Letters to the Editor
-
Post-Abortion depression?
or "i was raped and had to have an abortion" depression?
"my husband and i already have three kids and we can't afford another one" depression?
"my boyfriend ran out on me and my family won't speak to me--i have no support" depression?
"my baby had a horrible genetic defect and i chose to abort" depression?
how exactly are they controlling for all the factors that surround the decision to abort? because some of them, all on their own, could be enough to cause significant impairment.
and why does no one ever study the psychological effects of having a child when you are mentally/emotionally/financially unable to care for it? we never hear about post-birth (not post-partum) depression, though i've certainly run into enough cases.....
-
Yes, the political blackmail is annoying
But OTOH, I am not afraid of what they find out about post-abortion depression - assuming they conduct large-scale, objective, peer-reviewed research that includes women who have spontaneous miscarriages and stillbirths. If post-abortion depression is a real thing, whether distinct from depression after a miscarriage or not, it is probably hormonal like PPD and can be treated - and with none of the fears some of us have had about passing antidepressants to our babies through breastmilk. Hooray!
We are not going to get rid of the argument that abortion scars women for life unless we actually do a massive, objective study - one that controls for the fact that perhaps there's a teensy weensy possibility that women who are prone to depression and mental instability are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies in the first place? I say bring the study on. There is nothing to be afraid of. Heck, I'll be the first volunteer.
-
The Scientific Method
While it is certainly discouraging to see the potential stigmatizing through the idea of PAS, there are slightly more positive possibilities that might arise from it. With proper and objective scientific research, it can be further understood what, if any, results there are. One study isolated in New Zealand is not enough to say yea or nay on the issue, after all. If it's not as widespread or as significant as this one study suggests, we have the opportunity to discover this. Right now, much of the evidence supporting its prevalence is anecdotal, which works in the favour of those morally opposed to abortion. Fighting against objective research in favour of our own anecdotes isn't helpful.
On the use of the term "syndrome," it is significantly less stigmatizing than other terms that could be used: disorder, illness, and so forth. Scientifically, what it means is that it is just a cluster of sequelae that might signify distress. Words like condition are too ambiguous. Others like psychopathology aren't widely known enough, and that's without even getting into Antonovsky's idea of salutogenic theory. Syndrome (or spectrum disorder?) might be the best way to identify it with minimal labelling.
As Ms. Dahl points out, there are reactions to a procedure such as abortion, and there is nothing firmly wrong about studying them. Studies have the opportunity to inform the public about the truth, but it partially falls on us to read responsibly and look at who sponsors the studies. When possible, we should read the actual studies themselves to see if they even say what the news reports say they do. But the argument that the studies are harmful because they have the potential to be interpreted that way by people who already "believe [abortion] is immoral and should be illegal" does scientists and the public at large a great disservice.
-
cart before the horse
Why determine that the results will equate post abortion depression (PAD) and PPD before the study even happens? Julia has determined that outcome instead of waiting for the results. It seems that the argument is that PAD must be ignored or trivialized without study because ... ummm ... it interferes with a womans rights? !?? Or is it just because a republican and/or a man got the PAD part added?
Perhaps the results will discover something new. Maybe there's a common hormonal cause. Maybe PDD is an advanced stage of PAD. Maybe the results will show that PAD occurs when an abortion triggers another form of depression.
Admittedly, in these days of politicized scientific reporting, the result could be improperly biased toward a desired result. Perhaps the point of Julia's argument is that it would be the wrong bias instead of her preferred bias.
Should the study be cancelled because it doesn't presuppose the correct outcome?
-
Re: Scientific Method
I thought it was so dispassionate the way the author of "Scientific Method" wrote a response. Yea, and there's no political agenda by conservatives who tacked this on. Look at the front page of the Sunday Washington Post, where the white house and conservative blocked the release of health studies and recommendations, yet another time.
To be totally dispassionate, we should treat pregnancy as we treat abortion. When a woman discovers she's pregnant, all the information about depression, harm to her body, etc, etc, should be given to her. She should watch a video on parental child abuse and maternal killers and the problems children bring to a marriage. She should be asked, are you sure you want to continue this pregnancy. Make them look at pictures of women whose bodies were permanently altered by the trama of a pregnancy. She should be told of the happiness of childfree marriages which statisically last longer than those with children....
This is all very dispassionate, of course. What's the harm of more information when you are trying to make a decision? Of course, you tell all the negatives, as you do to women who chose abortions. But, gee, what's the harm of more information??? -
If this is what it takes, then I support it
You'd think that post-partum depression and psychosis would be enough to rally the troops and get a bill passed. It says a lot for the current anti-choice crowd that is isn't. Women killing themselves or murdering their children in depressed or psychotic fugues is not enough to rally them to vote for a bill that will provide funds to find out why this is happening and, maybe, eventually, stop it. Apparently, murdering children isn't a problem to them - they're more worried about abortion.
One option would be to simply let the right wingers vote against the bill and then bash them over the heads with it. But I think this issue is too important to use as a political tool. If it takes a symbolic concession to the anti-choice crowd to get this passed, then so be it. When I think of women like Andrea Yates and her children, my heart breaks. If there is any way to help people like them in the future, we are obligated as a society to do that. To hell with politics.