Posted on 07/17/2004 3:04:05 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A research published in the journal 'Fertility and Sterility' has revealed that women who give birth in their late 30s have a lower risk of developing ovarian cancer.
University of Southern California scientists found women at 35 and above had a 58 per cent lower risk of ovarian cancer at the time of childbirth than those who had never had a child.
The researchers also found that women who gave birth before the age of 30 had a 45 per cent lower risk and women who had four or more children had a 64 per cent lower risk than women who had never given birth.
Lead Researcher, Dr Malcolm Pike, said that previous research has also shown that having children late in life also protects against cancer of the endometrium - the lining of the uterus.
He believes that a surge in the hormone progesterone may help protect against both types of cancer and birthing process probably clears the uterus of aging cells that are more likely to become cancerous.
"The next challenge is to map out the mechanism of the last birth's effect on the ovaries," the BBC quoted Dr Robert Schenken, president of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, as saying.
"It would be a major advance in cancer prevention if, as the authors suggest, these findings lead to the development of a chemoprevention approach for women at high risk for ovarian cancer," added Schenken.
However, Dr Emma Knight, of Cancer Research UK said, "This information needs to be viewed in a wider context as we know that delaying the birth of a first child increases the risk of breast cancer".
"Moreover, all these risks are relatively small and women should not be overly concerned about them," added Emma. (ANI)
ping
No benefit for men? What racism...or sexism -- or whatever.
"No benefit for men?"
Well, increased expenses (not necessarily the court-ordered child support) for more children is to be counted as benefit.
What can I say. Guess God game me an entire round of ammunition that were blanks.
*ping*
Finally some good news for somewhat older women!
The research was conducted with men who were under the age of 70 when they were diagnosed with prostate cancer, and with a group of similarly aged healthy men. There were 1079 men with prostate cancer and 1259 healthy men in the study. The men, from around Australia, filled in a confidential questionnaire which sought details of their sexual activity at various times in their life.
...If the ducts are flushed out, there may be less build up and damage to the cells that line them."
You read between the lines ;-)
pshaw
Doesn't number of partners increase the risk of prostate cancer?
The researchers' statistical investigation found that women who had their last children after the age of 35 had a 58 percent lower risk of ovarian cancer compared with women who had never had a child.
So they compared two groups of people:
Group A - "women who had their last children after the age of 35"
Group B - "women who had never had a child"
They found that Group A had lower ovarian cancer likelihood than Group B. Fine. I can buy that.
What I do NOT buy are conclusions such as "late pregnancy seems to reduce the risk of ovarian cancer" or "women who give birth in their late 30s have a lower risk of developing ovarian cancer", the way it is being reported here. After all, what about Group C?
Group C: Women who had children, their last baby being born by age 35.
We are only told that Group A has less risk of cancer than Group B. But for all we know, perhaps Group C has even less risk of cancer than Group A! Which would mean a conclusion such as, "have all your children by age 35 in order to reduce cancer risk".
Yet it's being reported "having babies later in life reduces cancer risk"! See the problem?
I suspect what's going on here is that this story made the headlines because it fits a template which reporters/editors like to see: Good News For The Working/Independent Woman. "It's GREAT to wait to have babies later in life", the article seems to say.
The UK article reveals that these headlines are misleading and perhaps evidence of wishful thinking - because look at this:
"The researchers also found that women who gave birth before the age of 30 had a 45 per cent lower risk"
Oops... in other words, have babies sooner not later.
But how many people will only read the headlines and fail to draw that (correct) conclusion?
hmmmm
WOOO HOOO! I still have a chance!
Yeah usually you hear about down syndrome baby risk after 40.
Yes...promiscuity appears to increase risk due to STDs. But monogamous marital frequency appears to reduce risk.
Is that a Karl Gustafson?
Genesis 1
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
I'm not sure where they find the scriptural proof text to support it, but some Christians think this FIRST commandment of scripture no longer applies.
Ping. (As usual, if you would like to be added to or removed from my "conservative Catholics" ping list, please send me a FReepmail. Please note that this is occasionally a high volume ping list and some of my ping posts are long.)
funny how that works
George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.