Talk:Abortion and mental health/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →
Archive
Archives
  1. Archive 1 (August 2005 - April 2007)
  2. Archive 2 (April 2007 - 8 January 2008)
  3. Archive 3 (January 2008)

Contents

DSM III's mention of abortion as a stressor

In the 3rd paragraph of the article it notes that abortion was mentioned in DSM III.

Was it clear from the description in DSM III that "abortion" was referring to a "medical intervention to terminate a pregnancy"?

Abortion, in a medical context, is somewhat ambiguous; (in lay terms) it can be "miscarriage" (i.e. spontaneous pregnancy loss before 20 weeks) or a "medical intervention to terminate a pregnancy." Does someone have the text of the DSM III-- to clarify?

If the DSM III does not clarify, it should be noted that abortion (unqualified), in a medical context, is essentially "pregnancy loss before 20 weeks and can be spontaneous or medically induced."[1] Nephron  T|C 02:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


This clarification is important. --131.216.41.16 15:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PAS Specific Studies

The studies sited in this section are 1. misrepresented, and 2. not fully explained. I am going to elaborate on one of studies by including these paragraphs:

"Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) is a term used to describe a set of mental health characteristics which some people claim to have observed in women following an abortion. According to Spanish social work researchers Gomez, Lavin C., & Zapata, symptoms attributed to PAS are "dreams and nightmares related with the abortion," and "feelings of guilt". Gomez, Lavin C., & Zapata examined ways to categorize PAS under the assumption that it exists and is related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.[59] Abortion is illegal in Spain except in cases of rape or incest.[60]

Researchers at the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Chicago Medical Center in the United States have concluded that PAS is a myth.[61] PAS is listed in neither the DSM-IV-TR nor the ICD-10, and not considered a medical condition by the American Psychiatric Association." --131.216.41.16 18:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Where is [59][60] and [61] supposed to link to? mirageinred 19:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, here is the link to the Spanish Study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15999304&dopt=AbstractPlus
The link to the Univ of Chicago research: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=1404747
(there should be no [62] reference)--131.216.41.16 22:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with Elliot Institute "studies"

Has anyone noticed that many of the PAS studies cited on the page are published and funded by the Elliot Institute? The Elliot institute is not an academic institution, and many academic researchers are critical of the methods used in the EI studies. Here is just one example of many (follow the link for more): Deborah L Billings, Senior Research Associate at Ipas, Chapel Hill, NC writes, "Several methodological flaws in the analysis carried out by Reardon and Cougle undermine the conclusions stated by the authors." (reference: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7330/151#18850).

Dallas A Blanchard, Professor Emeritus, University of West Florida warns with regards to one EI study that, "...the principle author (Reardon) is a professional anti-abortionist and the funding organization, for which he works, has as its primary aim propagandizing against abortion." (reference: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7330/151#18850)

Blanchard is an abortion provider and was a lecturer for 18th Annual National Abortion Federation conference, 1994. Link He is not unbiased and his characgterizations that Reardon is a "professional anti-abortionist" or that the Elliot Institute has "has as its primary aim propagandizing against abortion" are assertions that have not been confirmed by Reardon or the Elliot Institute or any other knowledgable body. Blanchard calling Reardon dismissive names is only meaningful to like-minded people who belive abortion is a sacred cow that should never be questioned or criticized. This is not evidence of the lack of credibility of the statistics reported by Reardon and accepted as credible by the peer reviewers of BMJ.Strider12 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


The "institute" is run by David Reardon, who in coordination with Cozzarelli, is the author of many of EI studies.

A search of PubMed will reveal that Reardon and Cozzarelli have NEVER collaborated on any papers. Editors should thoroughly study the literature and strive for precise accuracy in what they report rather than engage in inferences and insinutations. Strider12 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


I propose making the page clearer by explaining the Elliot Institute's goals (which can be taken from the various EI websites), and to clearly list the studies done by the Elliot Institute.

Here are the links to the Elliot Institute and and it's mirror sites.

The Elliot Institute's goals are to be "engaged in research and educational activities related to the effects of eugenics, abortion, population control, and sexual attitudes and practices on individuals and society at large." [1] Any other representation of it's goals represents the inferences and mind-reading of those who dislike the research findings it has published. Strider12 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The following are all references that originate from the Elliot Institute (22 in total):

  • Reference 3.. ^ Theresa Burke and David C. Reardon.Forbidden Grief: The Unspoken Pain of Abortion. Acorn Books. 2002. See Appendix A.
  • Reference 5.. ^ Pro-Choice Researchers Recognize PAS: Half a Million Women May Suffer From Post-Abortion Syndrome. The Post Abortion Review 8(3), July-Sept. 2000, citing Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Cooper M.L., Zubek, J., Richards, C., Wilhite, M., Gramzow, R.H. (2000). Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 57(8):777-84.
  • Reference 6.. # ^ Rue VM, Coleman PK, Rue JJ, Reardon DC. Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women. Med Sci Monit, 2004 10(10): SR5-16.
  • References 10-26 - some of these references come from the Elliot Institute and it's mirror sites; other references do not make any claims about PAS (in fact, one from Sweden says the opposite)
  • Reference 38.. ^ Major, B., & Cozzarelli, C. (1992). Psychological predictors of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 121-142.
  • Reference 39. ^ Franz, W., & Reardon, D. (1992). Differential impact of abortion on adolescents and adults. Adolescence, 27, 161-172.
  • Reference 45.. ^ Cozzarelli, C., Sumer, N., & Major, B. (1998). Mental models of attachment and coping with abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 453-467.

Other problem references:

  • Reference 27 doesn't lead to the article it claims it does; a quick search for "abortion mental health" on the Washington Times website doesn't turn up any articles
  • Reference 34 is so old (1972), it is difficult to get a copy of the abstract
  • Reference 44 - I can't find any abstracts on this article in the databases of the NIH or NLM; there is no link to it on the page

--131.216.41.16 22:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As per 131.216.41.16 complaint, as of this date all material posted by other editors referencing any of these 22 black-listed studies have been purged (see discussion by this editor and another editor on this for "purging" of this article and agreeing to be "vigilant against Reardon studies sneaking back into the article."below).
This purging of peer reviewed articles, which are by definition credible sources since they were peer reviewed by experts...not amatuer contributers to an online encyclopedia, goes against the principles of Wikipedia which are to share information not suppress it.Strider12 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I found an archive of source 27. And you are right. Elliot Institute is against abortion. If you scroll down to the bottom you will find a banner that says abortion is unfair. Since it's not a neutral source, I think it can be removed but I think more discussion is needed. mirageinred 03:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah ha! Proof at last. A website logo saying abortion is unfair is proof that any peer reviewed study that is remotely assocaited with the Elliot Institute is not "neutral science" and therefore eligble for purging! Let's not waste time looking at the actual statistics and methodology of the researchers when we have logos with which to condemn them.Strider12 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to remove the Elliot Institute or the discussion. I think, however, it would be prudent to separate academic from Elliot Institute research. I propose replacing sections two and three with the following: --131.216.41.16 19:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


Academic research

Academic research on abortion is not typically specific to the study of Post-Abortion Syndrome. Rather, academic studies are usually concerned with the statistical incidence of depression among women who have sought an abortion. No academic study to-date has been able to establish a causal relationship between abortion and depression. [2] In 1989, the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this field to review the data available to determine the existence of "post-abortion syndrome". The panel concluded that "research with diverse samples, different measures of response, and different times of assessment have come to similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress." [3]

Studies in Finland

"A Finnish study has shown a link between miscarriage or abortion with depression and suicide. The study found that suicide is more common in women who have experienced miscarriage and especially after induced abortion, than in the general population. However, the study was unable to establish a causal link between abortion and suicide because it was not clear if abortion causes depression and suicide, or if women who are depressed and suicidal are more likely to elect to have an abortion. The article goes on to say, "Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons." (reference to the Finnish article - [ http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/313/7070/1431])

Studies in New Zealand

A study from New Zealand completed in 2006 which used gathered data about children and young adults (ages 15-25) who sought abortions over a 25-year period, found an increased occurrence of clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behavior, and substance abuse among women who had previously had an abortion compared to women who have not sought an elective abortion. However, no causal link was established. It was not clear if abortion causes depression and suicide, or if women who are depressed or suicidal are more likely to elect to have an abortion. (reference: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=16405636 )

PAS Specific Studies in the USA

Researchers at the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Chicago Medical Center in the United States have concluded that PAS is a myth.[4] PAS is listed in neither the DSM-IV-TR nor the ICD-10, and not considered a medical condition by the American Psychiatric Association.

PAS Specific Studies in Spain

According to a third study conducted by Spanish social work researchers Gomez, Lavin C., & Zapata, symptoms attributed to PAS are "dreams and nightmares related with the abortion," and "feelings of guilt". Gomez, Lavin C., & Zapata examined ways to categorize PAS under the assumption that it exists and is related to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Abortion is illegal in Spain except in cases of rape or incest.[5]

Influence from the Elliot Institute

The Elliot Institute is a non-academic 501(c)3 organization, not affiliated with a university or college, and is dedicated to dispensing information about "abortion risks," "ending abortion with compassion" and influencing politics on behalf of pro-life causes.[6] The Elliot Institute is not named after anyone in particular. Their website claims the name "Elliot" was chosen for marketing reasons. [7]

Elliot Institute Studies

David Reardon is the director of the Elliot Institute, and along with Cozzarelli, are the primary researchers in many of the studies published first in the Elliot Institute's jounal The Post-Abortion Review.[8]

Accordinng to one Elliot Institute study that involved a followup study of women two years after their abortion and concluded that 1.4 percent of the women had all the symptoms of PTSD and each symptom was attributable to their abortions rather than another cause.[9] A second PAS specific study surveyed 217 American women who had a history of abortion and queried them about symptoms they attributed to their abortions. Slightly over 14 percent had all the symptoms of PTSD which they attributed to their abortions, and over half reported at least some of the symptoms.[10]

Many of Reardon's studies garner criticism from academic researchers. One article written by Reardon and Jesse R Cougle titled, "Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study" garnered the following criticism: (reference: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/324/7330/151#18850)

  • Deborah L Billings, Senior Research Associate at Ipas, Chapel Hill, NC writes, "Several methodological flaws in the analysis carried out by Reardon and Cougle undermine the conclusions stated by the authors."
  • Dr. Ellie Lee of the Department of Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Southampton writes, " [Reardon's] argument is best understood as an attempt to use the language of psychology, and relate to a culture in which ‘trauma’ has become a ubiquitous term, in order to discredit abortion, in a context where moral claims for the ‘right to life’ are rejected by many. As Mr Reardon has argued elsewhere, ‘post-abortion issues are the key to converting hearts – the key to winning the battle for life’ (2). The fact that many thousands of British women have abortions each year, yet our psychiatrists are not inundated with requests for assistance, may suggest that Mr Reardon has a long way to go in his battle."
  • Steen Goddik, M.D., Psychiatry Resident at the USD School of Medicine writes, " Reardon & Cougle starts out making unwarranted claims from an article by Major, et al. That article makes conclusions opposite of the Reardon/Cougle claim."
  • Robert S. Kahn, Assistant Professor at the Division of General Pediatrics, Children's Hosptial Med Ctr writes, " The paper by Reardon and Cougle raises at least three concerns.1 First, the stated hypothesis is not addressed by their analyses. No results indicate whether indeed "prior psychological state is equally predictive of subsequent depression among women…regardless of whether they abort or carry to term." Nevertheless, their unstated hypothesis focused on abortion and depressive symptoms may be the more central question."


If no one objects, I'll start slowly replacing the text on section 2&3 on the article page tomorrow or the next day.--131.216.41.16 22:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

There have been plenty of objections, and certainly the editors who inserted those 22 studies would object to the removal of material they had carefully cited to peer reviewed studies.

Moreover, the list of critics you quote above are all taken from BMJ's rapid response to a single one of Reardon's studies and your selectyive list ignores the number of supporters of the study who also published rapid responses to BMJ.

Editors should not pick and choose information to suit a viewpoint but should seek to fairly represent all the evidence and, in this case, the full range of opinions offered by readers of the paper and always remember that the paper was peer reviewed and published in a top medical journal and is therefore, by definition, credible and deserving of being cited in a Wikipedia article and exempted from purge campaigns. That doesn't mean that the arguments of critics cannot be included in the article, but it does mean it should not be purged, much less serve as a warrant to purge all studies associated with the author of this one criticized study. Strider12 (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


NON-PEER CENSORSHIP

If a study associated with Reardon and the Elliot Institute has been published in a peer reviewed journal listed in Pub Med, it should be treated the same as any other peer reviewed journal articles. It is, by definition, an academic study since it is published in an academic journal by editors, publishers, and peer reviewers who -- even if they dislike the findings -- agree that it is up to the standards of academic literature.

What you guys are proposing is a that you are better experts than the experts selected by medical journals to review studies accepted for publication.

You are also proposing a one-sided filtering process -- or at least painting a scarlet letter over only the research of one side. Do you honestly believe that researchers who publish articles which claim there are not abortion related problems have no political opinions on abortion?

You are also proposing that all the researchers who work with Reardon in any way are pariah and suspect and are working towared the view that every bit of research published that disagrees with the APA's official position on abortion--which the APA admits is a political position on civil rights--should be ignored, deleted, or flagged as highly suspicious. Why shouldn't the studies of Nancy Russo be flagged as highly suspicious since she editorializes right in the midst of her papers against informed consent and parental notice laws.

This suggestion that Eliot Institute (really Reardon) studies should be treated differently is a blatent argument to embed point of view throughout this article.

The ignorance of the editors hacking away at this is demonstrated by the fact that Reardon has never done any collaborations with Cozzarelli and NONE of the studies that are peer reviewed have ever been published in The Post-Abortion Review which only publishes summaries of the studies AFTER they have been published in medical journals...which is a requirement for publication in peer reviewed journals.

That there is even this discussion going on smacks of bias.

Anonymous 131.216.41.16 is clearly regurgitating criticisms of Reardon and the Elliot Institute as fact and is only semi-literate on the literature, promoting first impressions or a party line. He or she should back off and read the entire body of Reardon's studies, not just the complaints of his academic opponents, before dismissing them. Strider12 (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed title change on section

The section titled "Reactions to abortion which may be part of PAS," references many articles that have nothing to do with PAS, but rather studies that do not stipulate a causal relationship between abortion and stress (see "academic research" section). Some of the studies cited indicate the stress is higher for women who have had miscarriages.--131.216.41.16 15:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed clarification on who uses term PAS

The first paragraphs of the article are confusing and deliberately ambiguous. The paragraphs make it seem as though PAS is a common identification used by medical professionals for an actual syndrome. Here are the paragraphs:

Post-abortion syndrome (PAS), post-traumatic abortion syndrome and abortion trauma syndrome, are terms used to describe a proposed diagnosis of psychopathological characteristics which may be observed in some women following an elective abortion.[1]
In common usage, PAS is often used to describe any negative emotional responses to abortion. As defined by mental health experts who are proponents of the PAS diagnosis, the proper definition is limited only to those traumatic reactions associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These include symptoms related to intrusion, hyperarousal, avoidance and dissociation, wherein the stressor causing the trauma is either the abortion, the abortion decision, or the circumstances surrounding the decision to abort.

To disambiguate, the paragraphs should state the following:

Post-abortion syndrome (PAS), post-traumatic abortion syndrome and abortion trauma syndrome, are terms primarily used by abortion opponents (reference to the Elliot Institute), and a small yet vocal minority of health care professionals to describe a proposed diagnosis of psychopathological characteristics which may be observed in some women following an elective abortion.[1]
In common usage, PAS is often used by some to describe any negative emotional responses to abortion. As defined by mental health experts who are (this phrase makes it seem as though a majority of MHS believe PAS to be existent) proponents of the PAS diagnosis believe the proper definition of PAS is limited only to those traumatic reactions associated with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These include symptoms related to intrusion, hyperarousal, avoidance and dissociation, wherein the stressor causing the trauma is either the abortion, the abortion decision, or the circumstances surrounding the decision to abort.

If there are no objections to this change, I will make it the next day or day after. --131.216.41.16 16:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit off topic but I don't see any point in including Elliott Institute, which is pro-life, and thus, biased. This article should just include research from reliable sources. I think the section about Elliott Institute should be at least shortened starting with something like "Elliott Institute, a pro-life organization claims such and such..." mirageinred 23:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
In theory, I agree with you. However, the director of the Elliot Institute (David Reardon) is the author of a majority of the "studies" referenced in the wiki article. The question we should probably answer is - should we purge all references from the Elliot Institute and David Reardon?--131.216.41.16 00:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes why not? We can only use reliable, neutral sources here. Of course it might be different when we specifically say "pro-life organizations" or "proponents of PAS" claim that so and so are the symptoms. mirageinred 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. Though, I think we will have to be vigilant against Reardon studies sneaking back into the article. --131.216.41.16 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
At least I give you guys credit for being unrelenting in promoting your bias -- oh no, just the "fact" that you know more than the publishers, editors and peer reviewers of journals that have published Reardon's studies...and more than all of the colleagues who have worked with Reardon in doing this research...and therefore in your superior wisdom you are protecting Wikipedia readers from being infected with information from the "bad studies" published by top medical journals.

You are the antithesis of encyclopdia editors....you are candidates for George Orwell's thought police.Strider12 (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Here are some of the evident Elliot Institute (Reardon, et al) studies in the "References" section of the article (there may be more):
1, 7, 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 26, 35, 36, 37, 41, 54 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.216.41.16 (talk) 18:23, August 20, 2007 (UTC)
The symptoms of PAS come from pro-life claims so I left them in. But I deleted "Influence from Elliot Institute." Because there are other sites that claim that PAS exists like the abortionfacts.com set up by the Heritage Foundation so I didn't think the Institute should get a section all on its own and the claims of PAS proponents is already presented in the symptoms section. mirageinred 19:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree. If we are going to delete the entry for the Elliot Institute because it is not part of "reliable, neutral sources" (to use your words), then I think we should delete the references made to studies done by non-neutral organizations. Otherwise, we are misrepresenting a variety of things. --131.216.41.16 20:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Accordingly, the following are used as references, but it is no specified that the source is biased (not neutral): 16, 17, 18, 20, 22, 26, 35, 36, 37, 41, 54. Of course, the broader problem is that many of the studies under the sentence, "Proponents of PAS claim that some women who have had abortions may experience following symptoms" actually don't make any claims about the existence of PAS. --131.216.41.16 20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I have corrected some of the problems I just wrote about. The numbers of the references are now changed as well. --131.216.41.16 20:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm deleting the following sentence: "Post-abortion syndrome is commonly thought of as a reaction that women may have following an abortion, but some abortion counseling professionals[31] believe that in some cases it may also be experienced by the father, grandparents and siblings." The reference for this is to "http://www.abortionrecoverycounseling.com/" They say this on their "About Us" page, "DISCLAIMER: We are dedicated to post-abortion healing, education and awareness. We are not professional counselors, but instead trained peer/lay counselors who have experienced the same pain and grief that you might be experiencing."--131.216.41.16 22:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just before I start things

I just wanted to say, before I start making changes/additions to this article, that I am going to start making changes/additions to this article. Currently I have 26 different studies ranging in publication date from 1998 - 2007 (some are already mentioned in the article). I don't think the article reflects a lot of the recent research done, though, as many of its citations are from the 70s and 80s. If I think I'm making a drastic difference to the article, I will bring it up here first. Stanselmdoc 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Please make sure that your articles are peer-reviewed and not from the Elliot Institute or those associated with the Elliot institute. Thanks! --IronAngelAlice 05:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no, these studies are from published journals like the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Social Science and Medicine, European Journal of Public Health, etc. Unfortunately unexpected events in the real world will prevent me from making lots of updates in the near future, so this will have to wait. Stanselmdoc 02:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

IronAngelAlice is out of line when she suggests that peer reviewed articles should be excluded just because one or more of the authors are associated with the Elliot Institute. By the same reasoning, any study with authors who are associated with the APA, AGI, IPPF, or any abortion provider should also be excluded since each of these organizations has an official political stand in favor of abortion on request. The "official" policy of certain editors in this article to "purge" (See "Proposed clarification on who uses term PAS") peer reviewed studies published in top medical journals because of an alleged bias by the Elliot Institute is unconsionable and a total violation of the rights of other editors to include this information.Strider12 (talk) 21:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The article is extremely biased

The article is extremely biased and alleges that PAS is a myth. However, it cites no proof that it is truly a myth. Moreover the first sentences are extremely biased as well, so I have changed them without removing this view and the references. --Agapornis 00:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Please give specific examples and reasons for your changes. --IronAngelAlice 07:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
No study has proven its existence. The burden of proof is really on those who alleges that PAS exists. mirageinred 19:28, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • There are many studies that prove serious problems, and no one that proves there are no problems.--Agapornis 15:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
From what I can see, there are problems, yes, but any action a human being takes has potential to cause problems in their life. What this article is about is a psychiatric illness caused by having an abortion. Of course some people get sad after abortions - they're being screamed at on the way in that they're murderers, sometimes their loved ones think they're murderers and hate them, and often they themselves would rather not have had an abortion but had no other choice. This is a normal part of life, not a psychiatric illness. If they went insane because of the abortion, that'd be an illness. No study has shown that there's a trend that would indicate an actual illness - it would have to be above and beyond normal human reactions. Kuronue | Talk 18:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I took a brief look at the article again. It DOES list "serious problems" that can come from having an abortion - but they're not an illness, just risks due to the current social climate. And they're all sourced. Everything is sourced, in fact. If you find a study that proves the opposite, add it in with sources. Kuronue | Talk 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You could make the same argument for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. It is a normal response to an abnormal situation. But it is a mental disorder nonetheless. Same thing with Post-Abortion Syndrome. This is a term to describe a normal response to an abnormal situation -- the self-selected termination of a pregnancy, and its emotional consequences. Just like any other mental health syndrome, or collection of symtoms, some people are more at risk to develop the syndroms, or the symptoms, than others. Brobbins
Yes, but... well look at some quotes:
"Those around her told her (and she told herself) that it wouldn’t bother her. When symptoms occur, she tells herself it can’t be the abortion causing them, and then into play come her two major psychological defense mechanisms: Repression and Denial. For some this works successfully. For others it shades off to manageable distress, to severe and life-changing upset and even to suicide.
"There is a delay?
"Yes! Her initial response in most cases is a feeling of relief. Then, with repression and denial, she avoids the problem, usually for years —5 years is common, 10 or 20 not unusual.But then, for some, the negative feelings bubble up and break through. Often the precipitating event is: she has a baby, or a close friend or relative has a baby that she has close contact with. She finds out she is sterile, or other life-changing events.
"What are the symptoms of PAS?
"Guilt is ever present in many guises, along with regret, remorse, shame, lowered self-esteem, insomnia, dreams and nightmares, flash backs, anniversary reactions. There often is hostility, and even hatred, toward men. This can include her husband, and she may be-come sexually dysfunctional. Crying, despair and depression are usual, even at times with suicide attempts.Recourse to alcohol or drugs to mask the pain is frequent, sometimes leading to sexual promiscuity. There is also a numbing and coldness in place of more normal warmth and maternal tenderness." from http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_9.asp#What%20about%20psychological%20problems%20after%20abortion?
"Main Symptoms:
"Fear and avoidance of doctor's & dentist's offices, any type of medical building or situation. Fear of doctor's offices in general and any invasive medical procedure - they can cause extreme anxiety, nausea, sweating, panic attacks, and other problems. Things that trigger this are: gyn exams, having blood drawn, dental or oral procedures, and tests involving hands or tubes or needles or anything put into your body. Feeling very 'protective' of your body, and not wanting anyone to touch you or come into your personal space for any reason. Feelings of sadness and crying when seeing babies or children or pregnant women. Feelings of jealousy when seeing babies or children or pregnant women. Having difficulty falling asleep, having difficulty staying asleep, sleep problems in general. Dreams and Nightmares, featuring:either a baby in danger that you can't help, or yourself in danger; common 'threateners' are people with knives, or medical people. Picturing yourself having a baby, or being with a baby or small child - various problems happen in these dreams, people try to take the baby away from you, or the baby or child is upset and won't look at you, or other people are telling you what you have to 'do' with the baby, commonly like it needs surgery that you don't want it to have, ect. These occur frequently, nightly for some women, weekly for others, monthly or only on 'anniversaries' for others. These dreams can be quite upsetting, and can contribute to the sleep problems. The strong urge to go out and get pregnant again, preferably with the same man, but in this urge, any man will do, and 'keep' it this time. This urge is present, even when all the reasons or situations that influenced women to choose an abortion the first time are still in place. Many of the women at my site have done that, and then were surprised to find that they actually felt 'worse' about the abortion because of it! And that's because 'replacing' a baby is impossible - you still miss the one you 'lost' regardless of how many additional you have. But when that desperate urge hits, you can't realize that - it seems like if you just 'get pregnant again' and keep it, everything will be fine. The 'replacement baby' feeling can be very strong. Women can even go as far as to sneak behind their partner's back, and stop using birth control, or even get artificially inseminated, if the partner has had a vasectomy. Even if a woman does go and get immediately pregnant with a replacement baby, once the new baby is born, they have reported a return of the replacement baby urge right after birth!" (this site goes on and on: http://afterabortion.com/faq.html)
In any event, if you see abortion as murder at any point in time and have had one, you're going to be in mourning. It's natural. But this extreme... it's being claimed basically that having an abortion ruins the entire rest of your life, and that it's a medical problem that's somehow being hushed up by male scientists, and used as a reason that, therefore, abortion is a very bad thing and should never ever be done. Because of this POV-pushing, it's come to mean more than just a normal response to an abortion - it's come to mean something almost as traumatic as cancer. And that's just silly. Kuronue | Talk 23:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


Please pay particular attention to your sources. http://www.abortionfacts.com/ is an anti-abortion/pro-life organization. Because of the inherent bias, we cannot use the information presented on that site.--Justine4all 23:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not adding any of that to the article, I just was quoting to point out what pro-life people are calling PAS and how it's different in severity from what medical professionals call PTSD - and what medical professionals may, in the future, decide to call PAS, if they ever do decide to put something like that in the DSM. I purposefully selected pro-life anti-abortion sources to illustrate the amount of hype it's gotten; naturally pro-choice and neutral sources wouldn't make outrageous claims in favor of PAS.
Justine, one cannot set the criteria for exclusion of any material published or cited by "anti-abortion/pro-life organizations" unless you also decide to exclude all material published or associated with any "pro-choice/pro-abortion associations" -- which includes not only Planned Parenthood, but the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Assocation which have both taken a political stance for and lobbied for unrestricted access to abortion. Also, Wikipedia policy EMBRACES the quoting of statements, allegations, and critiques of groups and published individuals--provided these are properly cited and accurate. What you are not to do is to produce your own arguments, but you are rather to cite the arguments of others who have published them. Please don't jump onto the band wagon of the "purgers" who are diligently working to distort this article into a one sided argument against PAS.Strider12 (talk) 05:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"abortionfacts.com" is not a reliable source of information. It is not peer-reviewed, it has no reputation for fact checking, it is not the work of noted experts in the field, and it is a minority perspective. These are the reasons, not partisan association, that make it an unusable source. Phyesalis 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Representation of Empirical Studies

There are some problems with the way the articles represent the empirical research.

A major problem is that there seems to be confusion between an empirical study and a review article. The University of Chicago article, which claims PSA is a "myth," was not an empirical article. It was an editorial. It is misrepresented here as an empirical study. This section should be deleted, and reserved only for empirical studies with data and conclusions drawn from that data, not opinions.

Second, the New Zealand study listed here was a LONGITUDINAL STUDY. For those of you who do not have a good understanding of research methods, a LONGITUDINAL STUDY is generally able to establish the causal relationship between the independent and dependent variables, because the sequence of events is controlled for. This is because the same participants are viewed over a long period of time.

Note: In the New Zealand study, the same group of young women were observed over a period of time, and those who had an abortion, when compared with those women who did not have an abortion, were more likely to develop post-abortion mental problems. Because of the longitudinal nature of the study, the researchers have ruled out pre-existing mental conditions. Currently, this study is misrepresented as being unable to establish the direction of causality, and that is incorrect. This needs to be corrected, or else the comment represents obvious bias and unscientific reasoning--and then the whole article by implication lacks credibility. Brobbins 01:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply because the study is longitudinal doesn't mean it necessary establishes a causal connection. Please cite further evidence from the actual source if you believe the study supports the existence of PAS.--Justine4all 23:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I have done. It is included in on the page as a quote: “Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors”.LCP 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this does not establish a causal link. Note, the authors make great pains to say "The findings suggest that abortion in young women 'may' be associated with increased risks of mental health problems." The key word being "may." 15 doctors wrote an Op Ed in the UK newspaper, The Times,published on October 27. They listed the problems they found with the study. Dr. Ellie Lee, a lecturer in social policy at Kent University, wrote the following about the New Zealand Study. The article can be found here: http://www.abortionreview.org/index.php/site/article/91/

1. The authors note that their findings may not have taken into account factors other than abortion that might account for the observed association between abortion and particular states of mind

2. Under-reporting of abortion in the sample. This is a well recognised problem with research about abortion. For this study, the authors note there was a statistically significant difference between the rate of abortion in the sample and that in the general population.

3. Contextual factors associated with abortion seeking that the study could not be sensitive to. The authors note, 'It is clear the decision to seek (or not seek) an abortion following pregnancy is likely to involve a complex process' and that as a result, 'it could be proposed that our results reflect the effects of unwanted pregnancy on mental health rather than the effects of abortion per se on mental health'.

The comparator groups to participants in this study who had an abortion were those who stated they had not experienced a pregnancy, and those who continued a pregnancy to term. It was against this background that an association between abortion and poorer mental health emerged. Yet this study was conducted in a context where abortion is legal, and relatively freely available. It should therefore be taken into account that it may be that the only group of women among these three groups compared who experienced a pregnancy that was truly and consistently unwanted were those who went on to terminate the pregnancy. This point can be developed further. Since this study was conducted in a context where abortion is legal, and relatively freely available, it is possible that the pregnancies of those who continued to term and gave birth were in the majority self-defined as wanted. The importance of this point is that it raises questions about what experiences are being compared.

The most valid comparator group to women who have abortion is women with unwanted pregnancy who are denied abortion and then give birth. Where these groups are compared it can at least be assumed that the context of pregnancy in similar, and what is being compared is the effects of the resolution of the pregnancy (birth or abortion) following unwanted pregnancy. Yet this study - for obvious reasons given the abortion law in New Zealand - did not include such a group of women. Other research, however, has (most notably that by perhaps the most prolific researcher and writer on this subject US psychologist Henry David). It shows that denied abortion and unwanted childbirth has stronger association with poor mental health than abortion.

The authors of the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry article are correct to be tentative in their conclusions. They are right to make their strongest conclusion that 'the issue of whether or not abortion has harmful effects on mental health remains to be fully resolved' and call for more research into the area.

In taking this approach they also reflect what seems to be something of a consensus about this area of abortion research. Academic research about the psychological effects of abortion is widely recognised to be a complicated enterprise. As Henry David has noted, designing research that can make definitive statements about the psychological effects of abortion (and other reproductive events) is a complex task. It is harder to make definitive statements than it is for physical health where clear statements regarding the relative safety of abortion can be made.

It is for this reason that, very wisely, the British Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists takes stock, periodically, of the range of published studies on this issue, when drawing up its evidence-based guideline for British abortion providers. In its leaflet for women considering abortion and their families based on its guideline, the RCOG states: 'How you react will depend on the circumstances of your abortion, the reasons for having it and on how comfortable you feel about your decision. You may feel relieved or sad, or a mixture of both'. It also notes that, 'Some studies suggest that women who have had an abortion may be more likely to have psychiatric illness or to self-harm than other women who give birth or are of a similar age. However, there is no evidence that these problems are actually caused by the abortion; they are often a continuation of problems a woman has experienced before'.

This reads as a balanced approach that takes careful account of available evidence. It tells women and their loved ones what, overall, published, peer-reviewed evidence suggests. This contrasts greatly with the line those associated with The Times letter now want British medical authorities to take. On the basis of one study from New Zealand of women aged under 25 which actually makes only tentative claims and recommends further research, they claim that, for Britain, 'doctors have a duty to advise about the long-term psychological consequences of abortion'.

How could this conclusion be drawn? The emphasis placed in this way on the 'risks of abortion' and their alleged implications for abortion practice clearly arises not from balanced consideration and debate about well-designed academic research. Rather its roots lie in the sociology of abortion.

In the current context it is hard for those who are hostile to abortion to find support for arguments framed in moral terms. We live in an age where, for a range of reasons, few agree that abortion is simply 'wrong', so few agree with those who moralise against abortion. In turn, the language of risk more and more provides a medicalised vocabulary in which anti-abortion argument is made. Those of us with training in social science can work to draw to public attention this 'medicalisation' of anti-abortion argument through use of the language of risk. We should seek to provoke discussion of its roots in society and its consequences. It is to be hoped that those with scientific and medical expertise will respond by upholding the highest possible standards in relation to evidence-based abortion care.

--IronAngelAlice 03:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I included direct quotes taken in context from both articles. In contrast, you have interpreted those articles--at length (above), going even so far as to talk about “The sociology of abortion,” and you used your interpretation as warrant to remove those quotes. That amounts to original research, and that is contrary to Wikipedia rules, WP:No original research. In the case of the NZ study, you went so far as to replaced a direct quote with a statement that directly contradicts the research findings, which state “This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors”. The sections I changed have nothing whatsoever to do with the “British Royal College of Obstetricians,” any other group, or the “Sociology of Abortion”. Again, by interpreting one set of study results in light of another, you are engaging in original research. And as you make clear, all of your original research supports a POV that is anti PAS. I do not mind you expanding the sections in question with more information taken directly from the studies. I do, however, reject your attempt put your interpretation on top of the conclusions stated by the authors of the studies.LCP 15:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I was in a rush yesterday, and corrected my error - I did not intend to imply that I wrote the above analysis. It was written by Dr. Ellie Lee, a lecturer in social policy at Kent University, UK.--IronAngelAlice 16:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your ref. My fault. If Since this is published, I think it would be good for you to quote it in ref to the New Zealand study and indicate what weight it holds in relation to the study. In other words, what is it? Is it an editorial in the Times? Is it a valid peer critique in a scientific journal? If it is a critique, how did the authors of the study respond?LCP 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure.LCP 18:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a peer-critique (please see the above citation). Further, authors of studies do not necessarily or always respond to critiques after publication.--IronAngelAlice 18:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is entirely unsuitable POV drivel as the comments are op-ed and "Dr Ellie Lee is a ... co-cordinator of Pro-Choice Forum.”LCP 23:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, the "Journal" in which Dr Ellie Lee's comments were published, "Abortion Review", is published by bpas, "The leading provider of abortion services in the U.K."' Please, do tell how this source meets NPOV rules.LCP 00:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Neutral or positive effect of abortion" doesn't belong here

It does not speak directly about PAS and, therefore, looks like implicit editorializing. It is also already on Abortion. I understand the desire of those who are opposed to the idea of PAS to put this here, but it looks to me like part of an attempt to construct a page that discredits PAS. This page should contain ONLY research that focuses on PAS and discredits or supports PAS. There is plenty of both available.LCP 18:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_structure.LCP 18:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, all the studies that are not PAS-specific do not belong on this page - including the New Zealand, Finnish, Norwegian and Danish studies that measured depression or stress, but not "Post Abortion Syndrome."--IronAngelAlice 18:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Perhaps not since we are not to be about original research, and when editors pull together sources (that do not explicitly have anything to do with the subject in question) to defend or attack a position, that is original research. What do you propose be done about it?LCP 18:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to be more conservative in my edits, and err on the side of more information rather than less so that the reader can determine for him/herself what information is relevant or irrelevant. If we were to include 'only' PAS-specific research, that would necessarily exclude most academic and medical research done in the area because the medical establishment has concluded PAS does not exist. However, I am open to suggestions. But let me be clear: if we were to include only PAS-specific research, I will be very quick to delete any research sponsored by pro-life organizations. This includes research done by Reardon, Rue, et al (as discussed ad nauseum above). --IronAngelAlice 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

it is a context thing. PAS addresses specifically the mental state of women post-abortion. Other studies which also address this are relevent, in context. They should not overpower the PAS specific stuff, per UNDUE, but as IAA notes, many studies which actually use the term are questionable and begin with a presumed assumption. PAS is a non-starter right now as far as the mental health experts are concerned. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Darnit, I just realized I mis-cited UNDUE here. Still, the point stands. Its common sense that the article be about the topic, with however much background and related information is necessary to put the topic into context. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So be it. I would follow Wikipedia rules and cut any original research. Do Reardon, Rue, et al say that they are "pro-life"?LCP 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Reardon, Rue, et al have a pro-life Political Action Committee. Here are the relevant links:
--IronAngelAlice 19:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The context argument is weak and reduces the article to one big POV morass. For example, if we are going to use that criteria, we not include research info on how many mothers are truly happy about having families? That seems relevant to me. But that,like the inclusion of “Neutral or positive effects of Abortion” is not acceptable. If it is not PAS specific or if it is from a POV source, it should be cut.19:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps I am being unclear. See Great Fire of London - deservedly an FA, one of our best articles. Note the entire section about London in the 1660s; about Seventeenth-century firefighting, etc. Not specifically about the fire itself, you see? But necessary for a comprehensive understanding of the topic. Certainly we must guard against "too much information" but equally we must guard against too little context. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV comes up several times on talk page and has never been resolved.

Especially in the context of the unfitness for Wikipedia of the entire article as it is written, there is nothing "haphazard" about the addition of the NPOV tag. Other views?LCP 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The subject itself is controversial. Adding an NPOV tag is silly unless someone writes the entire article as though PAS were completely proven and universally accepted, or the reverse. That's unlikely to happen with as many editors as there are on this article. Its like the Abortion article - someone is always going to be unhappy, and preferably (at least until further research and studies are done and there is near universal acceptance (appears highly unlikely) or rejection (more likely, but seeing as its being used in a political context, not all that likely overall.) One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
LCP, the NPOV issues mentioned earlier on the talk page mostly examine the problem of the article being presented from a completely pro-life perspective. Those have been resolved as best it can. Please be specific as to what is under dispute in this article. Please be sure to include the citations that you have an issue with. --IronAngelAlice 19:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the pendulum has now swung completely in the opposite direction. Why do I say this? Every study that support PAS is ended with a editorial style caveat discrediting the results of the study. No information denying the existence of PAS has a similar critique. Is that because research in favor of PAS is flawless? That is doubtful.
There is a section titled, “Neutral or positive effects of Abortion” but there is no section of the “Negative or harmful effects of abortion.” Apart from that, none of the research in this section has anything to do with PAS. It is clearly included with a rhetorical end in mind.
The section titled “Feelings experienced after miscarriage or abortion” lumps the two together, implying the feeling women feel are identical for both.
The legitimacy of the presentation and weight of U of C study itself has been questioned, and this issue has not been dealt with. [2]LCP 19:26, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What studies listed on the page support PAS? The Finnish study is about depression (not PAS), and the authors take care to say that the results of the study do not prove a causal link between abortion and depression. The New Zealand study cites Reardon 4 times. And yet (amazingly) the authors of the study also take care to say the study does not come to causal conclusions. The methods of the New Zealand study were highly criticized by professional researchers in the UK. (If I weren't busy responding to you, LCP, I'd include these criticisms on the page as well). LCP, please be more specific about the problem of "editorializing."

Regarding the "Neutral or positive effects of Abortion," section - this is under the "academic research" section because it cites research done on abortion. It is, therefore, logical for that section to be under "academic research." I could say that the section "Feelings experienced after miscarriage or abortion" is too heavily focused on negative effects. Clearly, according to the research, 'most' women do not experience depression or stress after an abortion. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that the predominant feeling among some women is relief. --IronAngelAlice 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already repeated myself several times, and I am not interested in doing so again. Please see my earlier comments. It has never been my aim to retain you here, and it is from the bottom of my hear that I thank you for deigning to speak with me.LCP 19:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

To be quiet honest, I don 't expect the NPOV discussion to be ever resolved. People like to fret over abortion on both sides sometimes secretly trying to promote their own agenda. All we can do is to rely on whatever sources are out there. mirageinred 19:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. Like all articles in the abortion family, we aim for NPOV - and if we're getting it right, both sides will be a little unhappy (or a lot unhappy, depending on their perspective and passion.) KillerChihuahua?!? 20:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree. And I often wonder if it isn’t just a big waste of time. There are women who feel like crap because they’ve had an abortion. And I pity the woman who has had an abortion and comes here seeking objective information by which to understand what she is feeling.LCP 20:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not therapy; and PAS is not a mental illness according to the current studies and the position of the mental health experts. Are you saying that being inaccurate might be helpful? Regarding "what she is feeling" there is an entire section Feelings experienced after miscarriage or abortion which seems fairly comprehensive to me (and btw is not directly PAS related, one of those aforementioned context things.) I'm not able to make any sense out of your statement. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not therapy, and yet Wikipedia is read by humans, all of whom have more or less baggage. I have argued that the article has a POV slant, and that slant is not helpful to anyone--especially those who might have more baggage than other. Saying I want the article written from NPOV does not mean that I want it to be inaccurate.LCP 20:33, 25 September 2007(UTC)
As I have argued here [3], IronAngelAlice, a relatively new Wikipedian, has a history of making POV edits on this topic. I, on the other hand, have a history of giving credit where credit is due and even reversing my position when I find an argument that contradicts a position that I hold. Wanting POV reined in is not unreasonable. If IronAgeAlice would have engage the points I made, I would have an entirely different opinion. Unfortunately, I received no response to the troubling items I delineated.LCP 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter who is reading the article, and "the baggage" we all have as humans is really irrelevant. By that logic, many of the articles in Wikipedia should be censored. mirageinred 21:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Feeling a sense of responsibility toward readers and, therefore, insisting on NPOV does not amount to wanting inaccurate articles or censorship. Are you against NPOV or against having a sense of responsibility toward readers or against both? BTW, I would be grateful if your level of involvement in the actual issues being debated were at least equal to the amount of meta-analysis you provide.LCP 23:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Ahahaha. Wikipedia is not therapy, and yet Wikipedia is read by humans, all of whom have more or less baggage. Please do not distort my comments. What I meant was that this article should not be rewritten to make the readers feel comfortable or emotionally relieved. What I meant was that it be written the way it is. And the fact is that few studies support the existence of PAS. You can't claim that there is a POV slant just because it is poorly supported. mirageinred 20:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
How ironic that you should say, “Please do not distort my comments” in one breath and then in another imply that I claim “POV slant just because [PAS] is poorly supported”. That has never been my position. I have protested…
  • POV editorializing of studies that do support PAS
  • Original research
  • The introduction of a blatantly POV source into the discussion.
  • The inclusion of general abortion related info that is not directly related to PAS.
Please do not distort my comments.LCP 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
The term is indeed primarily used by pro-life activists although I would move "primarily used by opponents of abortion" part to the second paragraph because it is too "in your face!" I would have to disagree with you on "blatantly POV." And where exactly is the original research you speak of? mirageinred 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Did I talk about who primarily uses the term??? Anyway, regarding your other statements, “Abortion Review” is produced by bpas, “the leading provider of abortion services in the UK, with a national network of consultation centres and clinics.” Dr. Ellie Lee is the coordinator of Pro-Choice Forum. If that is not “blatant”, I am not sure what is. Can I include op-ed pieces from Priests for Life? The original research enters in several places. Most recently, it has to do with wanting to apply the following information as critique of the NZ study: "To further complicate the study, healthy women and girls who seek an abortion in New Zealand are only allowed to receive an abortion under NZ law if they claim the pregnancy is harming their mental health." This is the Wikipedia editor’s own, original thinking. Furthermore, it is a critique that was lost on the scientist who reviewed the study published in the NZ journal. And, it directly undermines a claim the researchers made in the study itself and that was accepted by reviewers; namely, that they adjusted for confounding factors. Before the critique can be applied here, it needs to appear in a notable NPOV source. In other words, the Wikipedia editor in question need to find a suitable outlet to publish her original thinking. Wikipedia is not it.LCP 00:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I feel I need to add that I do not think IronAngelAlice deliberately pursues POV edits. I realize that it is often difficult to discern where one’s own objectivity ends.LCP 02:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks and mischaracterizations.--IronAngelAlice 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree. Please comment on the content, not the contributor. What points have you raised that you feel have not been addressed, LCP? I confess I have missed it if some were not. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I did not intend a personal attack. IronAngelAlice is a new user and she has attempted to introduce non NPOV sources to support her position. I bring this up only because she is editing all over the place and she has proven unreliable regarding NPOV. See [4], where IronAngelAlice attempts to introduce as warrant an article from “Abortion Review”, published by bpas, "The leading provider of abortion services in the U.K”, and written by Dr Ellie Lee, a ... co-coordinator of “Pro-Choice Forum”. She also tried to use that same clearly POV text to the Abortion page. See ref #71 here: [5]. Sorry if I ruffled feathers. If I do so without good reason, I will graciously and gratefully accept any chastisement.LCP 01:02, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur. Let's not single one person out. mirageinred 21:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
How about this interpretation of the NZ study: "However, no causal link was established. It was not clear if abortion causes depression and suicide, or if women who are depressed or suicidal are more likely to elect to have an abortion. Also, the study cites David Reardon several times. Reardon is a long time pro-life advocate who has authored several medical studies even though he has a degree in "Biomedical Ethics" from an unaccredited correspondence school. Reardon has been repeated rebuked by medical professionals."LCP 21:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
If Reardon is not all that credible, the study should be removed. mirageinred 21:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an ad hominem argument. Who wrote the article, and their personal views, and who they cite, is irrelevant. What matters here is the research design, the nature of the data, and the validity of the conclusions. Pro-choice folk like to cite C Everett Coop, who said the only way to establish mental health consequences of abortion would be to do a longitudinal study -- which is a HUGE undertaking and requires massive resources, but is able to establish the order of the effects. That's what this New Zealand study did. And it was able to control for prior mental health.Brobbins 15:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I think a lot of stuff needs to be removed, but I defer to KillerChihuahua in this matter.LCP 21:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Ack! No pressure, eh? I'm inclined to agree, the article seems a bit crufty. I'd like to be very slow and cautious about this, though, as a lot of the information might be better in another article ratehr than simply ditched. My thinking is that we have a lot of context information, which ranges from the directly appropriate to the merely peripheral. I'd like to hear others thoughts on this. KillerChihuahua?!? 09:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Woah... the heck? Brobbins? Are you going to explain your massive list of reversions? Kuronue | Talk 15:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of New Zealand study

There is an argument to be made for deleting the New Zealand study:

  • The study cites Reardon several times
  • The authors of the study did not address the issue of pre-existing mental illness, and they have been criticized by other researchers in the field of abortion research for not doing so. To further complicate the study, healthy women and girls who seek an abortion in New Zealand are only allowed to receive an abortion under NZ law if they claim the pregnancy is harming their mental health.

Thoughts? Issues? --IronAngelAlice 16:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your comments amount to original research. That is a no-no. If you can show that the journal itself is an explicitly pro-life publication, that I would agree. Otherwise, "This is an ad hominem argument. Who wrote the article, and their personal views, and who they cite, is irrelevant. What matters here is the research design, the nature of the data, and the validity of the conclusions."LCP 21:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't believe that the study is "Pro-life." Rather, the study is flawed. You are right. I didn't cite a reference for the criticisms in the second bullet point because they mostly come from Dr. Ellie Lee, a lecturer in social policy at Kent University, and who is explicitly pro-choice. However, we need to take two things into consideration 1) Lee is a professor at an accredited University, and has impressive academic credentials, and 2) her criticisms of the study are valid regardless of her pro-choice point of view. Simply because one has a point of view doesn't mean one's logic and/or criticisms are invalid. If, however, the POV is the only factor within the criticism, then the criticism is not valid. (See logical fallacy: Attacking the Speaker or ad hominem attack)
The reason we have agreed that citing Reardon studies is unacceptable is because he 1) does not have acceptable academic credentials, 2) he has been repeatedly rebuked by scientific researchers and doctors, 3) the purpose of his "studies" are not seeking truth, but rather the purpose of his studies are to buttress his ideology.
Reardon told Priests for Life, "The potential of 'post-abortion healing'... can rapidly change the whole dynamic of the abortion debate in this country. And I am really confident that we will see an end to abortion within the decade." Reardon also said "By demanding legal protection for women forced into abortions and greater rights for women to sue for post-abortion trauma, we force our opponents to side with us in defending women's rights or [to] be exposed as defending the abortion industry at the expense of women." During the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia in 1999, a string of anti-choice protesters spread out on a street in a "human life chain," holding his sign: "abortion hurts women." —Preceding unsigned comment added by IronAngelAlice (talk • contribs) 23:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC) --IronAngelAlice 23:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This is another quote from Reardon, from his book - "Even if pro-abortionists got five paragraphs explaining that abortion is safe and we got only one line saying it’s dangerous, the seed of doubt is planted,” he wrote in his book." --IronAngelAlice 23:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Here are the relevant links to Reardon's website and his Elliot Institute (and the EI mirror sites):
New information about Reardon (in addition to the numerous articles above)

--IronAngelAlice 00:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


If Lee’s critiques are valid, then they should also appear in a non-biased source. I am not a scientist, so I am in no position to evaluate the quality of her comments. But I do understand a little bit about publishing. It is not far fetched to suggest that she published her critique only in a pro-choice publication because she has not been able to publish elsewhere. Regardless, I think the precedent would be unworkable. Think of the precedent of going on her credentials and ignoring the fact that her comments are published in a POV source. That would open a huge can of worms. It is unfortunate for both sides that many sources are rejected based only on affiliation.
I don’t know anything about Reardon (or really care). However, if “the purpose of his studies are to buttress his ideology”, I think that is very unfortunate. The moral debate having to do with elective abortion on demand has nothing to do with how women feel after having abortions. Those facts are peripheral to the debate and should be spoken to only by science.
LCP —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 00:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Another academic criticism of the NZ study is here: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1728-4465.2007.00130.x If you download the .pdf and search for the author's name (Fergusson), you'll find about 3 refutations of the study. Also, take note that since the NZ study is very new, we probably will not see the bulk of the refutations until next year or so. --IronAngelAlice 01:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I can’t download it. Perhaps you can include the quotes here. Apart from that, I need to step out of this discussion. I would have a hard time accepting the article as a source as it is published by the Guttmacher Institute, founded by the former president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Alan Guttmacher. I also couldn’t accept “Studies in Family Planning” as it was founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, which is heavily involved in supporting eugenics: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022566/posts]. As I see it, it is an article by a pro-choice organization published in a pro-choice publication. Perhaps its methods are sound, but I would not be the one to make the determination. So, here is where I leave you in the hands of other editors.LCP 01:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
You can't say "The study's findings stand regardless of the POV of the researchers" then turn around and say "The criticism doesn't stand because of the POV of the critic". Either the POV has no effect on the relevance of the writing, or the POV matters a lot - either way, it looks bad for the New Zealand study. If the New Zealand study was correct, shouldn't someone else have been able to find it without bias? Kuronue | Talk 05:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
What part of “I need to step out of this discussion” didn’t you understand? I never said or implied, “The study's findings stand regardless of the POV of the researchers”. Nor did I say or imply, “The criticism doesn't stand because of the POV of the critic”. In fact, I think I implied just the opposite. I suggested that if Lee’s comments were published in a NPOV or at least peer reviewed journal, I think they would be acceptable. Please take another look at what I said. I talk a lot about the importance of the neutrality of source. I then said, “I need to step out of this discussion. I would have a hard time accepting the article as a source as it is published by the Guttmacher Institute, founded by the former president of Planned Parenthood, Dr. Alan Guttmacher. I also couldn’t accept “Studies in Family Planning” as it was founded by the Rockefeller Foundation, which is heavily involved in supporting eugenics: [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022566/posts]. As I see it, it is an article by a pro-choice organization published in a pro-choice publication. Perhaps its methods are sound, but I would not be the one to make the determination. So, here is where I leave you in the hands of other editors.” I said that to indicate that while I think it should be obvious to anyone that an op-ed in a “journal” published by “the leading provider of abortion services in the UK” is clearly not admissible in Wikipedia, I have no clear opinion on the other sources IronAngelAlice introduces--and I have no desire to debate the matter. I am sure other editors are better equipped for that than I am. If you are still interested in engaging uninterested parties in debate about things they never said about subjects in which they are not interested, perhaps you can find a stranger in a coffee shop or something.LCP 16:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lack of pro-PAS studies

This keeps coming up, so I'm going to address it in a new section: if you feel there is a lack of pro-PAS studies, then you'd better be ready with some to add to the article, because if we can't find any that were scientifically conducted by neutral organizations that prove PAS may exist, naturally there won't be any in the article. If nobody can come up with any, then clearly, there are none, therefore their absence in the article is warrented, no? Kuronue | Talk 01:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a similar proposal over at Talk:Abortion, and after examining this article, I think it may be needed here as well. I suggest moving this article to Abortion and mental health. We discuss studies that deal with positive mental health effects. We discuss studies and organizations that found no correlation. We discuss studies that say that depression or suicide is higher for some individuals who have had induced abortions. But what we really don't have is articles that discuss "post-abortion syndrome". Gomez uses the term, but not Reardon, nor the Elliot Institute. So, this article doesn't really deal with "post-abortion syndrome", nor do the vast majority of studies we cite. I'd propose moving the article and rewriting the lead to focus less on PAS, and more on summarizing the different POVs of the findings from the cited studies (maybe we could create a section for PAS).-Andrew c [talk] 01:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Except the term PAS is very popular - you'd have to make it clear in the lead of the new title that PAS is one such effect. Otherwise, sure. Kuronue | Talk 03:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree with Andrew; this addresses the issues we are discussing in the section above. We will need to rewrite a bit of course, but not all that much. Disagree with Kuronue; PAS does not need to be in the title but does need to be mentioned in the lead and have its own section in the article. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Elaboration of those arguments. Personal attack on those who disagree. Assertion that my way is correct above all else. Seriously, though, that's what I meant; PAS needs to be in the lead section, regardless of what the new title becomes. Kuronue | Talk 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Then we agree, however confused we are about the fact of our agreement. Tomayto/tomahto (I couldn't find a clever link!) KillerChihuahua?!? 16:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone get us started on the revamp by making suggestions on this or another talk page. Also, until the revamp, what does everyone think about the above suggestion regarding the NZ study? --IronAngelAlice 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposal to merge the article to abortion and mental health. The term itself is very popular among pro-life activists and a hot topic in politics. So I don't think it needs to be deleted.

And yes, if we can't find any scientific pro-PAS studies, it's probably because there isn't any, meaning that its existence is poorly supported. I don't want to digress but we can't say that there is a POV slant just because there aren't any studies. No studies = little evidence that support the claim. mirageinred 20:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

We're not talking about deletion, or merging, at all - perhaps you misunderstood. We're talking about renaming, because a lot of the article deals with post-abortion issues which are not PAS, such as depression, grief, etc. PAS and Post-Abortion Syndrome and the like would redirect to this article, which would have an entire section devoted to PAS - in fact, very much as the article is now. I hope this has clarified things a little! KillerChihuahua?!? 20:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I support KillerChihuahua and Andrew c's suggestion. I think it will resolve the problems we run into here [6]LCP 21:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


The problem is that PAS was proposed by Vincent Rue as a specific subtype of PTSD. The phrase "post abortion syndrome" however entered the public parlance to mean ANY psychological distress following abortion, whether mild or severe. Even severe depression, however, is not PAS as defined by Rue, which requires a complete set of PTSD symptoms. I think it became so widely used because pro-life groups and Christian media were anxious to use the new term to give a label to ANY emotional reactions to abortion (probably to Rue's chagrin, since it muddied the waters) and pro-choice groups were glad to use it -- with disdian -- since it was so easy to show that this "new syndrome" was not an accepted diagnosis in the DSM-IV. As a result, it has become a lightning rod term that is much misunderstood because it has so many different meanings --- well defined for Rue and some others who use it in the restrictive fashion he intended, but generally ill defined for everyone else.
So the difficulty of this article is that people may come to it looking for information on any psychological reactions associated with abortion or for specific information about abortion associated PTSD (PAS according to Rue), but most will be coming for the former rather than the latter.
By the way, there are a considerable number of studies that have looked at PSTD symptoms since Rue proposed it, though most speak in terms of PTSD rather than PAS, which is appropriate since PTSD is a well defined and accepted diagnosis. I will post more as time permits, but have already posted a recent study from South Africa which used several good scales to measure PTSD rates prior to and after abortion. This and other studies support the idea that abortion may be associated with or aggravate traumatic symptoms, so in that regard you could call them "pro-PAS" studies, but I wouldn't do so. PAS has devolved into a lightning rod term. I think it is more productive to follow the research and discuss specific symptoms associated with abortion rather than to attempt to define a new constellation of symptoms that are particular to abortion.
Since PAS in common parlance means any psychological distress associated with abortion, it should continue to point to whatever article or headline this article evolves into. I think the introduction (whether the article is renamed or left as "post-abortion syndrome") should include some of the information I sketched out above regarding the generic meaning, Rue's meaning, and a number of other proposed terms for different constellations of symptoms associated with abortion. For example, I recall another therapist had an interesting proposal for a variation that excluded a couple PTSD symptoms and added another. I'll need to look it up. But the point here is that the article could be arranged to have a section section listing each the proposed terms and variations of symptoms proposed by various therapists and researchers...especially since it is not our place to declare which term is the "winner". All of these terms, including PAS, could and should then point to the same article...which I agree might be better titled as "Psychological Reactions Associated With Abortion," "Abortion and Mental Health" or someting of that sort. Strider12 (talk) 04:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Voice of Experience's comment

Voice of Experience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.192.110 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I do believe that those of you here who do not think PAS is a real syndrome have never either experienced an abortion or miscarriage, or have never known anyone who has. I am speaking here with the voice of experience -- I have lost three children to an abusive husband, all terminated pregnancies. It is a trigger for PTSD, and it has psychological rammifications that are not well-documented. Just because it's not in a text book (yet) doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Now, before you start calling me a pro-lifer, know that I am very pro-choice. I believe that what a woman does with her body is her own decision, and she should be allowed the freedom to do as she pleases with it. Seeing as how I have never walked in her shoes, who the hell am I to judge her decisions? How can I (or anyone else for that matter) say with certainty how we would react to that situation if we are never faced with it? Who is to say we would not have chosen the same path as the one we are criticizing? Back to the text-book issue. There are so many cases of PTSD and other psychological traumas that were not documented and treated until years later (as in the case of Holocaust survivors and veterans of the world wars), just because we were all waiting for that text book to come out to tell us it was real. Yet they still had PTSD, they were still suffering, they were still living with all that pain. It has been known for probably as long as humans have engaged in war and other traumatic events, that some people just aren't the same afterwards. I think the beauty of science is that it's fluid -- there is always somethimg more to learn, something we may have overlooked or something we are still finding out about. We don't know everything, and I don't think we ever will -- there is just too much to know. That still does not make the effects of the trauma any less real for those who suffer from them. I know that I myself have had nightmares, have woken up shaking in a cold sweat, and had panic attacks more times than I could count, especially when the trauma was fresh (it's been about a year now). Does that mean I have PAS? Perhaps. I think we all deal with trauma in different ways, some of us better than others. Just because someone handles things a little differently doesn't mean they are wrong or their experiences are not real. Please, do not speak on something of which you have no experience (this going to those who criticize PAS). It is very real to those of us who suffer from it, and just because a text book or some old guy in congress -- who probably doesn't even remember what sex looks like -- doesn't think it's real, doesn't make it go away or take care of those of us who do suffer. Try and have some compassion, some empathy for your fellow human beings, eh? Life is hard enough already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.192.110 (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your personal story, however, it isn't really appropriate here. Please see WP:TALK for the talk page guidelines. Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article. They are not a discussion board for airing personal experiences. On wikipedia, all article content must be verifiable, and we do this by attributing text to reliable sources through citations. A personal anecdote is not a reliable source by our standards. We simply cannot publish your personal experiences on wikipedia, so discussing them seems moot. If you have something along the lines of journal articles that support your experiences, then we can work to incorporate those articles' findings in this article. I hope you understand. If you have any questions, feel free to ask, contact me personally on my talk page, or go to the help desk. Finally, if you are going to contribute to talk page discussions, please "sign" your comments, as described in the notice right above the edit window (which states: This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).)-Andrew c [talk] 01:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an uninformed contributor posting a biased and unresearched article!!

Uh, just thought I would clear up a lot of confusion and say I have been diagnosed with P.A.S.S. (Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome as it is now called) and am currently being treated with medication and psychiatric care. National psychiatrist conventions have been discussing the fact that it does exist and that older studies are inherently flawed. That's how my psychiatrist knew about it. A lot of older studies have lots of problems such as:

1)They were done shortly after the abortion, but as a type of PTSS it could take as many as 20 years to appear.

2)The subjects were given written questionnaires in some of the studies and were asked "Do you feel guilty? Yes or No". This is not a scientific way to determine psychiatric conditions.

3)The studies were done in a VERY different social climate. While abortions were still considered taboo, yes, not as many women were getting them and/or admitting to them; therefore, sample sizes are unusually small.

4)And this is a big one! 80% of medical professionals are men, and historically it has taken years longer for them to recognize problems exclusive to women. Case-and-point: PMS. Cases of extreme PMS were documented more than 10 years before PMS was recognized by medical professionals. Now I'm not on a male hating rampage, but how do you believe something you can't experience? And on top of that 75% of men are against abortion, so why would they validate a syndrome created by what they hate? (Just for reference I was diagnosed and explained all this by a male psychiatrist.)

Other reasons PASS is not recognized:

1) It is hard to diagnose. Most women don't tell anyone they had an abortion, so they are diagnosed with depression, bi-polar, or even psychosis instead.

In short, as one of now thousands of women diagnosed with this disease I will be actively petitioning to get this terrible Holier-than-thou Pro Life article removed or revised to actually reflect what the world is starting to believe!!! I am appauled that it remained on this site any longer than 10 seconds as it is CLEARLY biased.

68.231.156.50 06:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)PASS Awareness is growing!68.231.156.50 06:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, asserting "facts", such as PASS is hard to diagnose or Asking "Do you feel guilty? Yes or No" is not a scientific way to determine psychiatric conditions. is not helpful to us without sources that we can cite. We do not publish original thoughts on wikipedia (see WP:OR). I think you do have a unique perspective, and that it's clearly possible for you to contribute positively to this article. Why not try stating specifically what sections of the article you have problems with and what specifically you would do to change them. If you believe that a study we cite is flawed, say what study it is, and point to a reliable source that confirms that it is flawed. We cannot say a study is flawed without backing it up with sources. Maybe you could ask the doctor who diagnosed you to recommend some sources that we could add info from to this article?-Andrew c [talk] 14:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Andrew, I think you miss the point of these personal testimonies regarding this article. As an editor who has expertise in this field of counseling and good exposure to the literature, I understand the citable facts that can make this a better article (and as time permits I will try to supply more of them, but so far I keep running into people deleting them even though they are well cited quotes.) While these women may not be as prepared to contribute facts, they can recognize a biased article when they see it because much of what has been put into this article dismisses what they have actually experienced. This is why the editors on this discussion page who openly advocate "purging" of this article are indirectly offending and hurting women and men out there who are suffering from grief after their abortions and are looking for information about their experience. For such a person coming to this article and seeing there is research linking abortion to depression and suicide, for example, even if they read it is a disputed finding, they will experience this as affirmation that "I'm not alone in feeling this way." which from a counseling perspective is a very important step toward giving hope that they may be understood by others and able to make their way forward as others have.
So, while I agree that these posted comments do not provide content for the article itself, they do provide a "warning" to the editors that we should respect the fact that people who are emotionally hurting are coming to this article to get information about the emotions they themselves attribute to their abortions. Purging these studies because the APA or some others have criticized these findings prejudges what information should be given to the public and denys readers the opportunity to judge the facts, arguments, charges and counter charges for themselves.
As it currently stands, when I read this article as a counselor who is well informed in this area, I agree with these women. It is totally out of whack and clearly biased and disrespectful to those who have experienced post-abortion reactions and to the researchers and counselors who work in this field on a daily basis. It only takes a couple editors with a fast "purge" mentality to ruin it. Strider12 (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Protests on m:OTRS

We have received a lengthy email on OTRS saying that our article was biased against the existence of the post-abortion syndrome. A NPOV tag has been added on top of the article and the person who emailed has been invited to present arguments here. If that person does not bring arguments, feel free to remove the template. (I think the above unsigned post is from that person.) David.Monniaux 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing has been offered as of November 13, 2007.--70.173.47.6 06:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the tag. MastCell Talk 17:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Which version is better (Finnish study)?

I replaced version (A) with version (B) (below). MastCell reverted, stating, “Previous wording actually represents the study's findings much more clearly (and is accurate)”

I disagree and don't see how an editorial interpretation is better than detailed and verbatim results. Please, does anyone else want to weigh in?

(A) A Finnish study has shown a link between miscarriage (or spontaneous abortion) with depression and suicide, as well as between medically induced abortion with depression and suicide among women in Finland. The study found that suicide is slightly more common in women who have experienced miscarriage and more common after induced abortion, than in the general population. However, the study was unable to establish a causal link between abortion and suicide because it was not clear if abortion causes depression and suicide, or if women who are depressed and suicidal are more likely to elect to have an abortion. The article goes on to say, "Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons."

(B) A Finnish study has shown a link between miscarriage (or spontaneous abortion) with depression and suicide, as well as between medically induced abortion with depression and suicide among women in Finland. The study found that suicide is slightly more common in women who have experienced miscarriage and more common after induced abortion than in the general population. In the group studied, 73 suicides were associated with pregnancy. This represented 5.4% of all suicides in women in this age group. The mean annual suicide rate was 11.3 per 100,000. The suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9), and the rates associated with miscarriage (18.1) and induced abortion (34.7) were significantly higher than in the population. The risk associated with birth was higher among teenagers and the risk associated with abortion was increased in all age groups. The women who committed suicide tended to come from lower social classes and were more likely to be unmarried than other women who had given birth. The study concluded that the "increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health.”

LCP 23:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Summaries are generally better than extensive verbatim rehashes directly from the paper. After all, the article is fully available and referenced from the text for anyone who wants to dig in. Our job is to accurately summarize it. If there was only one relevant study, then perhaps it would make sense to rehash all of the details, but here there are dozens, and the article will quickly become overwhelmed with figures which obscure the forest for the trees. Our job is to accurately summarize the data, and to link to it so that readers can look deeper at their discretion. If you think the summary above is inaccurate or misleading, then we could certainly adjust it, but the argument that verbatim quotes are superior isn't particularly convincing to me. Of course, other opinions are welcome. MastCell Talk 00:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I do think the current version is biased. It has to do with how the paragraph is organized. Using “However” and then closing with “Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion…” gives the impression that the study was leaning away from saying there is a causal relationship. This goes way beyond what the study itself says. This is why I preferred the more neutral statement: “increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health”. As you may have noticed, I have attempted to correct several other studies that were similarly biased. To do so, I merely introduced verbiage almost directly from the articles themselves. I agree, "Summaries are generally better." The reason I prefer data and close to verbatim representations of conclusions--in this article--is that these help to minimize bias in either direction.LCP 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, in this case a summary can not possibly do justice to the stats. For whatever reason, those who gave birth were almost half as likely to commit suicide than the general population and those that had abortions were three times more like to commit suicide than the general population. That is shocking. That screams that some women who have abortions are really, really in trouble and need help. It's not just a "choice." It is, in fact, a life threatening crisis for many. That is a very important fact that the current version completely glosses over.LCP 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Here is a version that uses a summary style rather than stats (I’ve also removed redundancy from the intro):
A Finnish study has shown a link between depression and suicide and miscarriage (“spontaneous abortion”) as well as induced abortion. The study found that women who gave birth were only about half as likely to commit suicide as was the general population; those who had miscarriages were 62% more likely to commit suicide; those that had abortions were three times as likely to commit suicide. However, the study was unable to establish a causal link between abortion and suicide and concluded that the "increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health.”
I think the problem is has is that it can easily be misread to indicate that women who have had abortions and miscarriages are killing themselves left and right. In contrast, the numbers give a clear sense of proportion.LCP 02:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
I think your proposed summary looks concise and accurate, though I would change "link" to "correlation" in the first sentence - "link" suggests causality a little more strongly to my ear, and "correlation" is probably the more precise term for these findings. I would also remove "only" from the second sentence, as it's a bit leading and intrusive. But those are nitpicks. I think what you've done, by choosing the abstract's conclusion as the quote, is a good approach. MastCell Talk 03:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback!LCP 16:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


No Consensus

  1. I added back the actual quoted conclusion of the Finnish study. It is not advisable to make it into an editorial because it is so easily changed in an inflammatory way. It is also completely wrong to say that "that women who gave birth were about half as likely to commit suicide as was the general population; those who had miscarriages were 62% more likely to commit suicide; those that had abortions were three times as likely to commit suicide." To give percentages among the women who miscarry, and then ascribe the term "Three times" as likely shows bias in the language. The sentence should quote the actual study, "In total, 30 suicides were committed after women gave birth (42% [of deaths among the women in the study]), 29 after an abortion (40%), and 14 after a miscarriage (19%), of which two were after an extrauterine pregnancy."

    Recommendation: Set back to original text, and add in actual quotes from the study to prevent editorializing.

  2. The title "An attempt to create a diagnostic category for women who have psychopathological symptoms correlated with induced abortion in Spain" is an editorial, not actually a title. The correct title should be "PAS Editorial in Spain by Spanish Social Workers." The men who wrote the article were social workers observing women - not researchers. It should also be made clear, as it is stated in the study, that abortion is not legal in Spain.
    Recommendation: Give adequate information about the study; make the title shorter

  3. PAS is a proposed diagnosis by Rue (et al), as well as the researchers in Spain. The leading text should, therefore, be changed back to the long-standing original text which was, Pas is a term used to describe a proposed diagnosis of psychopathological characteristics which are proposed to occur in some women following a therapeutic abortion." The citation clearly points to this: Gomez, Lavin C & Zapata, Garcia R."Diagnostic categorization of post-abortion syndrome", Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2005 Jul-Aug;33(4):267-72.
    Recommendation: Keep the original text because there are adequate references

  4. It is deceiving to only say about the Danish that "15.3% reported diminished sexual desire and 6.0% reported diminished orgasm ability comparing to prepregnancy level." When, in fact, the study says, "Result: Overall, 51.0% of the women recommenced coitus within 2 weeks after TOP (Termination of Pregnancy). This figure was significantly higher among women aged 18–24 years (60.6%) than among women in higher age groups (41.7–47.8%)." and "Diminished libido was experienced by 15.3% at 8 weeks follow-up, and 6.0% experienced diminished orgasm ability (self-rated changes). Libido was unchanged in 72.4% of the women, 69.7% had no change in orgasm ability and 3.3% had never experienced orgasm."

    Recommendation: add in actual quotes from the study to prevent editorializing.

  5. It should be made clear that the Norwegian study does "not conclude that abortion causes depression or stress.". That is the entire point of the article!
    Recommendation: Keep the original text because there are adequate references

  6. The following is an editorial within the "Feelings experienced after miscarriage or abortion" and is not found within the references: "Some studies cite the pre-existence of depression and stress in some women who seek abortions.
    Recommendation: The original text should be maintained which said, "Although no studies have been able to find a causal relationship between abortion and depression or stress, as it would be unethical to require a woman to abort simply to test the causal relationship between abortion and negative health consequences, many studies cite the pre-existence of depression and stress in many women who seek abortions. Women who experience any life-stress often feel some of the following:"

--131.216.41.16 (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add statistical information to my edits to provide more context, I have no objections. Here are this issues with which I am having problems. First, I object to your adding your own interpretive analysis to studies, such as when you state of the NZ study, “The authors did not find a causal link between abortion and mental illness.” But perhaps I missed that. Is that actually in the study? Second, where have you been for the past several months, during which the presentation of most of the studies glossed over critical information, such as the fact that abortion effects libido? Why do I ask? Third, I object to the fact that all of your edits support only the denial of any causal link between abortion and mental illness. For the record, I think you are pushing an agenda. Fifth, the types of changes you are making remind me of another editor [7] who was recently blocked for sock puppets. In fact, you and she have identical interests. I therefore find it very suspicious that you are contributing without an account. The points I have enumerated make it very difficult for me to assume good faith.LCP (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that we should not add our own gloss to studies. On that note, the Danish study specifically indicated that abortion has few effects on libido, so I'm not sure what your remark that "abortion effects libido" or the argument that this has been "glossed over" is based on. I don't think it's inherently problematic that an editor inserts information discounting a link between abortion and PAS - after all, no reputable medical organization that I'm aware of supports the existence of PAS. It would be much more problematic if an editor consistently inserted information claiming that PAS was a medically recognized or existant entity, when the large weight of reliable secondary sources say otherwise and it's only by parsing primary sources that a scientific "debate" takes shape. As to the sockpuppetry issue, it is certainly possible. I would recommend filing a report at the suspected sockpuppet noticeboard or a request for checkuser if you're suspicious. MastCell Talk 00:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hiya LCP,
1. here is a link to the study (it's a pdf parsed in HTML). At the end of the document, the authors write, "n the basis of the current study, it is our view that the issue of whether or not abortion has harmful effects on mental health remains to be fully resolved." Hence we can say, “The authors did not find a causal link between abortion and mental illness.” It is important to mention this because entire purpose of the article is to discuss whether or not there is a causal link between abortion and mental illness.
2. "I object to the fact that all of your edits support only the denial of any causal link between abortion and mental illness." Well, this is the issue. The science does not support a causal link between abortion and mental illness. Several scientists in the studies we cite that claim there is a correlation between abortion and mental illness, but none of the studies listed here present a causal link. There is a big and important difference!
3. I have stopped using the moniker "IronAngelAlice" because I am often confused with another person (people). I have not been around because I feel like I've been bullied, and I was banned because of all of the confusion. It was even stated that I was simultaneously from the U.S. and Australia. What the heck? Silliness! But don't mistake silence for consensus. As far as I know there is no prohibition against posting as an IP - does anyone know otherwise? I don't want to break any more rules.--131.216.41.16 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
MastCell, According to the Danish study, an effect on libido was one of the “few” effects. I can’t imagine why that wasn’t mentioned. It is to the complete omission of the info that I was referring. I think the current version is immeasurably better than the version that was lacking that info in any way shape or form. I haven’t taken issue with editors opposed to PAS or stating that there is no link between PAS and abortion. The entire lead is in fact devoted to that very idea. What I have taken strong exception to is editors inferring their own conclusions from studies and, thereby introducing original research. As I stated earlier, I am all for letting the data stand in its entirety. For example, the bit about NZ study already states, “On the basis of the current study, it is our view that the issue of whether or not abortion has harmful effects on mental health remains to be fully resolved.” However, after that quote, 131.216.41.16 added a statement that is not part of the study. Namely, “The authors did not find a causal link between abortion and mental illness”. In other words, an editor has read the study and drawn an inference. And this is considered OR. But it is more than that. In the statement, there is an implied op-ed about the value of the research. If a documented “causal link” is the gold standard of scientific research, then to end a section with "there isn’t a causal link" is tantamount to saying, “But this research is second rate.” And it is just this type of implicit editorial that been problematic with this article and that I have tried to resolve.LCP (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Regarding 131.216.41.16’s 1, 2, and 3…
1. See comments above. In short, to point out that there isn’t a causal link is tantamount to saying, “But this research is second rate.”
2. So why aren’t statements about the lack of a causal link qualified with the fact that there is a correlation. Why isn’t the statement that there is no causal link qualified with the caveat that arriving at a causal link, in real life subjects, would be nearly if not completely impossible. How many years did it take to prove a causal link between cigarettes and lung cancer? Is such a link 100% proven even now? Why was granny able to smoke two packs a day without getting cancer?
3. I am not sure what you mean by “moniker” in the context of Wikipedia. However, if people were confusing “IronAngelAlice” with someone else, it is very easy to change your signature. Just go to your “my preferences.” I don’t want to hold your past record of sock puppeting against you, but I don’t see how writing from an IP can possibly help your credibility.
LCP (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

LCP,

  1. Please stop deleting "Abortion is illegal in Spain." That tidbit is actually mentioned in the study. It is not an editorial.
  2. You write, "point out that there isn’t a causal link is tantamount to saying, 'But this research is second rate.'” It says no such thing. Causation and correlation are actually scientific terms. These words have no bearing on the quality of any study. "Correlation" states a fact about any given study. For example, the Finnish study probably doesn't aim to have a conclusion that proves causation. Rather, their findings of correlation are important because it allows medical professionals to focus on all the possible problems associated with pregnancy/miscarriage/abortion. According to the study, these problems may include some, all or just one of the following: relationship status, economic status, post-partum depression, or the actual act of getting an abortion. So, please stop deleting that information from the studies. As stated above, discerning whether or not a study proves causation is integral to the article.
  3. I'm not worried about my credibility, and I'm not editing for peer recognition. What I write is logical and reasonable, and that's all I care about. Your statement was a bullying tactic. I will ask the same question: is there any rule against posting with an IP address instead of a former name?

--131.216.41.16 (talk) 02:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing you said speaks to my objections (except for the bit about Spain; I stand corrected on that point). Here is the problem we have (as I see it). You have a habit of begging questions and introducing implied commentary on every page that you touch, such as you’ve done on this page and do here: [8]. You seem to not notice when you are being extremely biased, such as when you were IronAngelAlice and tried to use an op-ed by a pro-abortion rights activist as warrant for edits [9]. You have a history of scheming to make your edits stick: [10]. So please, don’t talk to me about being “logical and reasonable.” The proof of that is in the pudding. Cordialities do not atone for POV pushing, and as cordial as you are trying to be, I am finding it nearly impossible to work with you.LCP (talk) 02:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that you have your own bias as you stated above. I commend you for being civil though. mirageinred (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not do the things you claim I do, and I strongly encourage everyone to visit the links LCP laid out.
LCP, please consider stopping your bullying and personal attacks.--131.216.41.16 (talk) 03:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be a bullying personal attack only if what I said were untrue and immaterial. However, the links speak for themselves. I would add to them the fact that you are at odds with normal Wikipedia policies and advice from administrators.[11] You have proven yourself to be an unamenable liability to Wikipedia. You have proven time and time again that you are a rogue editor whose only purpose on Wikipedia is to push your own pro-abortion agenda. In contrast, while I do have a bias, I have proven trustworthy by establishing good working relationships with my ideological opponents [12] as well as by publishing info contrary to my own ideological orientation[13]. It will be a great day for Wikipedia when you are finally banned. If you decide to respond to this note, please do not consider any future lack of response as tacit agreement. I will not be listening. I am posting this note just to close up a loose end.LCP (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Purging Campaign" Proves Extreme Bias of Article

I am posting a neutrality warning on this page due to a campaign to "purge" peer reviewed medical journal articles by editors who have decided that they know better than peer reviewers at medical journals about what is credible and not credible.

As just one example, to quote from Proposed clarification on who uses term PAS

In theory, I agree with you. However, the director of the Elliot Institute (David Reardon) is the author of a majority of the "studies" referenced in the wiki article. The question we should probably answer is - should we purge all references from the Elliot Institute and David Reardon?--131.216.41.16 00:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes why not? We can only use reliable, neutral sources here. Of course it might be different when we specifically say "pro-life organizations" or "proponents of PAS" claim that so and so are the symptoms. mirageinred 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Go for it. Though, I think we will have to be vigilant against Reardon studies sneaking back into the article. --131.216.41.16 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
In my view, openly discussing an effort to "purge" information from peer reviewed medical journals because one of the author's is pro-life (and therefore "biased" against the pro-choice POV of the editors) should itself be grounds for blocking these "editors" who are "viligent against Reardon studies sneaking back into the article."

These editors have mangled this article be purging the bulk of research published since 2000 and by turning it into a prolonged argument against PAS rather than allowing both sides to present their evidence in a neutral fashion. They even purged my note that Dr. Nada Stotland, who criticized PAS as a Myth ("University of Chicago") subsequently was unsettled by seeing a case of it in her own practice:

In a subseqeunt 1988 paper by Stotland, she describes her surprise at treating a patient who did experience severe delayed reaction to a prior abortion after a subsequent miscarriage.[11]

This article is far from being neutral as the discussion on this page shows. Removing the neutrality warning is a totally inappropriate effort to portray this very biased article as "fact." Given the contentious nature of this subject, the neutrality notice should not be removed just because the most active editors all share a POV and can "enforce" their POV by repeatedly purging information from peer reviewed journals just because they believe one of the most active researchers and co-authors in this field is biased. Strider12 (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Before you accuse editors of "purging" or "censoring," you may want to read Wikipedia:Civility. To maintain civility, users should abstain from
  • Rudeness
  • Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap")
  • Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice (cite as WP:SKILL)
  • Ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another (cite as WP:ICA)
  • Starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but..."
  • Lies
  • Calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel. Even if true, such remarks tend to aggravate rather than resolve a dispute. mirageinred (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed... Wikipedia functions by consensus, not by out-shouting everyone you perceive as your ideological opponent. This talk page is for discussing specific improvements to the article. Personal attacks and commentary on other editors, particularly your constant imputation of malicious motives, are not constructive approaches. I understand that you want to see David Reardon cited more often, but he's one researcher. He is cited, but many of your edits seek to give undue weight to his findings, which are not reflective of majority medical or scientific opinion. As far as your inclusion of Stotland's "epiphany", as you seek to portray it (complete with partisan website as source), what she actually wrote was, "There is the danger that the political, sociological context can overshadow a woman's authentic, multilayered emotional experience." You could consider quoting that sentiment, which is reflective of what she actually wrote, rather than inserting a partisan pro-life gloss of her article. MastCell Talk 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

All I did was quote their discussion of "purging" and "viligent" exclusion of peer reviewed studies that conflict with the biased views they are trying to convey in this article. Such "purging" attempts are not collaborative but dominating. The clear intent of these editors is to "improve" the article by elimnating evidence that peer reviewers have found credible just because some critics have complained about Reardon and the Elliot Institute. That is not a basis for excluding over 15 peer reviewed studies or the views of researchers involved in these studies.

Given the clear conflict over this issue, people should stop removing the Neutrality Challenge. Such attempts to hide the fact that there is a conflict over content reflect the attempts of a force their own "consensus" on all readers and editors.Strider12 (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It's very simple: state specifically what concrete changes you want to see in this article, instead of going on and on about bias, suppression, etc. This is the heart of our policy against personal attacks: Comment on content, not the contributor. Tagging an article because you disagree with it, without making a good-faith effort to state your specific objections and reach consensus, and instead attacking others editors of the page, does not warrant an NPOV tag.
I understand you believe David Reardon should be more prominently featured. But he is one researcher; and leaving aside questions about his objectivity and academic credentials, his findings are fairly isolated and idiosyncratic, and are controverted by a large volume of evidence and expert opinion. According to our policy on neutrality and undue weight, which you continually cite, views are to be represented here proportionally to their representation among experts in the field. There is a clear view among experts in the field that PAS does not exist. Reardon's dissenting view is noteworthy, but only in the context that it is a dissenting view and is not supported by the weight of evidence or expert opinion. But again, concrete examples of specific changes, not ceaseless accusations and assumptions of bad faith, or you're unlikely to get anywhere. MastCell Talk 20:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

When people stop purging the additional material I and others have posted which is cited to peer reviewed studies, and when I and others who are contributing have had time to replace or ad the material necessary to bring this article back into balance, THAT will be the time to remove the Neutrality dispute tag.

I have not attacked any editors. I have simply committed the sin of quoting them in their own discussions of their efforts to diligitently purge this article of over 22 peer reviewed studies that undermine their perspective that the mental health risks of abortion are neglible. Quoting someone accurately is not an attack. If deleting an editor's well cited contributions is an attack, then it is the purgers who are guilty of attacking other editors.Strider12 (talk) 04:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I wasn't clear. Please provide specific and concrete suggestions for improvement of the article rather than more rhetoric. MastCell Talk 23:39, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Should this be in Category:Pseudoscience?

I just discovered this article, and I was tempted to add Cat:Pseudoscience myself, but realised this is a controversial topic and decided to try to seek consensus here first. I believe this topic meets the criteria for that category, specifically 'fields of endeavor or bodies of knowledge that critics have characterized as being pseudoscientific or having pseudoscientific aspects' - even if the word 'pseudoscience' itself hasn't been used, it's clear from reading the articles opposed to this 'syndrome' that many people think of it along those lines. Ultimately, what we have here is a supposed 'syndrome' based on extremely sketchy and disputed evidence, which some claim exists, but is not recognised by any mainstream medical organisation. That sounds like pseudoscience to me; what does everyone else think? Terraxos (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the thing - categories aren't intended to present a controversial view of a source. They're intended to be solely for ease of browsing (spelled out in more detail at WP:CAT). Calling it "pseudoscience", particularly when no reliable source has used that specific term, is probably not appropriate for categories. If there were a category for "Disputed medical entities" or "Controversial medical syndromes", that might be more appropriate. Just my 2 cents. MastCell Talk 05:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Clean up of Wrong Inferences added Start of a Sequential History of this Debate

Phyesalis added some material under United States that was a bit redundant and confused in facts. I moved a few new quotes relatated to Koop, Stotland, and the APA positions to the sections already covering them. Also, Reardon had no studies published when the APA task force published its findings in 1990, so the inserted inference that this task force reviewed Reardon's studies and rejected them is simply wrong. PLEASE READ THE STUDIES YOU CITE AND QUOTE THEM ACCURATELY WITHOUT YOUR OWN INFERENCES AS THESE INFERENCES ARE FREQUENTLY WRONG!


The following is harder to deal with:

Soon after Koop’s refusal in 1987 to report on the health effects of abortion, the American Psychological Association appointed a panel to review the relevant medical literature. It dismissed research like Reardon’s, instead concluding that “well-designed studies” showed 76 percent of women reporting feelings of relief after abortion and 17 percent reporting guilt. “The weight of the evidence,” the panel wrote in a 1990 article in Science, indicates that a first-trimester abortion of an unwanted pregnancy “does not pose a psychological hazard for most women.”

There are inferences and time issues wrong here. Koop was asked to do the study in 1987. The APA panel was formed in 87 or 88 and gave their own internal report to Koop. In January of 89 Koop issued a letter to Reagan saying he could not issue a definitive report due to the lack of sufficiently impeccable studies available at that time. (He did not "refuse" the assignment but after review felt he could not fulfill it and stated that a prospective study would need to be done before an authorative report could be issued). The APA task force then distilled their own report to Koop (which Koop had seen but not endorsed) into a position paper that was published in Science.

I moved the 1987-1990 task force quote Phyesalis has supplied to it's own APA section in context with the task force's input to Koop. (Additional quotes from the Task Force could be added here, if desired.) I also reordered Rue, Koop, Stotland and the APA task force into a sequential order which may be helpful for future development as a way to chart the history of this debated issue. Strider12 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, perhaps you didn't check my source? It wasn't a study but a 10 pg retrospective on the debate in the NY Times. The article felt it important to contextualize Rue as an ally of Reardon, and Reardon's centrality to whole issue, I don't see how that's wrong. Just because this page has scant treatment of the political aspects of the "syndrome" doesn't mean the article is in error. It would be nice if you didn't shout at people in capital letters. Inside voices are much more pleasant, particularly when opening up a discussion. But thanks for moving the info you did like! As for the objection to "refuse", I'll have to go back and check. If the source says he refuses, and there is no cited disputation of this, I don't really see what the problem is. I specifically mentioned that he refused because he didn't feel that the pysch effects of abortion were a public health issue. It's not like I left it open to interpretation. Phyesalis (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

My upper case "shout" was about your inference that the APA task force had reviewed the Reardon studies. Nothing in Baezlon's article to support that and it could not possibly be true. You took quite a leap with your inferences there.

The link between Reardon and Rue is tenuous; they only co-authored a couple papers together in 2003 or 04. That Bazelon makes this "connection" and calls it an "alliance" that is simply her opinion for framing her agument and you should clarify is, as I have done, "Bazelon reports" says, asserts, or something of that nature...linking this "context" to the person asserting it rather than as a fact...unless you have a better citation from Reardon or Rue saying "we are allies." Similarly, Koop did not refuse because he didn't consider it a public health issue and he would certainly object to the verb "refuse." Instead of reading secondary sources (like Bazelon's analysis, which clearly is an attempt to advance her own thesis) it is best when possible to read the primary sources like Koop's letter and his tesimony to Congress. There are a number of sources where Koop has complained about the press taking his comments out of context.

I apologize for "shouting" as you are catching a bit of my frustration with a number of other editors who have inserted endless assertions that lack basis in the articles they cite and have been engaged in purging of properly cited material. This is a highly contentious issue and we all need to take care not to overstate what is reported in the literature or to assume, like Bazelon for example, that just because two people have been co-authors on a couple studies that they are "allies" now or were allies back in the early '80s when Rue first spoke to Congress.

Let's be careful out there...with our citations and inferences.Strider12 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're fundamentally wrong about sourcing. Primary sources, like Koop's letter, can be used only for basic descriptive purposes. Reliable secondary sources, like Bazelon's article, are necessary and appropriate to provide context for primary sources like Koop's letter or Reardon/Rue's relationship. Putting your own spin on the Koop stuff or Reardon/Rue is original research and not appropriate for Wikipedia. We rely on secondary sources like Bazelon's article to contextualize primary sources, rather than using our own interpretation. MastCell Talk 23:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

With a return of respect, primary sources are ALWAYS preferable if you want to report facts. Secondly, Bazelon's article is not a reliable source as it has been criticized by any number of pro-life authors for her biased selection of sources and misrepresentations. It is an advocacy piece. It is fine under Wiki standards to use this secondary source to raise the voice of relevent opinions/controversies addressed the author (in this example, Bazelon), but the editor should not only cite this secondary source but also phrase the content in the article as "Bazelon says:" so that what she says is properly reported as the statement of the "contextualizing" author and not an indisputable fact.

Simple example: It is a fact that "Bazelon says Reardon and Rue are allies." Her stating this however does not make it a fact that "Reardon and Rue are (or consider themselves) allies." Stating Bazelon's opinion/inference/allegation/criticism and attributing it to her adds context in the proper way, as the opinion of an author who has written on ths subject. Strider12 (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

While I don't object to attributing information to the article if it is introduced properly, I do see an issue with Strider's argument for primary sources. The problem, as I see it, with the argument for primary sources is the question of what constitutes a fact? Names, dates, numerical figures, anything strictly objective, sure a primary source is fine, but outside of that secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. Phyesalis (talk) 02:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

One should look to Koop's letter, for example, to confirm what he has actually said rather than to accept a summary statement by a second party, or perhaps even a phrase, which may be out of context. One should look at the APA task force paper (in Science) to find if there are any references to Reardon before assuming there are. One should look to the Bazelon article to see what evidence, if any, she gives for statements like "Rue,an ally of Reardon" and critically analyze if that is a fact--to which all parties will agree--or an assertion which should then be qualified by saying "Bazelon says 'Rue, an ally of Reardon.'"

The problem with this field is that it is highly controversial, and Bazelon's article is a good example of one which has facts sprinkled with inferences, theories, and posturing which promote a viewpoint that many of the subjects of that article would claim misrepresents their positions. I know, for example, that Rhonda Arias felt that Bazelon misrepresented herself and did not fairly represent Arias' work and motives. The tone of the article suggests that Reardon, Arias, Rue, Parker and others do not really care about women who have had abortions, even though all insist they do, but insinuates that she has connected the dots and proven that they are just exploiting their grief to advance an anti-abortion political agenda. She also does not even bother quoting a single statistic nor describe any of Reardon's studies in detail, she simply brings forth "experts" (whom she does not reveal have openly declared their own desire to oppose laws like informed consent and parental notice because they see abortion as a basic civil right, not a health issue) and tells readers that the experts have dismissed Reardon's studies and so should you. Do you think Reardon honestly feels that Bazelon fairly represented his work and views?

As noted by the editors of the Canadian Medical Journal, there is an obligation to seriously consider the findings of good studies, like the Reardon one, even if they go against previously, and strongly held beliefs, about abortion.

My point is that secondary sources, especially journalistic pieces like Bazelon's that are not peer reviewed, should be treated with caution, intepreted critically and carefully cited to clarify that this or that information pulled from the source was presented by the author, in this case Bazelon.

In theory, we are trying, so far with very little success, to create an encyclopedia article that is more objective than any other source out there. That doesn't mean it will not include subjective opinions, it should, but only such opinions that are properly attributed to the person whose opinions we are recording, like Bazelon, Koop, Stotland, Reardon, or others. If we can represent their opinions in ways where each would say, "That's a pretty accurate summary of my position," we have succeeded. If we characterize, extrapolate, or make inferences that undermine or belittle how one or the other of these person would portray their own postion or arguments, we have failed. So, while we can look to Bazelon's article to report HER opinion, we should not look to her article to report Reardon, Koop or Rue's opinions (none of whom she even interviewed) but should instead look to their own written documents for quotes which represent them in their own words. With such a contentious issue, I don't think we can aim for anything less.Strider12 (talk) 04:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The goal is not to present each party's view in their own words. Primary sources do that. This is an encyclopedia. The goal here is to contextualize the primary sources - not just to report Reardon's words, but to describe how they've been received, how much credibility they have, what role they play in the debate, etc. We can't do that without reliable secondary sources, of which Bazelon's article is one no matter how you try to spin it into an advocacy piece. Arguing "peer review" is a red herring here - Bazelon's piece was published in a highly respected newspaper with high editorial standards, which makes it a reliable source by Wikipedia's definition. MastCell Talk 04:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
There wouldn't even be an article without Reardon, but let's not mince words. Reardon is not good science. Hell, he's not even a scientist. He's an engineer who got a degree in bioethics from an online university. While he deserves his 15 minutes, there's no need to give him undue weight. Additionally, it is not our job as editors to do the judging but to rely on what other reliable secondary sources have to say on the subject. Bazelon constitutes a far more reliable source than primary sources, particularly because the piece is a retrospective it has a better perspective than immediate impressions of the primaries. Phyesalis (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, please read Wikipedia:Civility. Putting things in all caps do not explain your position very well. Also, stop replacing the NYT link with priests4life because it is a pro-life website. mirageinred 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

More of the same

Again there is a lot of material being inserted which is problematic. Here is a brief summary of some concerns:

  • One or two sentences from the conclusion of a single primary source (Fergusson's paper) are being juxtaposed as "strong criticism" of the APA, and being given even more weight than the APA's expert panel. Aside from the obvious WP:WEIGHT violation, Fergusson did not "strongly criticize" the APA. He and his coauthors noted, as would any responsible author, that their findings conflicted with those of the APA and offered some possible explanations. The idea that this is "strong criticism" exists only in partisan literature.
  • Making serious allegations against a living person requires better sourcing than an appendix of a pro-life book published by an obscure publisher.
  • Stotland's paper is again misused to give the appearance that she had a change of heart after realizing the true impact of abortion. This is simply not the case, as anyone objectively reading the paper or hearing her commentary in the 2007 PBS special could attest.
  • Again, Fergusson's paper is one paper. There have been dozens and dozens of papers published on this topic, as well as a number of reliable secondary-source evidence summaries from professional organizations. The insistence on highlighting a narrow interpretation of Fergusson's paper (not found in the original) violates WP:SYN, and the prominence given the paper over all other evidence violates WP:WEIGHT. These are not new problems, either.
  • I'm not sure why Strider12 de-wikilinked the Washington Times, but please be a little more careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. MastCell Talk 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Also, priestforlife is not a legitimate source. mirageinred 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources -- Wikipeida Policy re Reardon Studies

Wikipedia policy on reliable sources states that

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

1. From this it follows that all of the studies published in peer reviewed journals in which Reardon is lead or co-author should be treated as reliable sources and should be included in any "weighting of viewpoints." Editors in the purging campaign who have decided to eliminate peer reviewed articles simply because they are associated with Reardon are simply not justified in treating these works as unreliable.

2. As Reardon is clearly an established expert in this field, having published dozens of studies in peer reviewed journals, it follows that the material he publishes through the Elliot Institute must also be accepted as reliable (at least in reporting a view of some experts) as the policy provides also:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

In other words, the reliability of Reardon has been verified by numerous third-party peer reviewed journals. In addition, he is at the center of the controversy surrounding post-abortion mental health and his web sites include material related to this debate between scholars and the media. In a one word: "relevant."

3. Given the contentious nature of post-abortion issues and charges and counter charges that individual researchers, and reporters covering this issue, are or may be biased by their personal beliefs regarding abortion as a political issue in their discussion of abortion and mental health as a scientific issue....it follows that "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

In other words, the editors of this article should be careful to attribute any generalizations about the research or individuals (such as media characterizations of Reardon) to the individual authors who have published these views. We should not declare as a "fact" that research showing higher rates of psychiatric admissions following abortion (Reardon, CMAJ) are wrong. We should instead cite and name the person (such as Major) who criticizes the study and QUOTE her comments, not embellish her comments.

4. Given the fact that a number of editors who have openly discussed purging of at least 22 passages citing these reliable sources, in contradiction of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, I believe they have an obligation to put the purged material back into the body of this article.Strider12 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reardon is not an expert, he is an agenda driven pro-life activist. He was an engineer who got an online degree in Bioethics from a correspondence school. He is not respected by the greater academic community and this fact is well-documented. The Eliot Institute material should be considered as a self-published as Reardon started it and it has no reputation for fact checking. I've come in late on the purging debate but it seems that scientific information should come from the best sources possible. I think the material of his that was published in peer-review journals is fine, but remember, Reardon is the minority view, no reason to give him undue weight. Phyesalis (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Numerous editors on this article have openly advocated a "vigilent" "purging" of materials from David Reardon and the Elliot Institute. We need non-partisan input.

Reardon is an clearly expert in the field as verified by numerous peer reviewed journals. The statement that "he has no legitimacy in the scientific community" is simply false. At best one can cite a limited number of scientists (like Major, Russo and Stotland who are all on record as opposing abortion regulations) arguing that he overstates his evidence and is working to stop abortion. That does not constitute the views of "the scientific community" much less "scientific consensus." See the editors of the CMAJ's editorial Unwanted results: the ethics of controversial research

Consider also that Reardon has co-authored his studies with a half dozen or more other Ph.D.'s and M.D.'s who are part of the scientific community. Together with dozens of peer reviewers who have examined his work, they affirm that he is an expert.

Afterabortion.org material is the official website for the Elliot Institute, run by Reardon, and is a reputable source precisely because Wikipedia policy also provides that "self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." All this clearly applies to Reardon and the Elliot Institute.

It is certainly fair, however, to require that the TEXT of the article should include mention that what is presented is from Reardon or the Elliot Institute (if not attributed to Reardon on the web page) since they are both accused of bias, but the text should not repeatedly insert the accusation that they are accused of bias as that should be covered in a single place in the text.

Despite the open attempt of many editors to slant this article, editors should not PURGE information from experts, like Reardon, simply because other experts have accused them of bias and the former have returned the favor by accusing the latter as biased. Moreover, the fact that one group of experts proclaims that the other group is out of step with "the consensus" of scientists does not make it true...that is also just an assertion of "more think like me than you" which is untested and unprovable. Again, I don't mind you inserting that so and so says that this view is out of step with the views of most experts, but don't declare it as an objective fact.

Appeals to what "most scientists" think or to a fictional "consensus" are the weak arguments of those who lack hard facts to support their position. As Dr. Michael Crichton has noted:

..the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."Caltech Michelin Lecture

As a general rule, we should all agree to make sure that the information on both sides is attributed (in the text, not just the foontnotes) to the persons making the inferences, the accusations, or the generalizations. And PLEASE, PLEASE stop the purging campaign which unquestionably violates Wikipedia policy.Strider12 (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Strider12, your constant and unfounded accusations of bad faith and "PURGING" and your focus on other editors' perceived flaws makes it difficult or impossible to engage constructively with you. Please address, briefly and concisely, and one-by-one, the relevant changes you wish to see in the article without recourse to ad hominem attacks. Otherwise I'm not going to engage further with you. MastCell Talk 17:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

mirageinred and 131.216.41.16 have openly talked on this page about "purging", their word not mine, highly relevant peer reviewed material because they find it objectionable. I've tried to replace some of it, and it is deleted (purged) again. It is very civil to ask people to stop doing so and obviously I've given reasons and explanations ad nauseum and cited material and clarifications I have inserted continue to be deleted.

I've posted a request that the material purged should be replaced by 131.216.41.16, which may be an alias for other frequent posters on this page, and no one has done so.

Why don't we agree to leave "my" version of the article up as the starting point and then you can help moderate as others propose one by one the changes you would like to see? Why wouldn't that be a fair way to proceed?

Since I'm sure you will agree, I've posted my cleaned up version and look forward to discussing changes and improvments point by point with you and others.Strider12 (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As I've expressed at great length, your edits violate WP:BLP (in making serious and inflammatory charges about a living person with the flimsiest of sourcing) as well as a variety of other Wikipedia policies. Despite your certainty, I don't agree to use your version (which appears to have the support of no one, in addition to raising serious BLP and policy concerns) as a starting point. Rather, we should use the article as it stood for quite some time before you arrived as a starting point, and work through the changes you propose one by one. I'd like to solicit opinions from other recent editors of this page (e.g. User:Saranghae honey, User:Andrew c, and User:IronAngelAlice). I'm also going to solicit outside input from the Clinical Medicine WikiProject, to avoid this turning into a back-and-forth between the two of us. MastCell Talk 22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Strider12, please don't edit war. It is ok to make a bold edit, but if it gets reverted in good faith, there is no reason to put the controversial content back into the article. What you need to do is get talk page approval for the content. It seems like you are trying to do too much at once and it is hard for others to comment on everything. So, while this may take a little bit of time, here is what I suggest: find the one thing that you think is most wrong about this article. Say "I don't like X because Y." and go into detail about what specifically is problematic. Then, make a proposal, and explain how your proposal fixes the issues. This way, editors can know your specific problems, and then they can perhaps suggest a compromise solution that addresses your concerns, while also accommodating their concerns. I'm sure we can all work together, and build a consensus version. It may take some time, but it will be worth it to get a version of the article that everyone can agree with. So I agree with MastCell that we should stick with the longstanding version, and discuss incremental changes one by one here on talk. -Andrew c [talk] 22:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems clear that Reardon is not a reliable source. If he is an expert, he is an expert who went to an unaccredited online school, holds strong convictions and bias that influences his results and findings, and not "non-partisan" as Strider12 claims. Perhaps he deserves a sentence or two, but no more than this for the reasons I already mentioned. Strider12 must stop using the term "purging" and accuse other editors of engaging in a "purging campaign" and stop pushing his POV. As for the article in general, I wish it didn't have too much direct quotes. I guess studies are meant to be cited, but isn't it better writing to put them into easier and more concise terms? mirageinred (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors who openly discuss purging should not complain when other editors argue against purging campaigns. To quote Stalin: "Purging is civil. Complaints about purging will not be tolerated."

Read Wiki policy on reliable sources: peer reviewed studies are reliable. Moreover, every study Reardon has written is with other researchers. You are advocating blackballing of their research because Reardon happens to be co-author. Of the few dozen studies published on abortion and mental health in the last eight years, Reardon is a co-author of about a dozen. Blackballing these studies is a distortion of the weight of recent research in PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS.

Regarding major edits, this article needs them. When last I saw it several months ago, it wasn't terrible, but when I revisited it last month it had been mangled with POV that many have already criticized on this page. Most have no doubt given up trying to correct the distortions. If you really want a balanced article, you should be working to incorporate my contributions (which take quite a lot of work) instead of reverting them. If you bother to pay attention, I'm leaving in the arguments against PAS and causal connections. I just think the peer reviewed material on the other side of the question should not be purged.Strider12 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made a comment below on the fact that I think this article is regularly employing biased sources (I made that before I even saw this thread). However, I'm at a loss as to Mastcell's assertion that Strider is violating BLP. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
My BLP concern came from the portion of Strider12's edit which states that Vincent Rue was threatened with legal action by a specific person and forced to make some sort of amendement to his statement. The source for this allegation that he was pressured by a specific individual is an appendix to a pro-life book published by a highly obscure publisher (at least, one that I am not able to find information on despite a reasonable amount of searching). That is not a good enough source to make controversial claims that a living (presumably still living?) person threatened and pressured a researcher to amend his testimony or findings - that was my BLP concern. If this incident is to be included, it needs better sourcing. MastCell Talk 15:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and if you want people to believe you're editing and discussing matters in good faith, I've found it helpful not to compare them directly to Joseph Stalin. But I sense I'm banging my head against the wall here, since it's the umpteenth time I've mentioned the value of civility and avoiding personal attacks, to no demonstrable effect. MastCell Talk 15:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Good question, Evil Spartan. I was wondering the same.
Thanks for the clarification, MastCell. But once again you are setting yourself up to decide what publishers are reputable and which are not without any standard other than if it comes from a "pro-life book" and an "obscure publisher" so it is immediately suspect. While I cited the book because it is published, I would be glad to have a copy of the letter faxed to you. Would you like to have it notarized?
Are your really concerned about Vince Rue or are you trying to prevent readers from learning that the APA was heavy-handed in trying to stifle discussion of his proposed diagnosis of PAS way back in the early 80's?
What really makes me doubt your good faith, MastCell is that you have not joined me in saying that the previous "purges" - openly discussed by editors on this page - were wrong, a mistake, and an embarrassment to this project. Instead, you want me to pretend that this hasn't been a problem.
And while you are quick to cite Wiki policies, you have yet to agree that Wikipedia policy on reliable sources requires that the dozens of peer reviewed studies Reardon has been a co-author of should be included in this article.
I have made dozens of minor edits over the last month adding new material only to see it deleted with flimsy excuses. I learned long ago that when faced with bullying tactic, one should never back down but should stand up for one's rights. I've made real contributions to this article all cited to factual, peer reviewed articles and I will continue to insist that they be included and will continue to replace the material.
I am VERY open to you and others adding any other material you believe is necessary, but I will not accept or yield to purgers...or those who empathize with them...the right to delete well cited material. Nor will I agree to discussing mini-edits on a case by case basis with you to get your approval. I am a very busy professional with expertise in this field and a certainty that what I have written, and properly cited to source, is accurate and verified. I welcome collaboration but will resist obstruction. The last month has taught me much about Wikipedia obstructionist's tactis, and I won't play that game.--Strider12 (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

South Africa Study

The editor who added this study to the page is editorializing a bit. This is the actual text from the study:

The weight of evidence suggests that women who freely choose to terminate a pregnancy are unlikely to experience significant mental health risks, however some studies have documented psychological distress in the form of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression in the aftermath of termination. Choice of anaesthetic has been suggested as a determinant of outcome. This study compared the effects of local anaesthesia and intravenous sedation, administered for elective surgical termination, on outcomes of pain, cortisol, and psychological distress. METHODS: 155 women were recruited from a private abortion clinic and state hospital (mean age: 25.4 +/- 6.1 years) and assessed on various symptom domains, using both clinician-administered interviews and self-report measures just prior to termination, immediately post-procedure, and at 1 month and 3 months post-procedure. Morning salivary cortisol assays were collected prior to anaesthesia and termination. RESULTS: The group who received local anaesthetic demonstrated higher baseline cortisol levels (mean = 4.7 vs 0.2), more dissociative symptoms immediately post-termination (mean = 14.7 vs 7.3), and higher levels of pain before (mean = 4.9 vs 3.0) and during the procedure (mean = 8.0 vs 4.4). However, in the longer-term (1 and 3 months), there were no significant differences in pain, psychological outcomes (PTSD, depression, self-esteem, state anxiety), or disability between the groups. More than 65% of the variance in PTSD symptoms at 3 months could be explained by baseline PTSD symptom severity and disability, and post-termination dissociative symptoms. Of interest was the finding that pre-procedural cortisol levels were positively correlated with PTSD symptoms at both 1 and 3 months. CONCLUSION: High rates of PTSD characterise women who have undergone surgical abortions (almost one fifth of the sample meet criteria for PTSD), with women who receive local anaesthetic experiencing more severe acute reactions. The choice of anesthetic, however, does not appear to impact on longer-term psychiatric outcomes or functional status.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.41.16 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 4 December 2007

I just wanted to note that Under local anaesthesia, the woman receiving an abortion is awake. Under intravenous sedation, the woman is asleep. is incorrect. The study itself says "with many clinics now providing supplementary medication in the form of conscious/intravenous sedation (IS)". Please note the word conscious. IV sedation is not the same thing as general anesthesia (which does put you to sleep). I'm not trying to be rude, but please be more careful when editing wikipedia. If you are not an expert in the field, then please don't add your own interpretations. Always stick to the cited sources.-Andrew c [talk] 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that editors should not rely solely on the abstract of a paper. Unless the text clearly contradicts the abstract, it is likely that the contributing editor (as in my case) has read the complete paper and has described the results as discussed in the complete paper. Strider12 (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Editors should also not disregard the abstract, which summarizes the author's most salient points, and mine the text of the article for quotes which advance their agenda. This is covered in WP:OR and WP:SYN. MastCell Talk 17:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification Andrew. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 18:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Better Organization and NPOV introduction

This improved organization and introduction clarify that this article discuses two issues: (1) the controversy over whether mental health problems are caused or aggravated by abortion and (2) the actual research on this matter which feeds the controversy.

Please discuss proposed changes here so we can reach a consenus and work together to improve this article.Strider12 (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are edit warring. You simply cannot force your edits into the article. As I said above, make a proposal first, then see if there is consensus for your changes, not the other way around. Because you are edit warring, I cannot assume you are editing in good faith anymore, and I refuse to work with you any further. Please revert yourself, and make your proposals here if you want me to assume good faith and start working with you. I know this might sound dramatic, but I take edit warring seriously (and I refuse to engage in it). Therefore, I will not make myself party to this dispute if you continue to edit disruptively. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 15:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Read the article and you will see it is by no means a disruptive edit. It is very balanced. You will see I preserved virtually all of the material and reorganized it in a fashion that better addresses the purpose of the article which, as others have proposed months ago, should cover both the controversy and the science.

While I am all for consensus and collaboration, two people out of dozens who have contributed to this article does not define a consensus that one form or the other should be the basis from which we should start working together.

Also, see my page for a brief discussion of my expertise in this field. I have been a peer reviewer for medical journals for some of the key studies cited. Please read my proposed base article with a fresh and objective mind and I think you will agree that it is a good starting point to address any remaining issue. Strider12 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-adding content after it has been reverted in good faith is a form of disruptive editing called edit warring. Therefore, your edit of undoing my revert, regardless how much of an expert you claim to be in the field, was disruptive. On top of that, you re-inserted tons and tons of material that at least 4 or 5 editors have previously removed, which means you are editing against consensus (or at the very least, editing without consensus). Please see Talk:Post-abortion_syndrome#More_of_the_same. You have re-added content which MastCell has already specified was problematic. You aren't making simply incremental changes, but instead have taken just about all the controversial content from your previous edits and crammed it into one giant edit. Please slow down. All I'm asking is for you to stop reverting, and take the time to convinces us here on talk that each edit is reasonable, one by one. That way, we can all agree to improving the article. When there is a content dispute, one side cannot win by forcing their edits. I hope this explains why your editing is disruptive. I'd be glad to continue dialogging if you take the initiative to make proposals here on talk first and stop edit warring.-Andrew c [talk] 17:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


Mastcell, Sarangae honey, IronAngelAlice, myself and (to a certain extent) Andrew c, have all voiced our concerns with Strider12's edits or process. This would be all the other editors currently editing the article (not two people out of dozens). Discussions of edit warring came up around the 2nd. I haven't edited the page since then.
Personal assertions of expertise do not contradict WP policy. Notability is not a guarantee of legitimacy or respect. Just because Reardon is notable doesn't mean his opinion deserves a lot of weight. Strider's failure to respect multiple editors' requests is disruptive. This failure, when contextualized within certain facts (this is the only article Strider12 has edited, Strider12 acknowledges that he started editing to "fix" this article, his suggestion that his "expertise" as a peer reviewer should lend authority to minority views) suggests that Strider12 is personally vested in the subject. At this point it is difficult to credit him with good faith in light of his "single issue" editing and unwillingness to work with editors. However, Strider12 is a new member (Nov. 3 from what I can tell). I think it would be productive if Strider12 stepped back for a while, and took some time to edit other unrelated subjects to get a feel for things.
I have reverted the article per editorial consensus. Strider, you can't use assertions of "expertise" on your user page as a "discussion" of significant changes in an article. Changes need to be discussed in terms of policy and content on the talk page. If you respect the revert, step back for a while and start editing unrelated articles, I think it will create a little more good faith. You have clearly spent a lot of time and effort on PAS. It would be great if you could apply that effort to other (less controversial) articles. Phyesalis (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I notice that not a single one of you have made a good faith effort to discuss my edited page or to make changes to it as you see appropriate. The structure is clearly better and the introduction cleaner and less biased. The first sentence in the old version read that PAS "are terms used by opponents of abortion" which sounds whiney and accusatory right out of the gate, especially since the terms are also used by those, like Stotland, who argue that it is a myth. The terms are used widely with different meanings and are surrounded with controversy. That is one of the main points of the article...not to dismiss it as a odd, meaningless term used by a certain group of people.

My introduction explains the orign of the term and the APA's rejection of it, and the broader understanding of it to mean any emotional reaction to abortion and the scope of the article to address both this controversy and the research.

Let's discuss this opening paragraph. Does anyone really think it does not provide a better introduction? Sure it may be improved upon, but the previous intro stank and is overloaded with "opponents of abortion" phrases that imply a dismissal of a subject that we should actually want readers to read.

Mastcell asked me to submit mini-edits so we (how many, no one knows) can dispute each one endlessly about my concerns. But as I have already experienced, there are such strong feelings (arguably bias) on this topic that virtually ALL my minor edits reverted. Moreover, as shown, this article can benefit from reoganization which I have provided which can never be done as a "minor edit." It needs to be out there so everyone can see it.

There is absolutely no reason we cannot work, in good faith, from the other direction, beginning with the version I've posted which retains every fact in the prior versions. (If I missed anything, it was an oversight and encourage it to be added back in.)

Regardig Phyesalis's continued complaint regarding Reardon, see Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Peer Reviewed Journal = Reliable, therefore Reardon=Reliable (not just Notable). End of story. Also, every study published with Reardon has co-authors and none of you have found a way to dismiss all of their research and expertise. Purging these studies because Reardon is associated with them purges all those other researchers. That's fine if your pushing POV but not if you want to report facts from reliable sources.

I disagree there is consensus that my starting point version should hot be the starting point. People have reverted it immediately, apparently without even reading it as they refuse to discuss the changes. It hasn't even been left up for a couple of ourse, much less day or a week. I think there are many past contributors who would support my changes, but I'm convinced that many have been worn out and left the article in disgust because of the persistence the purgers. It is very tiring to insert reliable information and then have it purged with the shallow reasons offered through this long discussion page. I even had to struggle to get the Neutrality warning in place as some editors tried to remove that claiming "we have consensus that this is neutral."

IF you really want to work toward "consensus," as a sign of good faith why don't each of you seriously TRY to work with my version and see what can be done with it. Revert to this old version in a couple weeks if we can't build something better on this new structure, but give it a try. Otherwise all I hear from "consensus" claims is that a group of editors who have diligently slanted and scrubbed this article over the last year are still diligently working to keep out reliable material that goes against their thesis that "PAS is a myth" and abortion never hurts women.

So, instead of arguing about my lack of a "right" to interfere with this article by making a major edit of the structure, let's spend a couple weeks discussing if the structure and introduction and tweaking them to see if they do not actually provide a basis for real improvements. --Strider12 (talk) 22:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before - if you have info from his studies, and I mean the ones published in peer-review journals - go ahead. However, Reardon is the EXTREME minority in this case, it is the overwhelming lack of corroboration from the scientific community that makes his view minimal in terms of weight. He has published a few papers, he is not a respected expert. By reverting the article back 3 times in contradiction to what was discussed on the page is disruptive. Strider, I never said you didn't have the "right" to edit this page. But, per commonsense, I made some suggestions after other editors expressed their continued exasperation with your failure to work with consensus and stated that they were (justifiably) losing good faith. I am reverting this again, editors are still free to read the diff history. Your revert and subsequent discussion has not addressed a single issue brought up by 5 different editors. Before you revert, or reintroduce changes, please address the issues MastCell has with material that has been removed before and why you think it should be introduced (Andrew c has also asked that you address these issues, and I do too). Phyesalis (talk) 23:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

And I continue to be exasperated that none of you answer my questions nor have you bothered to identify anything that is wrong with my new base version, which is more neutral in presentation, tone, and better organized, retaining all of the points in the previous version.--Strider12 (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NPOV problems

As much as User:Strider12 might not be going about it the right way, he brings up a good point. This article is currently a hatchet job on the possibility of the syndrome. We cannot quote partisans sites like [14] or opinion/analysis pieces by pepole who openly support abortion like Emily Bazelon (see [15]) as neutral. Here is a copy of the first paragraph, before I made a minor change:

Post-abortion syndrome (PAS), post-traumatic abortion syndrome and abortion trauma syndrome, are terms used by opponents of abortion(1) to describe a proposed(2) diagnosis of psychopathological characteristics which are proposed(3) to occur in some(4) women following a induced abortion.
PAS is not a medically recognized syndrome(5). The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS(6). PAS is not included in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders DSM-IV-TR or ICD-10 list of psychiatric conditions(7). It has been argued that PAS is a myth created by opponents of abortion for political purposes.(8)

Within the space of 2 small paragraphs (5 sentences), the lead paragraph manages to emphasize fully 8 times that this phenomenon is either not common or mainly pushed by abortion opponents. This is not neutral, and the above paragraph is overkill. If we wish to emphasize the controversial status of the syndrome, that is one thing. To constantly say it over and over again is another.

The articles continues:

A number of studies have examined the relationship between abortion and depression or other negative psychological symptoms. While several studies have found an statistical association between abortion and depression, no academic study to date has established a causal relationship.

Yet more in the way of trying to show that this is a false phenomenon. The statistical relationships are greatly downplayed in favor of the there not being a causal relationship. The fact that there is a relationship is completely ignored. Similar types of correlations rarely receive such downplay (e.g., the correlation between watching TV and getting bad grades). Remember from WP:WEASEL: show the reader, don't tell them.

Some studies have indicated that women who have undergone abortion have experienced positive or no change to their mental health and well-being.

This is the very next paragraph, before any studies about the harmful effects are talks about. This article is about Post-abortion syndrome, not non-post-abortion syndrome. What's more, the article has patently false statements, such as Abortion is illegal in Spain, which makes one wonder about the quality of the research. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No question the article can be written better, organized better, and improved in terms of balance. At the same time, the fact is that while individual studies have supported a relationship, the weight of evidence (as interpreted by the medical community) is that this syndrome does not exist. I'm sensitive to the difference between SPOV and NPOV, but I'm not sure how we can address this topic in a way that conforms to WP:WEIGHT without making clear that opinion of the medical community is decidedly on one side. This is an issue that's far more politically controversial than medically controversial. That said, the intro is perhaps a bit heavy-handed and could be reworded.
The nature of the abortion debate is such that everyone has an opinion on it. The disqualifying factor in terms of reliability, then, shouldn't be whether an author is pro-choice or pro-life, but the level of editorial oversight and fact-checking of the venue in which they're published and its prominence. In that respect, the New York Times Magazine does very well, Washington Monthly perhaps a bit less well. MastCell Talk 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Evil Spartan, what is your opinion of the new introduction which I submitted which describes the source of the term PAS, the APA's rejection of it, the popular understanding, and the scope of this article? I feel it is much more balanced, but most of the editors here won't even discuss it.
Mast Cell, the WEIGHT argument is being misused here. You are weighing the claim of those who say there is consensus that it doesn't exist instead of just letting the studies themselves determine the weight. The number of studies published showing negative mental health effects associated with abortion clearly outnumber those that indicate it is benign. In nearly every study, about 20% of women will have negative reactions.
MastCell, what personal knowledge or reliable source do you have regarding the fact checking of the Times and Washington Monthly? And how does either publication check the opinions of their writers? Why does the opinion of these writers that Reardon is unreliable trump the opinions of peer reviewed medical journal editors and reviewers? Have you heard that the NY Times and Washington Monthly regularly editorialize in favor of abortion. You are quick to reject pro-life sources as biased but I have not heard you suggest even the slightest caution when it comes to embracing opinions from pro-choice sources as reliable facts.
As further discussed above, I have reverted to the version which offers a more appropriate introduction and better organization so that editors may try to improve an a more fleshed out piece. Let's try working with this new structure which provides a better opportunity to both distinguish issues of controversy and to show the studies which determine the weight.Strider12 (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Inferences Introducing Factual Errors

Saranghae honey's edits of the Norway entry compound factual errors regarding the study. The abstract describes that the psych measures were taken "at 10 days and six months." That means the researchers know only what was measured on those days. It does not mean, as Saranghae and other editors have written, that there was "higher anxiety scores for only ten days." The researchers don't know what the rates were on days 12, 15, or months 5, 24 or 48. They only know and report what the rates were on day 10, and (approximately) at six months. I'm reverting to the reorganized article.

I'd suggest that editors with limited experience in the literature should take greater care to use the exact terminology used in abstracts (which is exact for a reason), or better yet study the entire study before attempting to comment on it. As often as not, inferences will introduce misleading errors.--Strider12 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


Proper WEIGHT

MastCell has argued that certain material should be omitted because inclusion would throw off the "balance" of the article according to Wikipedia policy on WP:WEIGHT.

That policy provides, as an example, that just because a few people still believe in a flat earth an article on the planet earth need not contain an equal amount of material on flat earth theory.

In this case, where the weight of evidence lies is exactly the point of controversy. Koop said he couldn't tell because the studies were too poor. Much better studies in the last ten years are now shifting the weight toward acknowledgement that many women do experience post-abortion problems. Among these studies is the New Zealand study and that finding prompted Fergusson, who previously believed the argument that abortion was benign, to review the literature and conclude the APA was out of step with the literature. That in turn has prompted a new APA task force to review the last eighteen years of research.

So, it is premature, and presumptive, of MastCell to say the WEIGHT of evidence justifies exclusion or minimization of peer reviewed research finding mental health problems associated with abortion. I have over eight of these studies in my files, and if people would stop purging my contributions, I and others, can share them with you.

Moreover, one must be very cautious about accepting claims of consensus without evidence. MastCell, please look a the articles from Grimes, the APA task force, or any other which claims that the "consensus" of medical opinion is that abortion is benign. Do they cite any national (much less international) poll of physicians? No. They are citing themselves. I'm doubtful there has even been a poll of abortion providers on this question. So please find some data on what the majority view is of physicians before assuming it is what abortion proponents just claim it is.

Moreover, it is the WEIGHT of the studies, not the number of people who have opinions about them, which should matter most. So let us just put the studies forward and let the article's weight follow them. Strider12 (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Inexperienced canvasing

Some of you may be interested in this gem:

Hi, would you be willing to jump into the discussion page at post-abortion syndrome -- and bring some friends. A group of editors have openly discussed "viligent" "purging" of information from peer reviewed sources which support the "controversial" idea that women who have abortions may suffer subsequent emotional problems. Though I have lots of expertise in the area, the "abortion is benign crowd and anyone who disagrees is untrustworthy" are in a revert war with me. I need more voices in there to remind them that deleting peer reviewed material goes against Wikpedia policy. I'd appreciate you adding this post-abortion syndrome to your watch page and some periodic comments of support--Strider12 (talk) 04:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)Strider12 (talk) 03:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Found at: [16]

As I explained the the recipient of this canvas message, User:IdahoUD its not Strider's fault. More experienced editors usually confine these blatant canvas requests to trusted allies off-wiki.

Alas, in time Strider will learn how Wikipedia works, or he will inevitably be pushed off by veteran editors who already have learned how to more effectively push their own pet POV on Wikipedia. T (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh wow... But he's still a new editor so... Did you tell Strider12 that this is against the Wikipedia policy? mirageinred (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
T is being sarcastic. I did warn Strider12 and direct him toward the WP:CANVASS guideline, as did another editor (see User Talk:Strider12). MastCell Talk 17:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Is T being sarcastic? I certainly get lot's of pushy warnings from MastCell, clearly an experienced editor, and have seen how editors don't want to work together to include peer reveiwed ressearch but will intead work to exclude research that goes against their POV. THis is especially damaging in cases like this which are very controversial.

I'm putting back into this discussion page points of discussion which I have raised which were edited out even on the discussion page!--Strider12 (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Term used by opponents of abortion

The following is a long standing text. It points to the research done by the Boston Globe, NY Times, and Washington Monthly which concludes that the notion of PAS is a political and religious tactic, not a medical condition:

Post-abortion syndrome (PAS), post-traumatic abortion syndrome and abortion trauma syndrome, are terms used usually by opponents of abortion to describe a set of adverse psychopathological characteristics which are proposed to occur in women following a induced abortion.

The above statement is different from saying: "Abortion proponents have argued that PAS is a myth created by opponents of abortion for political purposes." In fact, C. Everett Koop is an opponent of abortion but is not of the professional opinion that PAS exists. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The lead paragraph acknowledges that it is primarily used by pro-lifers, but it doesn't need to be in the first sentence. mirageinred (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what the lead paragraph says is that "Abortion proponents" claim PAS is a myth. In fact, the medical community on the whole asserts that PAS is a myth. These two notions are completely different, and deserve different weight.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Your statement "the medical community on the whole asserts that PAS is a myth" is simply unverified. Nada Stotland's eighteen year old commentary claiming PAS is a "myth" hardly constitutes an empiricle statement regarding what the medical community on a whole believes. Please find statistics of a nationally representative poll of physicians before asserting as a fact what you believe the medical community believes on this controversial issue.--Strider12 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Abortion in Spain

Also, the study acknowledges that abortion in Spain is difficult to obtain, is illegal in most cases and comes with a stigma.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Read Abortion law, which says that Spain allows abortion except for on demand or socioeconomic factors. And we shouldn't have to explain every study that seems to teensy bit in favor with the pro-life view. The study didn't establish a causal relationship between abortion and adverse effects on women. Should we explain the abortion laws in Norway, Finland, and the United States? mirageinred (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not trying to explain. I'm just trying to offer as much information as possible. That way the reader can make up his/her mind.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
If the article says that "Abortion is illegal in Spain" then what would the reader think? And why just Spain? There are different abortion laws in US, Norway, Finland, and South Africa. If abortion laws in these countries are added to the article, then it suggests that the studies are biased and that they are influenced by views on abortion laws in those countries, which may have more liberal laws than Spain. While it is plausible that they are biased, we do not know for certain that they are. Speaking of this, it might be relevant to add abortion law in the see also section.mirageinred (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I think the relevant links are already in the template: abortion debate. mirageinred (talk) 22:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The authors (Social Work profs) of the Spanish article cited are making radical claims. For that reason, I simply thought it relevant to add information about the context of "abortion" in Spain. But if you don't want to include it, that's fine. I don't feel like belaboring the point. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright. mirageinred (talk) 22:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What studies?

Ok, before things get out of hand, let's all stop editing the article and come here to the talk page and discuss things. Oregon native, you want to include 2 more studies. Please explain why. MastCell and IronAngelAlice, you disagree with Oregon native, please explain why also. We can work together, but fighting over content in a live article is disruptive and unprofessional. If the in fighting continues, the article could become protected, or worse, any one of you could be blocked from editing. SO please, work out your differences here, and surely we can reach a compromise. Thanks-Andrew c [talk] 19:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My objections are pretty straightforward:
  1. These edits involve highlighting specific individual studies (and sub-findings of individual studies) out of context to the evidence base as a whole, violating the undue weight policy as well as constituting original synthesis.
  2. The existence of one of these studies is not demonstrated by the reference. This study does not appear in PubMed under any combination of search terms I could think of.
  3. The Finnish study is being misrepresented, and specific sub-findings decontextualized, to emphasize a supposedly high rate of suicide after abortion. This is in direct contradiction to the authors' findings, which emphasize confounding factors and clearly state that their study does not establish any sort of causality.
  4. In general, given the controversial nature of this article, major changes ought to be discussed here before being repeatedly inserted. MastCell Talk 19:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Your undue weight arguments are simply invalid. Let's please discuss in the section above "Proper WEIGHT" which has been ignored. I look forward to you providing empiracle evidence of where the WEIGHT lies, rather than just assertions from a few authors regarding their claims which, in essence simply assert "most experts agree with us."--Strider12 (talk) 20:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I also disagree with Oregon native. After looking at this edits, he uses peacock words ("an excellent study...") and puts some studies out of context. mirageinred (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
I also want to ask what "half suicide" means to Oregon native. mirageinred (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
What OregonNative added to the article is not sourced, or is cherry picked information taken out of context. As Mastcell and Sranghae said above.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
While I do sense a bit of POV pushing from Oregon native, the biggest issue for me is poor writing in general. mirageinred (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
While I can't even find what Oregon native tried to insert, instead of complaining about POV wording, why not keep the studies cited and clarify what he or she is trying to add in an NPOV fashion instead of just deleting it? Is this regarding Coleman's Journal of Youth and Adolescence (2006) article? Yes, it's a good study and I understand why many of you are looking for excuses to purge it. --Strider12 (talk) 20:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources -- Wikipeida Policy re Reardon Studies

We need non-partisan input.

This article deals with a controversial issue and controversial editing tactics which even included an open discussion of editors to "purge" the article of peer reviewed studies in which one of the co-authors has been criticized of being pro-life.

To make progress, we editors need to agree to follow Wikipedia policy on the definition of relialbe sources and identification of experts. In this regard, it is clear that the past efforts to exclude studies and works associated with Reardon are a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that the WEIGHT argument, discussed above, should not be used as an excuse to exclude peer reviewed studies.

Wikipedia policy on reliable sources states that

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

1. From this it follows that all of the studies published in peer reviewed journals in which Reardon is lead or co-author should be treated as reliable sources and should be included in any "weighting of viewpoints." Editors in the purging campaign who have decided to eliminate peer reviewed articles simply because they are associated with Reardon are simply not justified in treating these works as unreliable.

2. As Reardon is clearly an established expert in this field, having published dozens of studies in peer reviewed journals, it follows that the material he publishes through the Elliot Institute must also be accepted as reliable (at least in reporting a view of some experts) as the policy provides also:

Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

In other words, the reliability of Reardon has been verified by numerous third-party peer reviewed journals. In addition, he is at the center of the controversy surrounding post-abortion mental health and his web sites include material related to this debate between scholars and the media. In a one word: "relevant."

3. Given the contentious nature of post-abortion issues and charges and counter charges that individual researchers, and reporters covering this issue, are or may be biased by their personal beliefs regarding abortion as a political issue in their discussion of abortion and mental health as a scientific issue....it follows that "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text."

In other words, the editors of this article should be careful to attribute any generalizations about the research or individuals (such as media characterizations of Reardon) to the individual authors who have published these views. We should not declare as a "fact" that research showing higher rates of psychiatric admissions following abortion (Reardon, CMAJ) are wrong. We should instead cite and name the person (such as Major) who criticizes the study and QUOTE her comments, not embellish her comments.

4. Given the fact that a number of editors who have openly discussed purging of at least 22 passages citing these reliable sources, in contradiction of Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, I believe they have an obligation to put the purged material back into the body of this article.Strider12 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reardon is not an expert, he is an agenda driven pro-life activist. He was an engineer who got an online degree in Bioethics from a correspondence school. He is not respected by the greater academic community and this fact is well-documented. The Eliot Institute material should be considered as a self-published as Reardon started it and it has no reputation for fact checking. I've come in late on the purging debate but it seems that scientific information should come from the best sources possible. I think the material of his that was published in peer-review journals is fine, but remember, Reardon is the minority view, no reason to give him undue weight. Phyesalis (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
The claim that he is an "agenda driven pro-life activist" is an assertion, not a fact and it assumes that he cannot also be a good scientist and also assumes that all of his co-authors should be dismissed, even though they too are accepted by experts in peer reviewed journals. Also, your claim that Reardon represents a "minority view" is not supported by any empiracle evidence, but has only been supported by claims of abortion proponents that "most" experts disagree with him. Indeed, even the citations to a consensus that abortion doesn't have mental health impact refer to claims made in articles (APA 1989) nearly twenty years old, and all of Reardon's studies have been published in the last eight years. Also, if a minority view is a growing view based on recent research, then the argument to purge it for lack of WEIGHT is an argument to put a POV in the article that is weighted to old research rather than new researchStrider12 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia standards, Reardon is an clearly expert in the field as verified by numerous peer reviewed journals. The statement that "he has no legitimacy in the scientific community" is simply false. At best one can cite a limited number of scientists (like Major, Russo and Stotland who are all on record as opposing abortion regulations) arguing that he overstates his evidence and is working to stop abortion. That does not constitute the views of "the scientific community" much less "scientific consensus." See the editors of the CMAJ's editorial Unwanted results: the ethics of controversial research

Consider also that Reardon has co-authored his studies with a half dozen or more other Ph.D.'s and M.D.'s who are part of the scientific community. Together with dozens of peer reviewers who have examined his work, they affirm that he is an expert. Strider12 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Afterabortion.org material is the official website for the Elliot Institute, run by Reardon, and is a reputable source precisely because Wikipedia policy also provides that "self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." All this clearly applies to Reardon and the Elliot Institute.

It is certainly fair, however, to require that the TEXT of the article should include mention that what is presented is from Reardon or the Elliot Institute (if not attributed to Reardon on the web page) since they are both accused of bias, but the text should not repeatedly insert the accusation that they are accused of bias as that should be covered in a single place in the text.

Despite the open attempt of many editors to slant this article, editors should not PURGE information from experts, like Reardon, simply because other experts have accused them of bias and the former have returned the favor by accusing the latter as biased. Moreover, the fact that one group of experts proclaims that the other group is out of step with "the consensus" of scientists does not make it true...that is also just an assertion of "more think like me than you" which is untested and unprovable. Again, I don't mind you inserting that so and so says that this view is out of step with the views of most experts, but don't declare it as an objective fact.

Appeals to what "most scientists" think or to a fictional "consensus" are the weak arguments of those who lack hard facts to support their position. As Dr. Michael Crichton has noted:

..the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period."Caltech Michelin Lecture

As a general rule, we should all agree to make sure that the information on both sides is attributed (in the text, not just the foontnotes) to the persons making the inferences, the accusations, or the generalizations.

I'd really like to see MastCell, marginred, IronAngelAlice and those other editors who are generally trying to make sure this article reflects arguments related to the "abortion is benign" view to at least agree that we should all stop deleting any additions which cite peer reviewed articles. That doesn't mean that entries citing peer reviewed articles shouldn't be cleaned up for accuracy, or reorganized for clarity, but the general point and citation should not be deleted. Can we agree to this rather obvious principle?-- Strider12 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A rather obvious principle is not accusing other users of "purging" after receiving several warnings and inviting other users to this talk page to support your view. mirageinred (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Another obvious principle is that when editors have themselves described their effort to "purge" -- their words, not mine -- it is appropriate to raise concerns about this practice. Clearly, you and everyone else who claims to have a sincere interest in making this a good article should be able to agree that this past purging effort was wrong and that the principles outlined above should govern inclusion of all peer reviewed. --Strider12 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


Just by way of notification, I'm going to be shunning Strider12 until he shows some sign of being able to work within Wikipedia's policies. MastCell Talk 05:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the notice.
I guess it is easer to shun me than to answer my inconvenient questions regarding WEIGHT and reliable sources. Perhaps we should also shun MastCell until he agrees to work within Wikipedia policies as discussed above in "proper WEIGHT" and in this section regarding reliable sources and experts.
Isn't it sillly to accuse others of not abiding by Wikipedia policies if one is going to set Wikipedia policy on weight and reliable sources aside (or misapply them merely as catchphrases) for the purpose of excluding peer reviewed article and "weighting" and article in favor of a preferred POV?--Strider12 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that though Reardon has published in peer reviewed journals, his research has since been debunked by reexamining his methods. Reardon, Rue and Colemen culled their data, and reshaped it in order to come to a specfici conclusion they wanted. Their methods have been successfully refuted by others. Clinical studies have also consistently refuted their findings. Please read more about this on his page. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

If there was proof that Reardon had manufactured fake data, you would have an argument. But there is none, nor has this even been suggested. In fact, none of his studies have been "debunked." At best, data for a SINGLE one of his studies was reexamined by Russo who applied DIFFERENT selection criteria and different tests and concluded that with her new analysis no statistically significant differences remained. The validity of her own reanalysis was also challenged -- see all the letters in BMJ regarding these two studies. And in the CMAJ psych treatment study, Major does not dispute the findings but can only caution that they could be interpreted in a different way.
So all we have is that both sides fling arguments about methodological weaknesses and alternative explanations at each other?! This proves nothing except that there is ongoing controversy in this area and in the definitions of what constitutes reliable control samples. Your arguments that Reardon and others "cull" and "shape" their data are just that, arguments...arguments advanced by both non-experts and experts, such as Major, Russo, Adler, David, and Stotland who are vocal proponents of abortion, so hardly unbaised in their own right. Nor, as you imply, are these results "consistenly refuted" by other clinical studies. If they are, we should include both types of studies in this article so the facts can speak for themselves.
Why is is so hard to agree that every peer reviewed study has a place in this article, both those for and against the thesis that abortion may negatively impact women's mental health? --Strider12 (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
There are dozens, if not hundreds, of peer-reviewed works on the psychological effects of abortion. To include them all, simply because they're all peer-reviewed, would be unworkable. This is a tertiary source, not PubMed. Simply listing hundreds of journal articles does not give a useful or accurate overview of the state of knowledge in this area. There is actually very little medical or scientific controversy in this area at the moment; expert panels unanimously reject post-abortion syndrome as a medical diagnosis. The issue is certainly politically controversial, but that's not what you're edit-warring about. Insisting on citing a massive volume of journal articles is a fairly obvious attempt to obscure the consensus of expert bodies in the field that this "syndrome" does not exist. If the APA review which is underway reaches a new conclusion, then we'll update. But we are stuck, unable to improve this article, because we're going in circles about one editor's need to give undue weight to a handful of studies. MastCell Talk 20:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not personally advocating including them ALL, but if others want to include a study I will never remove it. If an editor thinks a study should be included, it should be included. I disagree with the policy of many that would delete studies that go against what an editor thinks the WEIGHT should be.--Strider12 (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You're oddly fixated on "deleting" studies. However, by adding and emphasizing carefully selected studies, you're actually asserting what you think WEIGHT should be. Since your emphasis does not line up with the emphasis accorded these studies by expert panels, I think your edits violate WP:WEIGHT. Your response is that I or other editors whom you perceive as "pro-abortion" should just add more studies "in favor" of abortion, but I don't find that a very satisfactory approach to accurately representing the state of the debate. MastCell Talk 23:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What panels are you talking about? Koop's letter in 1989? The APA team's Science article in 1989? Stotland's personal commentary in 1992? There have been no "panels" since 1989! These very dated references are cited multiple times (giving them undue weight) and treated as the final word, but there has been a bunch of better studies published since 1989 than published beforehand. I'm not the one fixated on deleting studies; I fixed on my objection that other editors repeatedly delete verifiable material because they perceive it as going against the "expert opinion" of a 1989 puff piece put together by APA's abortion advocacy sub-group (all of the authors on record as favoring unrestricted abortion rights and opposing informed consent and parental notice laws.) Fergusson, an honest pro-choice researcher, believed them, but then after doing his own research, the best to date, accused them of being biased, selective, and short-sighted.
I realize that you oppose the suggestion that post-1989 studies should be given any significant postion in this article because there are virtually no post-1989 studies to be added which dispute the view that abortion has significant mental health effects on at least a minority of women. The only two suggesting a benign effect have already been highlighted (disproportionatly) in this article and there isn't much more you can add. So I see why you object to being simply offered the opportunity to add any studies you like...because you don't have any! But that tells us something about where the weight of the research really lies. The only material "deniers" can really provide is the repeated assertions of people like Russo, Major, Stotland and Grimes (all adamant pro-choice advocates) that they are the experts and all other opinions should be dismissed. Do they have facts to support their conclusions...no, just the assertion that all the facts mustered on the other side are insufficient to prove a "causal" connection. In other words, they are moving the goal posts, just like opponents of global warming treaties insist (rightly) that there is no absolute, uncontestable proof that human activity is the sole or primary "cause" of global warming. Ruling out every other strained hypothesis is very difficult, but clearly the trend of evidence favors both global warming and post-abortion sequelae. (In the latter case, we have not only statistical evidence, but the self-reports of women who know what and why they have experienced emotional problems and the experience of licensed psychiatrists and psychologists who have verified and treated post-abortion sequelae. These are important points of evidence which support a causal interpretation.) --Strider12 (talk) 03:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Shunning? I didn't even know there was such a thing, but I would like to join MastCell. And I agree with his view that PAS is not medically controversial, but politically. mirageinred (talk) 21:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

J Soc Issues

I see that Strider12 inserted a reference to a special issue of J Soc Issues from 1992, suggesting that this be given WP:WEIGHT. I'm not sure I agree, and the sheer number of ellipses (...) in the mined quote is enough to raise eyebrows. However, on the topic, 1992 was awhile ago. It so happens that a more recent (2005) issue of J Soc Issues was devoted to political, scientific, and social controversy surrounding reproductive health as well. I've taken the liberty of updating the paragraph, for now, to reflect the findings published in that more recent issue of J Soc Issues, which has the benefit of being much more up-to-date as well as readily available in online abstract form and in most academic libraries (mine doesn't go back to 1992 for J Soc Issues). MastCell Talk 19:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, instead of simply adding material you feel a need to delete material. FYI, Wilmouth is pro-choice. The quote wasn't mined or slanted, it was ellipsed only to reduce it to his basic check list of points at issue. I only removed the lenghty examples he gave for each item on the checklist. I provided this quote as he clearly points out, what continues to be missing in this Wikipedia article -- due to repeated purging of material -- is that the evidence is clear that some number of women do have negative reactions but that the scope, scale, severity, etc need to be better evaluated. This article should reflect that and the efforts to evaluate the scope, scale, severity, etc. But no. Once again you prove that you are unwilling to work with me but must delete every contribution unless it is another denial of the mental health effects of abortion.
Also your decision to quote Russo, who is admantly and unabashedly a pro-choice advocate, is especially irksome since you have previously deleted the quotes she has made to reporters indicating that she is at least as "biased" as you accuse Reardon of being. No amount of evidence would ever convince her that abortion can compromise women's mental health.
For example, her quote to the Washington Times has been repeatedly deleted from this article: "To pro-choice advocates, mental health effects are not relevant to the legal context of arguments to restrict access to abortion." See Warren Throckmorton, a columnist for the Washington Times, January 21, 2005. Also, in January 2004, Russo told a science reporter from the Toledo Blade newspaper saying "As far as I'm concerned, whether or not an abortion creates psychological difficulties is not relevant...it means you give proper informed consent and you deal with it". (Jenni Laidman, Toledo Blade, January 22, 2004.) But even describing her as pro-choice is vorboten in this Wikipedia article while the censors continue to purge the studies and opinions of Rue, Colemen, Cougle, Reardon, Gissler and others, and even Wilmoth because he is less extreme in his pro-choice views then Russo. --Strider12 (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
P.S. -- Since 1989 is longer ago than 1992, and you now seem to agree that more recent work should be given weight, why don't we take out the repeated references to the Adler's 1989 Science article and Stotland's 1992 commentary...or at least reduce the reference to these articles to a single instance in this article rather than citing them half dozen times each, thus giving these old articles disproportionate weight? (I'm sure this suggestion will again be ignored, but it is worth making again so readers of the discussion page can better see how distorted WEIGHT arguments have been used to bias this article.)
If you can rephrase your comment in a reasonably civil and constructive manner, I will be happy to respond. MastCell Talk 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I am being civil and constructive. I also kept the quote you added from Russo, a pro-choice activist, and added the response to her charges...which you chose to introduce. Russo's comments do not serve as an update on Wilmouth statement which should also be retained. Neither represents the "official" view of the Journal or experts so it makes no sense to delete Wilmouth views as if Russo's trump his. Simply because Russo levels an attack at Reardon and Cougle does not make her objections the final word. Putting in only one side of an academic argument is POV pushing. Again, you'll notice that I always try to retain what you have added. --Strider12 (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
You added a link to BMJ Rapid Responses, which are essentially lightly moderated blog commentary. These are not particuarly reliable sources and little weight attaches to them. Tying to create the appearance of a robust scientific debate where none actually exists is POV-pushing. Look, you cited a special issue of J Soc Issues from 1992 as weighty and notable. I'm simply pointing out that a much more recent issue of the same journal tackled the same issues in 2005 - so why not cite that issue, which presumably takes into account the intervening 13 years of research? MastCell Talk 21:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Even a blog of an established expert or party in a dispute is acceptable as reliable and verifiable information. Weight must be attached to it since Russo, whom you quote, makes the argument that her study supercedes Reardon's and she mischaracterizes his study.
Obviously there is a robust scientific debate otherwise Russo would not have analyzed the NLSY -- using different criteria -- in order to dispute Reardon's findings. And obviously, Fergusson, a pro-choice advocate, has poured fuel on the debate. And the APA's new task force was formed to look further at the debate.
Your frivolous blanking of Wilmouth comments--an editors overview--and replacement with Russo's advocacy statement is obviously not acceptable. Your "let's use a more recent quote from the same journal" argument is not just lame, it is facetious. Russo is such a radical that she has said that the evidence accumulated over the last 13 years simply doesn't matter: "As far as I'm concerned, whether or not an abortion creates psychological difficulties is not relevant..." and "To pro-choice advocates, mental health effects are not relevant to the legal context of arguments to restrict access to abortion." But these are quotes you and the other POV-pushers continue to delete because "your experts" must remain untarnished while every expert who criticizes abortion must be labeled as a pro-life zealot, undermined, or better yet, purged.--Strider12 (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
If you find yourself able to phrase your objections in a civil and informed manner which respects the talk page guidelines, I'll be happy to respond. MastCell Talk 22:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of WEIGHT Argument

There are two broad components of weight: (1) the weight of facts (data points) as reported in peer reviewed literature, and (2) the weight of conclusions and inferences offered by experts as expressed either as part of the individual studies or through review articles or by committees.

In medical science, the trend is toward evidence based medicine which ranks the value or weight of studies based on objective criteria. Wikipedia's evidence based medicine article is pretty good, and in it you will see that the opinions of experts are the lowest ranked of all evidence regarding the benefits or risks of a medical treatment (in this case, abortion).

This low ranking for expert opinion reflects the experience of the medical profession that new research will often displace previously held beliefs, even widely held beliefs, about even non-controversial treatments, much less controversial ones. Moreover, it reflects what Michael Crichton, M.D., has rightly noted: "[T]he work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world."

I by no means oppose including expert opinions or consensus statements from Wikipedia articles. I do object to using these, especially selected statements which support a POV-push, as an argument for deleting verifiable information from peer reviewed studies which run counter to the POV of certain editors. Also, it is unreasonable to exclude mention of recent research from an article simply because it has not yet been included in pre-existing literature reviews.

It is absolutely absurd to continue to delete studies published since 2000 based on "consensus" statements made in 1989 and 1992 -- especially since these statements were made by parties who are clearly biased in favor of abortion and their overall conclusions "most women don't experience trauma" conceal the details even within their own reports that some women (perhaps even a very small number) do experience negative mental health effects associated with abortion.

Repeatedly citing the 1989 Adler et al article (misrepresneted as the view of the APA) and Stotland's 1992 commentary gives these pieces disproportionate weight. They should be cited and discussed only once. Furthermore, the repeated deletion of Stotland's subsequent admission that she had treated a patient who was traumatized by an abortion is also merely "blanking" -- a form of vandalism.

I continue to submit that the version here servers as a better structure for a more balanced article. --Strider12 (talk) 21:44, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion of material should stop

Deleting entire paragraphs of verifiable material should stop. It is evident that these deletions are entirely designed to "blank" this article of any material that does not conform to the POV that abortion is benign.

Readers are looking for a complete reference on this subject. All the material I and others are adding (much of which was purged months ago in an openly discussed campaign to purge this article to refelct a POV) is material that at least some readers are looking for.

If editors perceive that any material I have added is presented in a way that violates NPOV, please feel free to correct my wording. But that is not permission to delete the fact, study, quote or basic verifiable fact being presented.

This is supposed to be a collaboration, which requires respecting the material added by others and the right of others to add that material. While I may seek to clarify or NPOV the additions of others, you will notice that I take pains not to delete their contributions in their entireity. I hope other editors will show the same respect to my contributions.--Strider12 (talk) 23:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Inserting one's point of view should also stop. Indeed, readers are looking for a complete reference on this subject. However, I would qualify that by saying that are looking for a complete, medically accurate reference on this subject. Not a pro-life diatribe. Please be more precise on what you think was inappropriately deleted. Thank you for your consideration.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I think everything you deleted was inappropriate. If you believe any material added should be clarified, go for it, but do not delete it.

As noted, Fogel is more qualified than Stotland. Also, no one can level the charge that his views are biased by any pro-life/anti-abortion rhetoric. He is a realist, like Fergusson, who believes abortion produces both good and ill. If Fogel's expert opinion is to be culled, so should Stotland's. She has done no original research and has not even done abortions. And she subsequently appeard to have modified her prior view that abortion trauma is a myth when she finally did face a patient that

In part the argument of MastCell is that there is a consensus opinion that there are no mental health risks associated with abortion. But this view is not shared by other avowed pro-choice experts such as Fogel, Fergusson, Wilmouth, Zimmerman, DePuy, Dovitch and many others. Nor does this article adequately include the views of abortion critics like Reardon, Rue, Cougle, Coleman, Ney, Speckhard, Burke, and others.

This article should show the variety of experts on this subject. Instead, it has become little more than an ideological defense of the narrow thesis of Stotland, Russo, and the 1989 Adler review which claim that no attention or credence should be paid to any connections between abotion and mental health problems. This is an extreme thesis pushed for political reasons which is not broadly supported even among most pro-choice experts. --Strider12 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

RfC: Disagreement over the neutrality of post-abortion syndrome

{{RFCsoc | section=RfC: Disagreement over the neutrality of post-abortion syndrome !! reason=Disruptive reverting and disagreement between [[User:Strider12]] and other users who disagree with his POV !! time=18:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)}}

Strider12 is a new user. Like other new users, he has inadvertently broken Wikipedia policies such as WP:CANVASS.([17][18][19]) to push his POV. Since then, however, he continues to assert his preferred version, despite several instances of reversion by other editors. Strider12's conduct towards users who disagree with his/her POV has been hostile. ([20], calling editors "high school students or Planned Parenthood interns," [21] frequently using words such as "purging campaign" - see archive2 and his talk page) His edits have been reverted by other editors including me but he continues to revert and assert his own POV. This is an ongoing problem that has been going on for months. The dispute seems to center around WP:WEIGHT and using studies by pro-life researchers as a source. миражinred 18:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


  • The discussion of purging peer reviewed material was an open one, as seen in the archives of this discussion. The term "purging" was used by advocates of it. None of the three identified proponents of the opposing view have yet to disown or repudiate it. I continue to use the term "purge," which Saranghae honey/миражinred previously supported, in the hope that they will agree that the past purging campaign should be condemned and not continued under other names.
  • Inviting seven people to comment on the the objectivity of this article and distortions is not a violation of Canvassing policy.
  • I have not called anyone a "high school student or Planned Parenthood intern," certianly not any of the three editors described above. As seen on my own talk page, I only suggested that some of the material (some of which is longstanding and clearly incorrect) "appear to have been inserted by high school students or Planned Parenthood interns." A general comment such as this is hardly an attack on any particular editor. As far as I know, high schoolers and Planned Parenthood employees are not blocked from Wikipedia.
  • Repeatedly having many hours of work, with verifiable content presented in full keeping with NPOV polity, purged within minutes of posting with flimsy excuses that it goes against the "consensus" of a few editors who have already decided what the POV of this article should be, does make me testy. While I have not refrained from showing my displeasure with these bullying tactics, I have always remained civil.
  • The other editors listed have engaged in constant blanking of new verifiable material from peer reviewed journals and even pro-choice experts such as Fogel, Fergusson, Wilmouth and others. See their blanked opinions here.
  • I have not removed any of the verifiable content that others have provided. I have repeatedly called for collaboration to incorporate all verifiable information provided. But instead have simply faced constant blanking of verifiable material I provide because it goes against a POV favored by a small group of other editors. A review of the archived discussion pages will show many other editors who have complained of the bias and had their contributions reverted without adequate justification. My "sin" is that I have stuck it out and refused to be bullyed away as many others have been.
  • The reversion problem is caused by a small group of editors who refuse to accept any information into the article which contradicts their POV -- largely defined by dated references to a 1990 opinion of six APA scientists (Adler, Science) and a 1992 commentary by Nada Stotland (JAMA) to the effect that there are not significant psychological effects of abortion. These editors are seeking to impose these narrow sources on the article as the unimpeachable "Gospel" which should determine the weight / slant of this article. On the basis of these limited sources (plus the opinion pieces of a couple pro-choice journalists like Emily Bazelon) they are constantly insisting that they are entitled to exclused of contrary expert opinions of both pro-choice and pro-life experts and the exclusion of dozens of peer reviewed studies published since 1992. See my comments on weight here and here also.
  • A similar conflict with the same parties is occuring at David Reardon, one of the researchers who was purged from [post-abortion syndrome].
  • I welcome the input of other editors, especially those who may have no interest at all in abortion and post-abortion issues but are interested in policy issues such as WEIGHT, and the exclusion of verifiable peer reviewed studies. See my recommendation regarding NPOV policy here. --Strider12 (talk) 23:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
This is just after a quick look at the "canvassing" diffs: The section header "Editors needed to stifle purging of pro-life material" is certainly a canvassing violation, as it requests and promotes the point-of-view of the editor posting the notice. This is different from informing editors of an issue they might wish to comment on, which would look more like "I just wanted to let you know that a discussion concerning POV at this article is taking place, and you are welcome to comment on it." I'm sure I'll have more input once I read through the rest of this. Note that I've removed the headers for "Involved" and "Uninvolved" parties, as this isn't an arbcom case -- it's just a talk page, so anyone can comment pretty much anywhere, and it's not really proper to restrict people that way. Thanks. PS I also removed the "definition" stuff above that was struck out. It doesn't seem helpful. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I've been going through this article's history and seen this, showing Strider chose specific facts from a study while omitting others that would've countered the POV. The repeated citing of http://www.priestsforlife.org is blatant POV as this site clearly seeks to promote one viewpoint and it is reasonable to assume their information will be slanted (this can be seen from the domain name alone). The Scotland finding and subsequent inconsistency was sourced using this site, a (from what I can tell) anti-abortion site, whose stance is that the ability to choose to have an abortion is unfair because of the negative impact that women are not prepared for afterwards. The specific page that details Scotland's statements is not a reliable source, even if the general site itself were, because it is written from the POV that post-abortion syndrome is real; it interprets Scotland's statements as backpedaling, declaring that in her original report she was in-"denial", and it even draws the unwarranted conclusion from just these two reports by one person that "Post-abortion trauma is not a myth."
I've still got more history to look through but so far what I'm seeing, aside from the canvassing, is a choice of unreliable non-neutral sources by Strider, and selective use of potentially-neutral source material to support his POV. What I'm seeing is not incivility, but rather a misunderstanding of the rules and of the proper way to make neutral contributions. Strider should try to balance his/her contributions and be more self-vigilante in making sure he/she doesn't inadvertently support one POV over another. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The single time I used a link to www.priestsforlife.com was to link not information from priestsforlife but an archived copy of Surgeon General Koop's letter which was readily available there. That is not POV pushing...it is giving readers access to Koop's letter which is much cited in this article. I had not yet learned that it is a sin at Wikipedia to go near a website that has pro-life views. And you'll notice that the other editors did not seek out another source for a copy of Koop's letter, but chose to block any link to it.

Secondly, the citation to Stotland's second article is to her article Abortion: Social Context, Psychodynamic Implications" Am J Psychiatry, 155(7):964-967, 1998, not www.afterabortion.info. That an article on the latter site also references Stotland's article does not disqualify it from being included in a Wikipedia article.--Strider12 (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You could be right about the pristsforlife citation, but I wouldn't know at this point; I'd have to go back and check the history again. I'm not quite clear what you're saying about the Scotland citation -- but the link I posted was copied from an edit you made. I didn't just come up with that on my own. Also, you didn't answer all of the points I brought, and chose to just answer the two you could. You violated canvassing and you chose details from reports that suited your POV -- this still stands.
Nitpicking aside, from what I see, Strider, you have a clear POV that you so far have not been able to control. You're not here to improve the quality of the article or work with others towards balancing both sides. You're looking to steer this article in one clear direction in order to make sure your point-of-view is the one most prominently represented. You wanted an outside opinion, now you have one. I've never been a part of the abortion debate, here or anywhere else, and I've never edited this article. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:12, 2 Jan 2008 (UTC)
I apologize for canvassing. I was sincerely just looking for outside opinions from parties who understand reliable sources and weight who would support the validity of including material. Regarding selecting detals that suit my POV from studies, I believe I've selected details pertinent to the article. As mentioned elsewhere, if you or others think I missed a counterbalancing detail from the same article that should be included, please do include them. I'm not trying to cherry pick, but rather to bring forward verifiable facts that should be included. If somone thinks I mistakenly or purposefully missed something necessary to accuracy, the solution is to add that material not delete the facts I presented. That is good collaboration and a process that helps to promote NPOV.--Strider12 (talk) 16:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Strider12 has edited almost no articles besides David Reardon who supports the existence of PAS and post-abortion syndrome. His account may be a a single purpose account here to only advance his viewpoint. миражinred 20:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
He's definitely a single-purpose account; there is also a likely conflict of interest. Of course, single-purpose accounts are not inherently bad, or against policy; nor does a conflict of interest automatically disqualify someone from editing an article. However, when an editor with these characteristics evinces a complete unwillingness to work within Wikipedia's policies and instead tendentiously advances their outside agenda, there's a problem. MastCell Talk 22:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Please stop referring to me with masculine pronouns. It get's annoying. Thanks!--Strider12 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Intro Going Biased Again

See Evil Spartan's comments at the top of this discussion page. For a short time he had edits that at least reduced the number of denunciations of PAS included in the opening paragraphs of this article. But I see that all pretense of balance has once again been set aside with the heavily loaded second sentence which beats readers over the head that this is an article about something that is totally bogus -- in the minds of a handful of editors and pro-abortion newspaper columnists, at least.

"Primarily a term used by pro-life advocates,[2][3][4] PAS is not a medically recognized syndrome,[5] and neither the American Psychological Association nor American Psychiatric Association recognize it. Some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that PAS is a myth created by opponents of abortion for political purposes.[6][7][8]"

This sentence would be better reduced to

"PAS is not included in the DSM-V and is recognized by American Psychological Association nor American Psychiatric Association."

The fact that it is just a "proposed" diagnosis is covered in the first sentence.\

Also, the introductory statement "A number of researchers have concluded that abortion has positive or neutral effects on women's psychological well-being," is out of place. This is not an article about the mental health benefits of abortion, but about purported negative mental health effects. I have no problem with this statement being in the body of the article as part of the discussion of the controversy, but it is odd and out of place in the introduction. Similarly, the rush to dismiss statistical associations and assert that the causal link has not been established is also premature in the introduction. The only benefit of the introduction as it stands is that it quickly demonstrates the articles overall bias and will perhaps help to deter people truly interested in the subject from wasting their time with this propaganda piece.--68.92.249.175 (talk) 22:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you have some reasonable points; for instance, the information about positive or neutral effects of abortion is probably out of place in the lead and better mentioned in context in the body of the article. Also, rather than saying that "A number of researchers have concluded that abortion has positive or neutral effects...", it might be more accurate to summarize current medical/scientific opinion as holding that abortion can be a stressful life event, but does not cause any particular "syndrome" of psychological or physical ills. On the other hand, it should be immediately clear to the reader that a) this is not a medical diagnosis, b) it is explicitly rejected by authoritative expert bodies in the field at present, and c) the idea that abortion is harmful to women has been used/"exploited" by elements of the pro-life community. Those are important, notable, and well-documented aspects of the topic and therefore (per WP:LEAD) belong in the lead. There is much that could be done to improve this article; my hope is that as the recent high volume of tendentious editing dies down, there is more room to work on it. MastCell Talk 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


[Edit conflict]

A multitude of editors discussed and contributed to the current intro paragraph, as well as the discussion about the neutral or positive effects of abortion. Please see the archives:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Post-abortion_syndrome/Archive_2#Proposed_clarification_on_who_uses_term_PAS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Post-abortion_syndrome#Term_used_by_opponents_of_abortion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Post-abortion_syndrome#NPOV_problems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Post-abortion_syndrome/Archive_2#Better_Organization_and_NPOV_introduction
Unless you can bring new arguments and evidence, I don't think we need to change anything.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
After re-examining the intro paragraph, we can probably remove the following sentences because the basic ideas mentioned are included in a another part of the article:
A number of researchers have concluded that abortion has positive or neutral effects on women's psychological well-being. While some studies have shown a correlation between clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, or adverse effects on women's sexual functions and abortion, these correlations may be explained by preexisting social circumstances and emotional health.[9]
--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree the intro is heavy handed and needs substantial revision.--Strider12 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there! I've made a couple of changes - hope they are helpful! I've only read a few of the references and it appears that the safest approach is to quote the actual conclusion of a study rather than give an interpretation of the results. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that isn't at all what you did. You added loaded, repetitive verbiage. Can you give us the reasons for your change?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there again! - if you check carefully, you will see that I quoted directly from the conclusion of the report. If there is 'repetitive verbiage', the solution is to reduce what is repetitive rather than replace it. I also think that to use the raw numbers of suicides has the effect of giving an unbalanced picture of the situation - clearly, since more people who are pregnant give birth than abort, the raw number of suicides in the former group would be expected to be higher because the group is larger (all other things being equal). Giving the rate of suicide per 100,000 provides more meaningful information as it informs the reader of the article of the statistical basis for the conclusion (which I accurately quoted) that "the increased rate of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health." Why have you chosen to replace the actual conclusion of the study with a quotation giving just one possible interpretation of the results? I feel my change was an improvement to the article and if others agree I would hope that someone will change it back to my version. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I found Fish's edits to be quite balanced and pretty much taken directly from the sources. They should not have been reverted. This has gotten to the point where people are so quick to revert each other that they don't notice what they're reverting. Nothing can be changed right now, thought, as the page has been protected from editing. When some of this conflict has settled down, a request for unprotection can be made. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:34, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

Finland study

Sorry if I jumped the gun reverting Fishiehelper2's edit. With so many POV edits on this and other pages concerning abortion and science, I believe it best to first hash things out in the talk page.

At first glance, the edit FH's edit seemed to be repetitive and strange. The raw data can be meaningless out of context (or perhaps give the wrong meaning), and for those who are not familiar with this kind of statistical analysis or research, it can be confusing. The conclusion would therefore fit the summary and encyclopedic style of the article. Fishiehelper, would you explain why you think quoting statistical analysis is better than quoting the conclusion or results?

These are the last three paragraphs of the study:

Low social class and poor social support have been connected with risk factors for suicide after birth. The risk for postnatal depression is greater for women with low income or with occupational instability,20 21 and puerperal psychoses are more common among young mothers and women with poor social support.5 Social class has also been found to be associated with all mental disorders after an abortion.19 22 Data from the abortion register showed that women in the lowest social class were highly over-represented among women who committed suicide. We did not, however, have complete information on social class in our data. No control group for social class after birth and miscarriage and for the general population was available. In addition, the social class was based only on the mother's occupation.

The proportion of divorced women who commit suicide was more than double after an abortion and eight-fold after a birth, which suggests that low social support is associated with suicide. Similarly, in a Danish study, a fivefold rate in admissions to psychiatric hospitals after abortion was found for separated, divorced, or widowed women compared with that of other women.

The relation between suicide, mental disorders, life events, social class, and social support is a complex one.23 Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons. Increased risk for a suicide after an induced abortion can, besides indicating common risk factors for both, result from a negative effect of induced abortion on mental wellbeing. With our data, however, it was not possible to study the causality more carefully. Our data clearly show, however, that women who have experienced an abortion have an increased risk of suicide, which should be taken into account in the prevention of such deaths.

On a final note, since this is an article about Post-abortion syndrome, establishing causality vs. correlation is essential. In fact, it's a stretch for this study to be included in the post-abortion syndrome category because the purpose and the structure of the study was not to establish any kind of causation, let alone establish the existence of PAS. The purpose of the Finland study was to examine possible correlative indicators, and with those findings direct resources to curb suicide incidences in Finland (which has the highest rate of suicide in Europe next to Lithuania). I think we should keep the purpose of the study in mind when contextualizing the Finland study for this article. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the way forward is to include both the raw figures and also the rate per 100,000 these figures represent? As for the conclusion, I went for the conclusion in the introductory synopsis as it was a clear statement of the outcome of the research. I didn't add this study to the article but when I read it, it is clear that it is relevant to the discussion as it provides evidence of correlation between abortion and suicide (but, as we all know, correlation does not prove causation.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

War

Both sides of this might consider tweaking each others' contributions until you come to a compromise, rather than flat-out reverting entire edits. I've requested protection for this page. Please consider the way you handle this in the future. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:56, 4 Jan 2008 (UTC)

South Africa and Stotland Studies

Equazcion, thanks for the invitation to slow down. It is worthy to note, however, that it's been brought to Strider's attention by several editors that her edits to the South Africa and Stotland studies are not supported in the references or literature. Please see [22] and [23] and [24]

Strider has continually re-added her verbiage without consensus. I would like to request that the edits she has made to those sections be reverted by an administrator.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't see the point of the study. Wasn't the study about the type of anesthetics used during abortions? Is this relevant to PAS? миражinred 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
No, except insofar as it's being used as part of the WP:SYN efforts here. Pointing up the dangers of WP:SYN, the Wikipedia citation selectively quotes the article. For instance, the article found that anxiety and depression levels were lower after abortion than before, and that this was a common finding - but that particular point somehow didn't make the cut here. Additionally, the rate of PTSD after abortion is quoted somewhat out of context, whereas the actual study makes no comparison to what rate might be expected in women who had carried a (presumably unwanted) pregnancy to term. Without that sort of statistic, it's impossible to make even a poorly informed guess about whether "PAS" exists. The major problem is that the authors addressed an unrelated question - whether choice of anesthetic impacts the incidence of PTSD - yet portions of the study are being taken out of context here to advance an unrelated agenda. That's WP:SYN. MastCell Talk 01:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Goodness. Doesn't anyone ever bother to actually read the studies being cited?! Or is it considered fair to just reject findings because they disagree with your POV?

The South Africa study was conducted by the MRC Research Unit on Anxiety and Stress Disorders, specifically investigate PTSD symptoms relative to abortion and to test the theory that different anaesthetics might reduce traumatic reactions to abortion. To test this, they tested two methods of anesthetic and did pre- and post-abortion assessments of many psychological measures, especially using PTSD scales. They found significantly elevated rates of PTSD post-abortion, but their theory that one of the anesthetic choices would reduce PTSD rates post-abortions was proven false. Anesthetic cnoice had no significant effect on PTSD. As noted in my contribution to the article, the overall rate of PTSD among the sample rose from 11.4% to 18.2% three months after their abortions, a rise of 61%. The fact that there was relatively high rates of PTSD prior and higher rates afterwards is consistent with trauma theory which suggests that multiple exposures to different traumas increases the risk of PTSD. Many women, for example, were probably previously traumatized by sexual abuse. If these women also experience abortion as a trauma, those who did not previously have full blown PTSD may move into a full blown PTSD after the abortion. In many cases, there are MULTIPLE CAUSES for psychological disorders, and abortion may be a stressor that pushes someone from a stressed to overstressed state.

MastCell's comment that "anxiety and depression levels were lower after abortion than before, and that this was a common finding" has merit, but is less significant than she suggests. The fact is that a woman who has no prior anxiety or depression may become anxious and depress when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. In other words, it is very common to measure heightened of anxiety and depression level immediately before an abortion because women are in high stress over both the pregnancy and the surgery they are about to undergo. In this sense, abortion is likely to be an immediate stress reliever. But it can also be a stress causer. Immedieate relief may subseqeuntly be replaced with other anxieties and depression. The weakness of this and many studies is that they do not have PRE-PREGNANCY measures of anxiety and depression. So it is unclear, in this study, while anxiety and depression levels fell below the pre-abortion scores did they fall back to the "normal" the pre-pregnancy levels. Studies by Fergusson, Reardon, Cougle, Coleman and others indicate that they do not. Anxiety and depression levels may temporarily fall below the pregnant/pre-abortion measure but they remain significantly higher than the pre-pregnancy level and much higher than for women who carry to term.

Obviously, the fact that this South Africa study collected excellent data using PTSD scales pre- and post-abortion has a direct bearing on the PAS as a PTSD variant question and therefore the PTSD scales should be reported. I have no problem with MastCell wanting to include the findings regarding anxiety and depression, even without the explanation above (which would be original research), but cutting the PTSD results is clearly unwarranted. --Strider12 (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I read the study, or I wouldn't have noticed the cherry-picking, would I? Your argument consists of an attempt to use this study, which does not comment on "post-abortion syndrome", as supporting evidence for the existence of this entity. That is, quite simply, improper synthesis. MastCell Talk 06:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to Marginred and IronAngels comments. I appreciate that you read the study and commented on the anxiety and depression results.
It does not comment directly on "post-abortion syndrome" because virtually no one uses the term anymore. As you know, the term PAS was proposed by Rue to highlight cases of PTSD triggered by abortion trauma. Because it is not generally accepted, and even the claim that some women may experience abortion as a traumatic event is controversial, the term has become a hot button issue and is misunderstood in the public and general press to refer to any negative emotional reactions.
But you will note that the authors cite Rue's study of abortion associated PTSD in Russian and American women, commenting that the rates they found are even higher.
Clearly, any studies looking at PTSD symptoms, including Major's study finding 1.4% of abortion patients having PTSD attributable to abortion at two years, certainly qualify as being of importance to an article on either PAS as specifically defined by Rue or an article about abortion and mental health generally.
Perhaps you are getting at an important general issue: what is the scope of this article? Is this article to be strictly about about PAS (abortion associated PTSD), as defined by Rue, and the controversy surrounding that proposed diagnosis? Or is it to be about ALL abortion and mental health effects, including positive and benign effects? Right now, it seems wander between the two. And there one good reason to keep it more general is that in the public mind the term "post-abortion syndrome" has come to mean any puported negative reactions to abortion...not just traumatic reactions falling within the constellation of symptoms defined by PTSD. In fact, Stotland's commentary did not deny that there are any pscyhological effects of abortion, but was mostly aimed at denying traumatic effects. So clarifying trauma reactions from other reactions in the article would be quite helpful.
In either case, the South Africa study examining PSTD symptoms immediately before and subsequent to abortion is clearly a keeper as it bears directly on the question of whether or not PTSD is associated with induced abortion. And you will note, no where do insert an improper synthesis such as "They found PTSD symptoms which prove that post-abortion syndrome exists." I do not try to label it as PAS. I merely report what they report, the elevated rates of PTSD.--Strider12 (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Merely citing the study in the context it's used here, in an article on "post-abortion syndrome", advances a point. But I think your larger point is actually valid here - the article is more about abortion and mental health rather than "post-abortion syndrome" per se. There are two options. One is to better focus this article - there actually are sufficient secondary sources to write an article about post-abortion syndrome per se. The other is to broaden the article (and rename it) to deal with the larger issue of abortion and mental health. MastCell Talk 03:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I think you've really identified the issue, MastCell. My initial inclination is to go for a broadening of abortion and mental health. The issues of women's prior mental states and environmental conditions play a (one might say the) significant role in their post-abortion responses. It is this confounding intersection that makes PAS seem plausible. If we were able to situate the PAS info within an article with a broader scope, we could make it seem less about condemning PAS and more about providing the reader with a well contextualized article regarding actual medical facts about abortion and mental health. I also think that this might allow for more discussion of pre-existing conditions without editors feeling as if it were a POV push from either side. But I'm happy to go with consensus. Phyesalis (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I support moving to Abortion and mental health, mostly because I've had a nagging feeling for a long time that having the article titled Post-abortion Syndrome seems to lend credence to the idea that it is a documented syndrome with the full support of the medical community. Certainly PAS would be a major focus of the newly reorganized article, but we could then also discuss claims of positive benefits and claims of neutral status (effects result from circumstances, not the abortion itself) and not worry about getting out of scope. Kuronue | Talk 05:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The downside I see, given recent events, is that a move opens the door even more widely to individual editors selecting primary sources and advancing their own conclusions. So I'm in favor of a move, because I think it will improve the article to see "post-abortion syndrome" in the wider scope of what's known about abortion and mental health. But - and this is a major but - the broader article needs to be based on reliable secondary sources - that is, expert review articles, position statements of major medical organizations, and mainstream media pieces - with primary sources cited and interpreted within that context, as specified by WP:NOR. Otherwise it's just going to open up an even wider range of ridiculous "purging" accusations. MastCell Talk 19:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)