Letters to the Editor
-
Rep. Joseph Pitts might just end up regretting this
What if research established that having an abortion was actually good for a woman's mental health? In a substantial, measurable way? The lifers would like to eat that bit of crow, I'm sure.
-
I am confused
What could possibly be objectionable with a longitudinal study in the results of pregnancy outcomes? DO NOT BECOME a wack, please. Sometimes a longterm study is JUST a longterm study, not a threat to women's health rivalling the holocaust. Your conclusions are ridiculous.
I suspect that this study will conclude that, for women with abortions, the long-term result was concern and a huge sense of relief. Wouldn't that be a kick!
-
Let them have it
This is a prime example of how to win through compromise. It would be better to simply fund the postpartum depression/psychosis research without political distractions, but Republicans are unwilling to put women's health above political goals, so we can't have that. Meanwhile, abortion does not negatively effect the mental health of women, and I'm looking forward to seeing additional research proving it.
-
Question.
Interesting point, Canuckistan Bob.
The relevant section of the bill:
SEC. 104. LONGITUDINAL STUDY OF RELATIVE MENTAL HEALTH CONSEQUENCES FOR WOMEN OF RESOLVING A PREGNANCY.
(a) Sense of Congress- It is the sense of Congress that the Director of the Institute may conduct a nationally representative longitudinal study (during the period of fiscal years 2008 through 2018) of the relative mental health consequences for women of resolving a pregnancy (intended and unintended) in various ways, including carrying the pregnancy to term and parenting the child, carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the child for adoption, miscarriage, and having an abortion. This study may assess the incidence, timing, magnitude, and duration of the immediate and long-term mental health consequences (positive or negative) of these pregnancy outcomes.
(b) Report- Beginning not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, and periodically thereafter for the duration of the study under subsection (a), the Director of the Institute should prepare and submit to the Congress reports on the findings of the study.
The bill says this study may be conducted and then instructs the Institute to submit findings. Does this mean the study is optional or not?
-
I sure hope this does get funded
I do research into medical stuff, and would love to be in the competition for this. Wooeee, this would be a biggie, too. 11 YEARS OF MEGA-FUNDING.
I wouldn't be slanted. NOPE. NOT EVEN A LITTLE. PROMISE. Just GIMME THE GRANT.
-
the existing studies
that I've seen referred to in artiles (like in the NYT mafgazine in March of this year) indicate that the rate of depression among women who had abortions is the same as women who gave birth to and raised children.
(I'll see if I can pull them up later. Now I must play Play Doh).
-
Good Intentions, Bad Bill
While this research sounds like a good idea, having a separate bill authorizing it is not a good idea. While not quite pork, this is the sort of micro-managing that Congress should not do. Just give NIH the money in their normal budget, and possibly include a reference to this sort of work in the usual NIH bill. It is inefficient for Congress and for scientific research in general to have these sorts of bills.
-
A few important questions
According to the Associated Press, up to 80 percent of women suffer from what the bill refers to as "baby blues," defined as "mood swings, feelings of being overwhelmed and irritability." For about 10 to 20 percent of new mothers, these postpartum depression symptoms are more severe, and can happen any time during the first year of a baby's life. And then there are the unfortunate mothers who suffer from postpartum psychosis, which the AP says strikes about one in 1,000 new mothers, and can make you "lose touch with reality" and experience "delusions, auditory hallucinations, paranoia and hyperactivity." For these poor people, having a baby makes their minds behave like they're on drugs.
These figures raise some questions in my mind. First, a qualification: I'm not a mental health professional (although I worked in a psych clinic for some years) and I'm not intending to question the very real mental health suffering that some mothers endure after giving birth. And yet...the 80% who suffer from "baby blues" seems to me to be what one would expect, given the hormonal swings, the massive change to the mother's life circumstances, changes in her relationship with her partner (if she has one), changed social roles and expectations, a far shorter period of bonding allowed under maternity leave (in the US, at least) than is desirable, and other factors. I can understand that. In fact I'd be surprised if only a minority of women experienced some blue feelings in the immediate postpartum period.
Moving on to the other figures is where it gets interesting for me. Ten to twenty percent of new mothers experience more severe depression in the first year after the birth. OK, that sounds like a major problem. First, though, we need a more precise definition of "severe"--are we talking suicidal depression? Bedridden and unable to function? Completely withdrawn from family and social life? Neglecting the baby? Or just a more prolonged, chronic depression than your typical mood swings and "blue" periods, if still able to function? Does the "severe" refer to the deepness of the depression or the length of its presence? And more importantly, what percentage of women in a statistically valid sample would be expected to experience at least one episode of moderate to severe depression in any given year? If I had to guess I'd say 10% or so would be a reasonable estimate, but I could be wrong.
The last stat I find the most intriguing. One out of 1000 new mothers can be expected to suffer from postpartum psychosis, as described in the passage quoted above. I guess my question is, out of the population as a whole, what percentage of people suffer psychotic episodes in any given year? What percentage of people are prone to psychosis--whether chronic or episodic? One out of 1000 people isn't very many--that translates into only 300,000 people of all ages and genders in the Unites States. Certainly many millions of Americans seek mental health treatment in any given year--from mild talk therapy and counseling sessions to psychiatric treatment with intensive medication and in some cases hospitalization. Is it so far-fetched to think that a small percentage of those people--a few hundred thousand in the country as a whole--suffer from severe mental illness, up to and including schizophrenia and other psychotic conditions?
I guess what I'm getting at is this: Is it possible that what we're considering PPD is actually just the normal level of mental illness--mild to severe--that we'd expect in our population of mothers, as opposed to a completely unique syndrome or condition precipitated by pregnancy and birth? Or, at most, a slight enhancement of the normal level of mental illness we'd find in this demographic, caused by the peculiar conditions surrounding pregnancy and birth and new motherhood? And, if either of those possibilities is indeed the case, are we creating a new syndrome or diagnosis out of thin air solely due to the sociocultural baggage that accompanies infancy and motherhood? (As in, our culture expects--unrealistically--ALL new mothers to be positively thrilled and glowing and boundlessly happy at their new status, and if some aren't we immediately begin thinking they're mentally ill?) Have we fallen into the trap of demarcating the full spectrum of normal mental illness among the population like this: If you're a woman who's depressed or psychotic and you're NOT a new mother, then you'll be diagnosed with whatever condition is appropriate based on your symptoms; if you're a woman who's depressed or psychotic and you ARE a new mother, then you'll automatically be diagnosed as suffering from PPD? Does PPD mean anything more than "any regularly diagnosed mental illness that happens to be diagnosed in a mother in the year or two after she gives birth"? If that's what it is, then why are we expending so much energy to create an unnecessary new syndrome? Is it only due to the social expectations that would cause many people to treat judgmentally a new mother who's not always beaming with joy? Since our society, unfortunately, still judges the mentally ill contemptuously in far too many situations, is PPD little more than a contrivance to deflect society's harshness towards the mentally ill away from new mothers--to give them a convenient shield, as it were, by blaming their mental issues on the pregnancy and birth itself?
I'm not saying I have the answers to all these questions, but I am curious. Would anyone care to share their thoughts on this topic?