Talk:Abortion and mental health/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Article is poor

Wikipedia is a free, online encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a list of studies and quotations from studies. This article should be an encyclopedia article, not a list of journal articles. Because of the continuing issues with these sources, back in early January the article was revamped, with the idea of starting from the ground up and writing an encyclopedia entry, as opposed to listing and quoting various primary sources. So what progress has been made towards that end? Almost no progress. We now have another bloated section that extensively lists and quotes journal articles. The prose is very poor, the overall article flow does not exist, there is no sense of organization (not even chronological), etc. The idea of wikipedia is not to open up pubmed, and then write a summary of a study and add some quotes. That simply does not make an encyclopedia article. We need to use more prose, less quotes, we need more contexualization, we need a much better structuring. Perhaps the studies section could be used as sourcing to write such a section, but as it stands, it has no place in a wikipedia entry (if we are going by our MoS and what makes FAs). Seriously, who honestly thinks we have gone in the right direction since January 10th? What can we do to make this article on the path to being good? It seems like there has been too much infighting over what sources to mention and what to exclude that no one has given any thought to actual article structure and flow. -Andrew c [talk] 12:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts. I wasn't here back then so I didn't even think of it except, as I said above, that it doesn't appear to be in any kind of order. I had some other nitpicking thoughts about the overall structure that I was going to bring up later but you seem to be suggesting a thorough gutting and rebuilding. I was thinking "inside the box" even though it is often good to think "outside the box". Sbowers3 (talk) 13:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
How can we write an article when we can't even agree on what belongs in the article? I thought we were still on the phase where we decide what belongs in it. Kuronue | Talk 20:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Andrew c's comments about the current direction and status of the article, but I'm despairing of being able to address them in the current atmosphere. I do welcome the involvement of more editors, like Andrew, Sbowers, and Kuronue, since part of the problem has been a somewhat obsessive focus on certain unproductive aspects of the article-building process. One approach from here might be to compile a list of reliable, independent secondary sources upon which the article could be based. These would include major media coverage, summaries of the issue by major professional organizations, and perhaps major literature review articles. As a supplement, we could compile a handful of prominent partisan secondary sources - for example, Planned Parenthood, Guttmacher, or the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice on the pro-choice side and comparably prominent organizations on the pro-life side - to discuss how these participants in the abortion debate frame the issue. Primary sources - and by that I mean specific journal articles and studies - would fill in the blanks and provide supporting detail in the context of these secondary sources, rather than forming the basis of the article as they do now. This is my understanding of how Wikipedia articles are meant to be constructed. MastCell Talk 21:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
As Andrew c suggests let's think about article structure and flow. Can we first agree that we should not lead the reader to a conclusion that the relationship between abortion and mental health is negative, neutral, or positive? Whatever opinion each of us may have, there are reliable sources with contrary opinions. As a beginning reader in this area I'm not even sure that there is a majority view; there may be three significant minority views (neutral, negative, and inconclusive).
I've come up with only two ways to structure the article. I like having more options so maybe other editors can suggest alternatives. One way, which I do not like, is to have a section on each of the views. That will lead to controversy about the order of the views and the weight to assign to each one. It's also hard to cleanly separate the views because some sources can be both neutral and inconclusive, or even (conceivably) negative for some women and positive for other women. And it is probably appropriate to say something about the reaction from other scientists to a particular paper. So the "negative" section would end up with "anti-negative" comments, and so on.
The structure that I think can work is a chronological history of scientific thought about the subject. That structure lends itself to a narrative in prose rather than a list of unrelated papers. And it naturally introduces some context in the flow of paper, reaction, next paper. Well, that's the best I've come up with. I'll be interested to hear the reactions of other editors. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to reiterate, I think we need to be very careful about relying on primary sources/original papers. There is a strong drive to present the primary literature and then "summarize" its meaning for the reader. The entire structure of the article at present violates WP:SYN, and to make matters worse, the "summaries" are being produced by editors with a deep-seated investment in a specific POV. We have reliable secondary-source summaries of scientific thought on the matter, from Koop (in the 1980's), the APA, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the RCP among others. The APA and RCP are in the process of updating their reviews, which will make these sources even stronger. Please - the only way this article will ever progress out of its current state of POV-laden disaster zone is if we base it on reliable secondary sources rather than editorial summaries and spinning of the primary literature. MastCell Talk 06:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I see Koop, APA, and RCP in the article. I don't see the ACOG. Can you provide a reference? Sbowers3 (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Part of the reason for including so many opinions is because there are so many opinions from experts who reflect these opinion in the context of peer reviewed studies in which they BOTH reflect on previously published research and analyze new data. Plus, the new research and data is tending AWAY from what for many months were considered the "majority" view defined by key sources: the 1990 views profferd by the APA panel and Stotland's 1992 commentary.
For several months this article went through an upheaval that eliminated material which did not concord with those two, very dated, "key sources." I became involved after these edits had so seriously tilted this article toward the unsustainable view point that there is a clear consenus that there are no significant problems associated with abortion. I therefore tried to present a number of the dozens of authoratative sources indicating that the 1990 and 1992 views no longer define the "majority" opinion.
In fact, this is not a settled area of science or politics, therefore it clealy defies easy reduction to a 200 or even 2000 word summary. Therefore, I have previously proposed and continue to think that this article should be about BOTH the science and controversy and that it would be beneficial to organize the bulk of the material in a semi-structured history of the controversy, starting before Koop, with Rue's proposal for PAS, Koop's letter, the APA letter, Fogel, Stotland, Wilmoth, Russo's NLSY study, Reardon's studies, Brenda Major, Fergusson, etc. This would show the ebb and flow of the controversy and also the major figures involved in the research and debate. I'd suggest not being strictly time sequential, however, but would summarize each person's or organizations contributions under one listing for that person or organization. In covering the controversy, I'd suggest less of the detailed point/counterpoint in each section and suggest that we simply allow each parties views to be put forward with minimal point counterpoint and trust that their views will be balanced by the whole ebb and flow of the various key party's views.
In my view, "encyclopedic" does not necessarily mean brief. As you know, some entries of Encyclopedia Brittanica can be verrry long. There is no compelling reason not be thorough in reporting significant views and research on both sides of this issue.Strider12 (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We ought to keep in mind that there is no deadline. The article is better if it sticks to what sources have said rather than trying to get ahead of the curve by "updating" the old APA opinion with a bunch of new literature. The APA is coming out with a new statement soon, as is the RCP. These will account for new literature, including Fergusson et al. and Reardon, which will help us clarify who thinks what and where the weight of expert opinion lies. It is certainly not a settled area of science or politics, but that doesn't mean the article has to be a mess. We can briefly and accurately summarize the positions of various key players - experts in the field, as well as advocacy organizations - with very little fuss if we decide to focus on that rather than playing up whichever primary studies coincide with our viewpoints. MastCell Talk 19:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Facts are facts. Experts whose expertise is established by peer review and published in verifiable reliable sources offer us valuable material that qualifies for inclusion. Including new material from reliable sources is always justified. There is no Wikipedia policy that suggests we should wait on certain groups such as the APA and use only the sources and opinions reflected by that group.
What you continue to confuse is primary sources (lab notes, for example) versus primary studies (meaning important peer reviewed studies) which are reliable secondary sources because these PUBLISHED, PEER REVIEWED studies are no longer just primary sources (raw data and lab notes) they are offer peer reviewed analyses and interpretations.--Strider12 (talk) 18:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I have explained, ad nauseum, why I consider that your use of primary journal studies to advance your position and undermine that of reliable secondary sources violates WP:SYN et al. Since you continue reinserting the same edits every few days with no attempt to address these concerns (beyond capitalizing the words PEER REVIEW) or to seek dispute resolution, I have nothing to add at present. MastCell Talk 20:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Just because your explain your views ad nauseum does not make them universally accepted. Your explanations are not supported by Wikipedia policy nor have I seen other editors embracing your rules for excluding peer reviewed studies that you don't like. Please show GF in respecting the well sourced contributions of other editors. Also, please don't delete material across multiple sections of the article in one fell swoop where your explanation refrences just a single section as this tends to conceal the full extent of your deletions.--Strider12 (talk) 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Um... in response to a request for comment, a bunch of uninvolved editors showed up and basically unanimously thought that you were being disruptive, pushing a POV in violation of policy, and so forth. The fact that you've succeeded in wearing down or driving off these editors should not be taken as positive reinforcement. MastCell Talk 21:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That is not an accurate representation. Several editors agreed that my edits were in good faith and were being reverted without proper cause.--Strider12 (talk) 23:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Orderly edits

1. Please do not delete a series of several edits in one fell swoop. Doing so deprives multiple editors the chance to review, improve on and comment on the edits.

2. Please respect that it is disruptive to delete reliable, verifiable information that is presented in an NPOV fashion. If you believe it is unnecessary material, please discuss and develop a CONSENSUS for removal of the material. The presumption should favor inclusion rather than exclusion. It is not necessary to gain permission of all editors to include reliable material. GF editing however suggests that we should leave material in until we have developed a well reasoned consensus for removing it. Presumptively deleting well source material is not only disruptive and shows lack of GF toward the contributing editor, it also deprives other editors the chance to review and to build on the contributed material.--Strider12 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

You have yet again reinserted edits which are clearly disputed, making zero attempt to actually address the dispute but simply reinserting them again and again every few days, as if the dispute will magically vanish. That is disruptive. Now you've mixed a few potentially useful edits in with those and accused me for reverting them all. If you want to make progress, then don't try to slip your disputed edits in among a flurry of others. Right now you appear to be trying to game the system by doing so; additionally, you again offer zero constructive arguments or attempts to address the underlying content issue, instead relying on an old wikilawyering of an ArbCom decision. I again decline to be lectured on "good-faith editing" by an account with your history, though I would point out that the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. If you want to talk about good faith, try addressing my concerns instead of hoping I'll miss your edits or get tired after you reinsert them for the 9th time. MastCell Talk 21:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see WP:BRD. It is great to make bold edits. However, if an editor in good faith reverts your edit, it is NEVER appropriate to re-insert the controversial material. If you wait a week between adding it, it is still not ok. You have been slow edit warring for a long time, and there hasn't been nearly enough talk page discussion. If there are concerns about your edits, you need to come to talk and discuss them. Here is an idea: instead of trying to re-add the material, make a proposal about what you want to include, and go into detail on why you think we should include it. This should start a discussion. If there is consensus (or silent consensus) for your proposal, then you can add the content to the article. Regardless how you interpret policy, it is never ok to edit war to try to force controversial new material into an article (which you have been doing on a slow scale in the past, and which you have done multiple times today).-Andrew c [talk] 21:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Some disturbing tendencies are on display here. As a matter of Wikipedia policy, Strider12 must recognize that he does not WP:OWN the article and cannot insist that editors follow a specific protocol such as making their changes piecemeal. Insistence on doing so could be seen as disruptive. Also, he has misstated the burden of proof: policy is crystal clear that the person who wishes to add or reinsert material must be prepared to justify its neutrality and verifiability (see e.g., here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Here's the pattern. I add reliable and properly cited material. MastCell deletes it with an unconvincing argument, generally expressing some attack on my character and edits and his/her lack of GF in my sources. I respond explaining and documenting why the source is reliable. I wait for other editors to comment. No one does. As I believe MastCell's arguments are unconvincing and the material is clearly well cited to a reliable source, I put it back in. Then another deltion happens. Perhaps it would be helpful if other editors would participate in the discussion of what consitutes reliable sources.
I continue to believe that if I provide a citation to a reliable source, I have met my burden of showing that the material is reliable. If other editors want to delete it for any reason, they should SHOW a consensus of opinion to that effect from several editors, preferably from editors on both sides of the issue, instead of deleting the material ten minutes after it is posted. That would be both courteous and productive.--Strider12 (talk) 03:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this approach is that many thousands of articles are published in the literature each year, and it's easy to mine them for the few that support the perspective that one seeks to reinforce. In this way one can write an article that is based on reliable sources and yet gives undue weight to minority positions. Thus, the use of reliable sources is a necessary but not self-sufficient criterion for writing a credible and neutral article. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
There are not thousands of articles each year, or even each twenty years. At most there are four to six articles per year. I'd guess that there are only twenty or so that are of particular significance in effecting the views of experts in the field. And none of them support the 1992 claim by Stotland that there is "no evidence" of negative mental health effects.--Strider12 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The plea that "it would be helpful if other editors would participate in the discussion" is a bit much. Aside from Strider12's canvassing, a string of uninvolved editors have come through, have reached the conclusion that Strider12 is editing disruptively in service of a POV, and have largely been driven away by the noxious atmosphere engendered on these articles. The fact that I'm one of the last people standing after this 6-month-long stretch of unrelenting tendentiousness does not mean that I'm the only one who disagrees with Strider12's edits; I hope that's clear from recent comments and edits. As Raymond says, WP:V cannot be interpreted in a vacuum without reference to WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. MastCell Talk 05:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I have not been canvassing. The involvement of other editors began after your RfC.--Strider12 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It's also difficult to comment when one is a poor college student who doesn't have access to most of these articles in question. Whatever happened to using secondary sources like major newspapers - at least then everyone can READ the dang things, instead of just the privileged few who then dictate what they say for us common folk. Also, I'm sick to death of all this you-reverted-me-OMG!! you-readded-things-OMG!! bullshit. I don't care who did what, I just want this to stop so we can focus on the future. Kuronue | Talk 10:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Like you I don't have access to the full text of articles. That's one reason I think we should stick to what is in abstracts, which usually are available online. And there is a lot we "common folks" can do to improve this article. Thinking about how to restructure it is one good thing to do. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources should not be excluded simply because they are not free on the internet. If you question a source, the proper thing to do is to add an inline ((citecheck)) or the like indicating that you would like more information on the talk page or to encourage other editors with access to double check the source. In fact, there is little if any dispute about the factual accuracy of the content I have added. MastCell generally has access to the articles. The complaint is not that I am not factually accurate but that the facts do not support the slant that MastCell believes is required by the WEIGHT she places on the APA 1990 and Stotland 1992 articles, and the Baezlon and Mooney magazine articles.--Strider12 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reordered

I reordered the sections chronologically one step at a time so looking through the history it is easy to see each separate change. I encourage future editors to take similar small steps so that a diff will make it easy to see what changed. I temporarily reinserted then removed the Fogel section so that editors could read a history version to see what it looks like with that section in place.

Afterward, I did a diff of Strider12's version and the current version. Suddenly it was easy to see that the changes weren't all that big; they looked bigger than they were because several moves and some small changes were combined. Much of what she changed was noncontroversial. The rest was three small changes/additions and the reinsertion of Fogel. We might discuss each of these separately after things have cooled down a bit. Sbowers3 (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, if Fogel is included, then a link should be provided so people can go see the context. A link is here.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd support that, but the link should point out that it is to just an excerpt of the full article.--Strider12 (talk) 23:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Incidentally, that link also allows purchase of the full article for $3.95.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Opening paragraph

Why is it that the opening paragraph only supports one point of view. --WikiCats (talk) 13:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Without agreeing or disagreeing with your comment, could you please elaborate. What is the POV that you see? Is it just the opening paragraph or the entire opening section? Could you sketch out what you think it should say? I'm very interested in making this a good, NPOV article but I am still at the information-gathering stage. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I did a quick search of Google Books for "post-abortion." The search results are here. Many of these search results have what's called a “Limited Preview” where you can go directly and read pages of the books. Might I suggest that someone try to summarize what is said by the first ten or twenty books that provide these limited previews? That would seem to offer a neutral way to approach this whole issue.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
"Post-abortion syndrome" is a non-medical term whose use is limited to the pro-life movement. Summarizing books which use this phrase will skew the article (a brief glance at the Google books shows that the first page, at least, is largely made up of partisan literature). There are numerous independent, reliable secondary-source summaries on the topic of abortion and mental health; these should form the basis for both the lead and the article. MastCell Talk 20:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
The search term was "post-abortion." The first “Limited Preview” at Google Books for the search term “post-abortion” is from “Feminist Perspectives on Social Work and Human Sexuality” (obviously not a pro-life source). The second “Limited Preview” is from “Post-abortion Aftermath: A Comprehensive Consideration.” The third "limited Preview" is from “The Abortion Question” by Hyman Rodman et al. (all authors “are in favor of maintaining the legality of abortion”). So, clearly the search term is not biased. However, please feel free to suggest a different search term. The main point is that there will never be any consensus about what should be included in this article as long as people insist on referring exclusively to particular studies. Some kind of overview is also needed, and I have tried to suggest a way to obtain such an overview.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree that referring exclusively or primarily to specific studies is a road to nowhere. There are actually already plenty of solid independent, reliable secondary sources to write an overview - position statements from the APA, RCP, and ACOG, review articles, mainstream media coverage - as well as good sources for more partisan viewpoints should we choose to include them. MastCell Talk 02:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
WikiCats, the intro currently presents information on both sides (I say this as a reader, not a writer, of the introduction). Like Sbowers3, I'm wondering if you can elaborate on what you see as the problem? Antelantalk 17:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I see already that the first sentence has been changed to something more neutral.

The problems:

  • The article has been tagged totally disputed since January.
  • All the references in the first section except possibly #3 support the "no connection between abortion and mental health" POV. (The link to ref #3 does not work)
  • In the second sentence the correlation between abortion and negative psychological effects is immediately qualified with a disclaimer and three references. --WikiCats (talk) 11:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Do you think that this version (current as of now) is closer to NPOV? (Ref #3 works in that version.) If you think it is closer do you think it is still somewhat tilted? Sbowers3 (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Instead of edit warring, could we please discuss here? Instead of tweaking the opening sentence how about something like this:

The relationship between abortion and mental health is inconclusive - some studies indicate no correlation, while others show a range of harmful effects.

I had intended to leave the lead section 'til later because I think it should be a summary of the rest of the article - and the rest of the article needs a major reorg, but with a mini - edit war in progress, let's discuss it now. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


I'm OK with that. It's neutral prose. --121.208.130.219 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article currently says, "The relationship between abortion and mental health is an area of political and scientific controversy." I support leaving it that way. It's clearly an accurate statement, and Mastcell has agreed.[1] Other editors have agreed too.[2] I don't see why we should spend any time discussing it further, unless OrangeMarlin raises objections here at the talk page, which he rarely does. A press release from the highest psychiatric body in the UK said earlier this month, "studies identify a range of mental disorders following abortion."[3] This amply supports the first sentence of this article, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the current one better, really - it's more concrete and definitive. Instead of "well, it's sort of like this, but we're not entirely sure", it says, "people are fighting over this!", you know? It says something about the topic instead of being wishy-washy. Kuronue | Talk 01:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I prefer opening with something about the existence of political and scientific controversy - it's common ground, and really the most salient aspect of the issue at present is the degree of controversy surrounding it. This also sets the stage for a statement about conflicting research etc. MastCell Talk 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Then the opening could be:

The relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political and scientific controversy. Some studies indicate no correlation, while others show a range of harmful effects. --WikiCats (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)--

As has been pointed out, we shouldn't bold "abortion and mental health". See Wikipedia:MoS#First sentences: If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface. We are arguing that "abortion and mental health" isn't a title, but instead a description or a topic. "abortion and mental health" presumably is short of something like "the debate concerning the effect of abortion on mental health", instead of being an inseparable title phrase. This is shown in that the phrase can be reversed to "mental health and abortion" and still make sense. We could also phrase the title differently. There is not one specific title for this topic, and therefore our choice of wording is merely a description of the topic. That said, I'd be glad to hear arguments to the contrary if you still think we need to bold the phrase. -Andrew c [talk] 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

You've lost the point Andrew. This is not a debate about bolding. It is about the lead sentence.

My proposal is that the opening could be:

The relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political and scientific controversy. Some studies indicate no correlation, while others show a range of harmful effects. --WikiCats (talk) 23:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

{edit conflict}In a brief amount of time, there were four different edits made by four different users concerning the bolding. Since there was 3 reverts made, I'd go as far to say that there was some minor edit warring going on. Since your proposed text included the bolding, I thought, if there were still any outstanding issues concerning the bolding, we should air them here on talk to avoid furthering the edit war. I see you have removed the bolding from your proposal, so I'll take that to mean you no longer want to include the bolding that you once added to the live article. I apologize if I strayed from the topic, but I hope you can see how I prefer discussion over looming edit wars. If there are not any more concerns regarding the bolding, we can consider the matter settled and move on! -Andrew c [talk] 00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
WikiCats, is your proposal a replacement for the entire opening paragraph? for part of the paragraph? for the entire lead section? Sbowers3 (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit break

I'd suggest the following which draws on Wilmoth, Coleman, and the APA 1990 statement.

The relationship between abortion and mental health has been a subject of significant political and scientific controversy. [1][2][3] While emotional distress following an abortion is common, psychological illness is less common. Most experts agree that some minority of women do have significant negative emotional reactions related to abortion, but the incidence rate, severity, and causes are not fully understood.[4][5] [6]

All sources agree "some" women have severe reactions, though it is unclear if the reactions are aggravated prior problems or new ones. That abortion is a "marker" for higher rates of emotional problems is no longer in dispute.--Strider12 (talk) 04:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Is emotional distress "common"? What does "common" mean in this context? What is "emotional distress"? This is both vague and misrepresentative; after all, the APA panel wrote in Science that "After first-trimester abortion, women most frequently report feeling relief and happiness... 2 weeks after first-trimester abortions, 76% of women reported feeling relief, while the most common negative emotion, guilt, was reported by only 17%. Negative emotions reflecting internal concerns, such as loss, or social concerns, such as social disapproval, typically are not experienced as strongly as positive emotions after abortion." We don't say in the lead that "While relief and happiness after abortion are common..." (nor should we, but you see where I'm going). The proposed text does not accurately represent its source, at least insofar as the APA report in Science is concerned. MastCell Talk 05:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, emotion distress is common. See for exaample Söderberg, H., Janzon, L., & Sjöberg, N-O. (1998). Emotional distress following induced abortion: A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmo, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 79:173-178. Soderberg studied 854 women at the time of their abortions and one year after and found that approximately 60 percent of the women had experienced some level of emotional distress from their abortions and in 30% of the cases the reactions were classified as "severe." As you know, this study has been repeatedly cut from the article because her findings and conclusions don't comport with the "tone" of the article favored by a number of editors. In fact, however, over 50% distress rates are reported frequently in the literature and even acknowledged by Russo, Major and Stotland with the distinction that, to paraphrase, "occassional sadness is not the same as clinical depression" which is of course true.
It is by no means a controversial statement that to say that distress is common. Indeed, it is a compassionate statement, and one needed in this article, to reassure women who are feeling distress who look this article up that they are not "crazy" for feeling distress, while also reminding them that just because they feel some distress, grief, or even depression, that such feelings are normal and do not necessarily mean they are pscychologically ill.
Part of the problem is an over reliance on trying to make the article fit an 18 year old report and even in that trying to overslant the article to deny the validity of concerns about abortion and mental health in ways that even exceed the carefully read statements of the APA and Stotland. Even Stotland's commentary cites Lask and Belsey incicating that there are at least 11% of women who have significant negative reactions...but as you know that information continues to get cut in preference for other statements of Stotland's which are really directed toward a denial that there is a unique mental health problem associated with abortion...not a denial that there ANY mental health problems associated with abortion.
While I don't think there is adequate evidence to assert that "happiness" is common after an abortion, there is certainly evidence that "relief" is common and have no objection to that being stated provided it is not overstated as if "relief" is the only measure that counts. In fact, the evidence indicates that feelings of relief are common, especially in the short term (first hours and few weeks) but also that feelings of relief decline in time and that negative feelings increase over time. But I don't expect these latter points to be spelled out in an introduction.--Strider12
I think the issue, again, is selective citation of specific studies. Soderberg's is one study, and it should be mentioned in the article, but citing it in the lead as proof that "emotional distress is common" after abortion is incomplete, at best. It leaves out a great deal of contradictory or contextual evidence. For example, Ashok et al. (PMID 16026402) wrote: "Reactions to abortion, such as guilt, sense of loss, sadness, grief, regret, and reduced self-esteem, are usually mild and self-limiting. Furthermore, the majority of women do not regret their decision and do not consider abortion as a negative experience." Interestingly, they found that 47.5% of women in their cohort had significant anxiety and/or depression prior to abortion, and that rates of both declined significantly afterward. They noted that "Overall, 10% of patients have a negative response following termination, whereas a positive reaction and feeling of relief has been found to be the predominant emotional reaction." These findings do not support the claim that "emotional distress is common after abortion." If I were to cite this study in isolation, I could just as easily write in the lead that "Emotional distress is common in women seeking abortion, and improves following the procedure."
I'm not proposing we do this sort of cherry-picking, anymore than I support cherry-picking Soderberg's study in the lead. I think this is all covered under the rubric of "conflicting evidence", "unsettled", "controversy", etc, as supported by the major secondary sources. Let's not try to get the wording of our favorite study enshrined in the lead while ignoring evidence to the contrary. MastCell Talk 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop accusing me of cherry-picking. ALL experts agree negative feelings are common. Stotland's JAMA commentary (page 2078, paragraph 5) states "Abortion, whether spontaneous or induced, entails loss. Both regret and loss result in sadness. The word 'depression,' which is both a common term for a feeling of sadness and a technical term for a psychiatric disorder can be especially confusing. A symptom or a feeling is not equivalent to a disease." Note, Stotland's admission that all abortions involve loss and all loss is associated with feelings regret and sadness is not that far from Fogel's conclusion that all abortion involve the loss of a "life force" that has some impact on a woman's conscience and emotions. Their emphasis is different, but fundamentally both agree that abortion is not an emotional non-event.
Acknowledging that negative feelings are common is not "cherry picking." It is simply true and universally acknowledged by all experts in the field. In regard to your points, I have agreed that acknowledging that many women experience relief is also true. The simple fact is that many women will simultaneously feel both relief and sadness, or depression, or guilt or other negative reactions. (See Brenda Major's 2000 study and that or Rue.) Acknowledging the complexity of reactions (which Stotland does in her case study, which you repeatedly have deleted) is appropriate and supported by all the literature.--Strider12 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hold on, Strider12. MastCell did NOT accuse you of cherry-picking. She gave an example of how she could cherry-pick an article to support a particular POV and then said she did not propose to do that kind of thing. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
This is emblematic of the problem we're facing here. "Emotional distress after abortion is common" has one meaning. "Overall, 10% of patients have a negative response following termination, whereas a positive reaction and feeling of relief has been found to be the predominant emotional reaction" has another meaning. These are both quotes from individual peer-reviewed studies. Someone reading either sentence in isolation would get a one-sided perspective. Yet there is an insistence on citing only one side of the conflicting evidence, then leveling all sorts of accusations ("purging", "disruption", "blanking", etc) against anyone who would address it. If editors simply sought to "acknowledge the complexity of reactions", I doubt there would be any serious objection, but that is not what's going on here at all. MastCell Talk 21:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC) On second thought, it's probably better for me not to respond here to avoid yet another round of interpersonal dispute.