minutes, hours or a few days. When this stretches to months, then the scope for error can extend into years' (Royal College of General Practitioners, HL 86 Vol II, Page 80)

'Prognostication may be better when somebody is within the last two or three weeks of their life. I have to say that, when they are six or eight months away from it, it is actually pretty desperately hopeless' (Professor John Saunders, speaking for the Royal College of Physicians, HL 86 Vol I, Paragraph 118)

'A simple bit of practical evidence is one of the benefit forms that are filled in for patients assigned to a doctor thinking that the patient has six months to live. I would not like to count how many of these forms I have signed in my life for patients still living after a year, eighteen months or even longer' (Dr David Jeffery, speaking for the Association of Palliative Medicine, HL 86 Vol I, Paragraph 119)

'Post mortem research and clinical audit studies performed in the UK, Europe, USA and many other countries consistently show a c30 per cent error in the medically certified cause of death. Significant errors (ie misdiagnosis of the terminal illness resulting in inappropriate treatment occurs in c5 per cent of cases' (Royal College of Pathologists, HL 86 Vol II, Page 730)

The select committee suggested that any 'assisted dying' bill should define terminal illness 'in such a way as to reflect the realities of clinical practice'. This was ignored in the Lord Joffe's 2005 bill, and there is no indication that it has been taken on board by the pro-euthanasia lobby since Parliament's rejection of that bill in 2006. In fact, if anything, they have now dropped reference to any time-scale at all.

Al-Megrahi’s and Bigg’s longevity should remind us of the unreliability of doctors’ prognostic estimates.

A fuller demolition of other so-called ‘safeguards’ arguments can be found on the Care Not Killing website.