Posted on 01/04/2002 7:11:49 AM PST by Notwithstanding
In what may be the first case of its kind in the world, an Australian woman has reached a settlement with an abortionist whom she had sued for not telling her about research findings linking abortion to breast cancer.
The information was disclosed during a recent legislative session in the state of Tasmania, where lawmakers were debating abortion legislation. Attorney Charles Francis warned the legislature about the risk of future litigation against doctors who perform abortions.
Francis has represented several women suing abortionists for not warning them of the possible psychiatric consequences of abortion.
Last year, he represented a woman who included in her psychiatric damage lawsuit the additional failure to warn of an increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortion.
The landmark case was settled out of court, Francis said by phone from the state of Victoria Friday.
His client cannot be identified because of a confidentiality clause in the settlement, he said, but he believed it to be the first case of its kind anywhere. Another, similar case was pending in the neighboring state of New South Wales, he added.
While preparing the cases, Francis said, "I had to go into all the evidence and the expert medical views for the purpose of presenting the case. It seemed to me, looking at it as a lawyer looking at evidence, the evidence was fairly strong - certainly strong enough, we thought, for [us to have] a good chance at winning."
Francis said there was no indication one way or the other that the doctor had decided to settle because he was worried about the cancer link claim.
Still, the doctor had not insisted that the cancer link claim be dropped before agreeing to settle.
"My impression is there is a good deal of reluctance to see this litigated in public. Often you have conflicting medical views [in court cases]. Doctors are called, give differing evidence and then the court decides what it thinks it the most likely situation."
The question of a link between abortion and breast cancer is a major source of contention between pro-life and pro-abortion campaigners. Each side points to research it claims backs its stance, questions the methodology of the other's research, and accuses the opposition of using the issue to promote its cause.
According to the U.S.-based Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, 27 out of 35 studies published since 1957 have found a link.
Groups advocating abortion, backed up by some leading medical bodies, deny that such a link exists.
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, welcomed news of the Australian settlement.
"The abortion industry and its medical experts know that it will be far more challenging for them to lie to women about the abortion-breast cancer research when they are called upon to testify under oath," she said in a statement.
"Scientists know that abortion causes breast cancer but are afraid to say so publicly in today's hostile political climate."
Dr. Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, is regarded by the coalition as a leading authority on the abortion-breast cancer link.
He believes there is a 30 percent overall increased risk of breast cancer after having an abortion, and an 80 percent increased risk for women with a family history of cancer.
Summarizing Brind's argument, Francis explained that upon conception, the level of estrogen in a woman's body increases dramatically. This results in the development of undifferentiated cells in the breast, which pose an additional cancer risk.
Late in the pregnancy, these cells become milk-producing cells, cease posing a greater cancer risk, and in fact provide added protection against cancer.
If a woman has an abortion before that stage - and the vast majority of abortions would occur before then - her body is left with a high number of undifferentiated cells which increase the risk of her contracting breast cancer, it is argued.
Francis said a woman who suffers a miscarriage well into a pregnancy - in a motor accident, for example - would face the same risk. However, in cases where a spontaneous, early miscarriage occurs, the woman would not have had the surge in estrogen in the first place, and therefore would not face the additional cancer risk.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Britain are among those who argue that there is no need to tell a woman considering an abortion that there may be an increased risk of breast cancer. Doing so would only add to the woman's anxiety at an already stressful time, representatives have said.
Brind and others have slammed the approach as "paternalistic."
"There is no other issue than abortion that would be so immune from the concept of informed consent," Brind was quoted as saying last month.
A court in Fargo, North Dakota will hear a case in March in which a woman is suing an abortion clinic for allegedly misleading women to believe there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.
Plaintiff Amy Jo Mattson says pamphlets distributed by the Red River Women's Clinic quote the National Cancer Institute as saying there is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriage.
"None of [the claims of a link] are supported by medical research or established medical organizations," the pamphlets reportedly stated.
FReeper activist extraordinaire Saundra Duffy has also sued Planned Parenthood (aka Planned WhiteNeighborhood or Planned DeadBabyHood) to keep them from lying to moms about breast cancer and abortion.
Click here for FR search for "breast cancer"
Better yet, click here for FR search for "abortion" and "breast cancer"
|
What a ridiculous conclusion. That's like saying we can't tell patients that putting their hearts on a bypass machine may kill them because the info would only add to the stress of the whole thing. Sheesh. Seems pretty transparent to me - information like this could jeopardize the abortion money mill, couldn't it.
MOMS HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW
|
When we allow law suits on the basis of "links", then almost any industry could face lawsuits over their products. And when it comes to cancer(and considering that the AMA changes its mind every year as to what contributes to or helps lower the risk of getting cancer), until science can SHOW what CAUSES cancer, then no lawsuits should be allowed.
This bothers me too. Any woman who claims that she did not think that killing her unborn baby would not cause emotional or mental problems is either full of crap, or is just plain stupid for listening to NOW, PP and others who say there is nothing "wrong" with abortions. I have no sympathy for their "emotions". This is common sense - Killing your own child SHOULD screw you up in the head, unless you were already screwed up to begin with.
NLM Citation ID:
11351314 (PubMed}
21248730 (MEDLINE)
Full Source Title:
International Journal of Cancer
Publication Type:
Journal Article
Language:
English
Author Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of South Carolina and South Carolina Cancer Center, Columbia, SC, USA. msanderson@sph.sc.edu
Authors:
Sanderson M; Shu XO; Jin F; Dai Q; Wen W; Hua Y; Gao YT; Zheng W
Abstract:
Studies of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent, perhaps due to underreporting of abortions. Induced abortion is a well-accepted family planning procedure in China, and women who have several induced abortions do not feel stigmatized. The authors used data from a population-based case-control study of breast cancer among women age 25-64 conducted between 1996 and 1998 in urban Shanghai to assess whether a history of and the number of induced abortions were related to breast cancer risk. In-person interviews were completed with 1,459 incident breast cancer cases ascertained through a population-based cancer registry, and 1,556 controls randomly selected from the general population in Shanghai (with respective response rates of 91% and 90%). After adjusting for confounding, there was no relation between ever having had an induced abortion and breast cancer (odds ratio [OR] = 0.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-1.2).
No doubt. Women who have abortions are more likely to be smokers, drinkers, do drugs, eat fattening foods, have an undisciplined spiritual life, take less precautions to avoid toxins, etc…
I agree. What a silly analogy. The odor emitted from someone's anus which makes people not happy with the smell is the same cause/effect relationship as one of possibly thousands of factors contributing to cancer? This is why the pro-life movement(which I am) has a hard time convincing others.
Now, in this case, if the woman directly asked the abortionists if there was a LINK, and he said "absolutely not", then she may have a case. However, Im not sure how she will prove that it would have changed her mind.
Are you a member of the Western medical profession? I am and do not agree.
Please post a similar study from a medical journal that supports your position.
NLM Citation ID:
9051328 (PubMed}
97203756 (MEDLINE)
Comment:
Erratum In:
Full Source Title:
Cancer Causes and Control
Publication Type:
Journal Article; Review; Review, Tutorial
Language:
English
Author Affiliation:
Epidemiology and Surveillance Research Department, American Cancer Society, Atlanta, GA 30329-4251, USA.
Authors:
Wingo PA; Newsome K; Marks JS; Calle EE; Parker SL
Number of References:
96
Abstract:
To evaluate the relationship between breast cancer risk and spontaneous and induced abortion, we conducted a detailed descriptive review of 32 epidemiologic studies that provided data by type of abortion and by various measures of exposure to abortion-number of abortions, timing of abortion in relation to first full-term pregnancy, length of gestation, and age at first abortion. Breast cancer risk did not appear to be associated with an increasing number of spontaneous or induced abortions. Our review also suggested that breast cancer risk probably was not related to the other measures of exposure to abortion, and probably did not differ by age or a family history of breast cancer. Finally, the data appeared to suggest a slightly increased risk among nulliparous women, but this tendency was based primarily on studies with a small number of nulliparous women who had had spontaneous or induced abortions. Definitive conclusions about an association between breast cancer risk and spontaneous or induced abortion are not possible at present because of inconsistent findings across studies. Future investigations should consider prospective designs, separate analyses of spontaneous and induced abortions, appropriate referent groups, and adequate adjustment for confounding and effect modification. Future investigations also should attempt to determine whether any increased risks reflect the transient increase in breast cancer risk hypothesized for full-term pregnancy or a causal relationship specific to spontaneous or induced abortion.
I'm not saying the study you quote is invalid, bit I know from experience that such studies are loaded with speculation from both ends of the political spectrum. Researchers in such studies are more frequently than not trained in social survey research rather than molecular longitudinal methods. Trials of the former method are far cheaper than the latter to run. Consequently, social research performed under medical pretense is subject to political pressure in interpreting the results, i.e. if the result is politically incorrect, it's best to bury it somehow if one values their career.
Self-survey results are notoriously biased, (e.g. "" How much money do you have?"; most responses are "No Response"; or "Have you ever tested positive for HIV?", etc.). Abortion questions are similarly loaded with biased responses, i.e. many responses will be "No" to "save face", especially in China where abortion is carried out mostly when the sex of the fetus has been predetermined to be female, implying the woman having the abortion is prone to producing female offspring, which is a fallacy but which is nevertheless a social stigma.
The time to onset of breat cancer disease from induced abortion can be 40 years. The only way to get at real results is to look at histological sections for neoplastic disease progression in longitudinal studies and to use biotechnological methods such as "Loss of Inprinting" on suspected disease associated alleles.
Why do you insist on posting only abstracts from the 20% that do not???
Sounds as if you have an agenda, and your opinion can thus be ignored.
---Dr. Kopp
Until you have thoroughly read ALL the research and theory, please stop pontificating about the relative merits of the ABC link.
--Dr Kopp
Breast Cancer:
Its Link to Abortion
& the Birth Control Pill
By Chris Kahlenborn, M.D.
|
Intensively researched, full of clear explanations and convincing detail, Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill cuts to the heart of the current breast cancer epidemic and gives clear, workable strategies for reducing women's cancer risk. Breast cancer has become epidemic in the United States in recent years, with the published expectation that one of eight women in this country will incur this disease during her lifetime. Each year more than 175,000 U.S. women develop breast cancer and more than 43,000 die from it. It is a very common experience for a woman today to use contraceptive pills for several years, have an unplanned pregnancy, and abort that pregnancy. Effects on breast tissue from these events can be disastrous. Contraceptive hormones and normal pregnancy cause breast tissue cells to multiply, resulting in new immature (undifferentiated) breast cells. A complete pregnancy would cause these cells to mature completely, but abortion and contraceptive hormones leave them immature and prone to cancer. Significant increases of breast cancer risk due to abortion and to use of contraceptive hormones have been clearly defined in research studies as early as 1981. The impact of these findings has been obscured, however, by controversy among the researchers, tendentious reporting in the media, and resistance from government agencies and medical organizations. The material presented here gives a clear opportunity to promote a culture of health for women, using natural means to manage fertility, and to develop a healthier environment for them and their families. Many research studies have examined the connection between abortion and breast cancer. One study in 1957 found that women who had abortions had double the risk of breast cancer compared to women who had not aborted. Concerns about contraceptive hormones causing breast cancer were raised beginning in 1972 when a series of animal research studies showed this connection. A major study on humans in 1981 showed a 125% increased risk of breast cancer for women who used hormonal contraceptives for 4 or more years before having a full-term pregnancy. Other studies since then have confirmed an increased risk for this category of at least 40%. These risks are likely understated because most of the large studies had clear design flaws that would tend to depress the calculation of risk percent. A meta-analysis done in 1990 found that, overall, the studies up to that time confirmed an increased risk of breast cancer of 72% for women under age 45 who took oral contraceptive pills for 4 or more years before having a full-term pregnancy. Use of these contraceptives for longer periods appears to carry an even higher risk. Again these findings were not well publicized because of excessive attention given to certain faulty studies whose design errors tended to understate the risk. The risks identified in these studies increase the likelihood that a woman will suffer breast cancer. This means that women who have a higher than ordinary breast cancer risk due to well known risk factors such as nulliparity (childlessness), faulty "protective" genes such as BRCA1 and BRCA2, or being a black American, have even higher risk when affected by abortion or hormonal contraceptives. Calculations based on the available studies indicate that in the United States more than 46,800 women will develop breast cancer yearly due to contraceptive hormone exposure and more than 10,000 will die. A number of highly effective strategies for controlling breast cancer risk (and some other risks as well) are identified in the book. Use of Natural Family Planning instead of hormonal contraceptives would evidently reduce risk factors significantly, as would avoidance of abortion, childbirth early in a woman's life, extended breastfeeding, multiple childbirth, moderation of alcohol use, and weight loss (in obese women). Some protective benefit may also be obtained by use of Vitamin A. To adopt these strategies would involve a significant change in our current culture, but would result in many lives saved and avert a huge amount of suffering. The author of this book, Chris Kahlenborn, is an internal medicine specialist practicing in Altoona, PA. The book is the fruit of more than 6 years spent collecting and analyzing the available research on this topic. What sparked this search was a presentation in 1993 in which the speaker described an increase in breast cancer risk due to abortion, apparently caused by hormonal changes in the woman's body. Employing a highly user-friendly question and answer format, the author gives a detailed, yet understandable presentation of the major research findings to date. Technical information is interpreted in clear non-technical language, making the subject matter very accessible for the layperson and medical professional alike. There is also a clear, well-documented, presentation of the factors which have unfortunately operated to suppress this crucial information. A number of effective preventative strategies are identified and explained. This important new book is available through our on-line store in paperback for $25.00. See Breast Cancer: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill Dr. Kahlenborn, a frequent speaker at CCL's Seminars for Physicians and Clergy, answers questions on the Ohio Right to Life website. See: Frequently Asked Questions on Abortion and Breast Cancer |
You never stop amazing me. The study says that there is a LINK showing that women who have an abortion are 30% more likely to develop breast cancer, but you go and STATE that these "poor minority women in Florida" WILL be suffering from breast cancer later. Do you know something that even these questionable studies don't show? Have a crystal ball? You sound like the idiots that say "your'e gonna shoot your eye out" because you own a gun.
I have even a better question: Please Ms. Duffy, speculate if you will, how many women who have already shown up at Planned Parenthood seeking an abortion would change their minds because several studies show a link between having and abortion and a 30% greater chance of getting breast cancer? Of course, we can not really know unless PP is doing it, but please 'O Wise one, speculate for us.
People KNOW that smoking cigarettes INCREASES your chances for lung cancer, yet millions still do it and start doing it. Unfortunately, for those who have seriously considered and abotion to the point that they go to PP to have one, I would think that the selfish reasons to kill their unborn child would outweigh any chance of having a 30% higher likelihood of getting breast cancer.
Well, if she asked: "Are there any other long term effects?" and the Doctor failed to inform her, that should be enough.
For any other medical procedure, the doctor is required to tell the woman what the risks, are. Its called informed consent. When my wife had a double miscarriage at 10 weeks into the pregnancy, the doctor sat down with us, and told us all the risks we were going through with her going through a D&C. Then, he told us all the risks that we would face waiting for it to spontaneously pass. This is informed concent. The doctor is required to tell all the risks, when giving you all the options. However, Abortionists are not required to give this type of information. Even for a D&C Abortion, there are very serious medical risks.
My wife had the procedure done post-miscarriage, and she was warned. Why are mothers who ask for abortions not warned as well?
Ok, two studies conduct research in links to breast cancer and having an abortion. One study says "Its a 40% higher risk", while the other concludes "140%". It takes very little scientific scrutiny to conclude that a 100% deviation is not acceptable.
Given the millions of abortions performed each year, is there ANY chance that some researchers maybe, just maybe went looking for women who had abortions and had breast cancer?
A study in 1981 found that women who had an abortion before having a full-term pregnancy had a 140% increased risk of breast cancer, while another major study in 1994 found a 40% increased risk for the same category of women.
This leads even the least knowledgeable person to question how two "scientific" studies deviated by 100%.
Cancer is a BIG unknown for man. We really don't know what causes it, but think we have discovered links. These "links" change from year to year, with some being added and some being removed. To require abortionists to tell women of a "link" would be legal precident to require any company that manufactures ANYTHING that may have a "link" to cancer to proclaim it.
You are wanting to try and convince women to not have an abortion based upon a "risk of getting breast cancer". These people have already decided to KILL A LIFE! A "link to a greater risk" of breast cancer is going to stop them?
Studies that found low risk usually used very conservative numbers and statistical analysis. The absolute numbers are somewhere greater than 45% increased risk for developing breast cancer for a woman having an abortion before first full term pregnancy (FFTP), and increase with number of abortions prior to FFTP, and decreasing age for abortion prior to FFTP.
If the former, to what quantifiable degree?
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.