Jump to content

Talk:Abortion and mental health: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
DMSBel (talk | contribs)
3,828 edits
No edit summary
DMSBel (talk | contribs)
3,828 edits
Line 158: Line 158:
Some have been opposed to the inclusion of cleanup tags in this article because they think the [[WP:POV]], [[WP:WEIGHT]], citations, and Wikipedia quality standards issues have been met in this article, but judging from the numerous unresolved [[WP:POV]] discussions in the archive and the pleas to rewrite this article, these issues have not been resolved; therefore, cleanup tags must remain until they are resolved. [[User:Geremia|Geremia]] ([[User talk:Geremia|talk]]) 06:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Some have been opposed to the inclusion of cleanup tags in this article because they think the [[WP:POV]], [[WP:WEIGHT]], citations, and Wikipedia quality standards issues have been met in this article, but judging from the numerous unresolved [[WP:POV]] discussions in the archive and the pleas to rewrite this article, these issues have not been resolved; therefore, cleanup tags must remain until they are resolved. [[User:Geremia|Geremia]] ([[User talk:Geremia|talk]]) 06:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


The most reliable and authoriative sources that could be found for the lede first sentence are a New York Times article and NOW, there must surely be something outside of the American News Media that could be used??
The most reliable and authoriative sources that could be found for the lede first sentence are a New York Times article and [[NOW on PBS]] a cancelled newsmagazine show, there must surely be something outside of the American News Media that could be used. The BCoP is probably more reliable than news media but surely there are also other scholarly sources that could go with it?

Revision as of 18:06, 7 September 2011

WikiProject iconAbortion Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Abortion on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AbortionWikipedia:WikiProject AbortionTemplate:WikiProject AbortionAbortion articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Reproductive Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force.
 This is not a forum for general discussion of abortion.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article.
Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This article needs to assume that professionals DISAGREE on this major issue. It currently basically assumes only one side.

This article is an example of why many teachers, profs distrust Wikipedia. The viewpoint is (mostly) that "professionals see little or no abortion-related mental health issues". However, one can find various professionals who disagree. (See some of the commentary in the discussion!!!).

Short conclusion: Wikipedia (in this and some other articles on HOT topics) is held CAPTIVE to whatever ideology the editors wish to promote.

How to cover this still-evolving controversial issue? Invite quality professional representatives for both major viewpoints to submit their findings.Lindisfarnelibrary (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you dislike? That we state that the American Psychological Association concluded that termination of a first, unplanned pregnancy did not lead to an increased risk of mental health problems, but we don't mention other professional organizations who disagree? (do any exist)? Or that we state the existence of "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized by any medical or psychological organization when that is not the case? I don't believe this article is one sided, but I do believe the article does not "teach the controversy" or provide both sides equally. This is due to WP:WEIGHT where we are supposed to give due weight to prominent views, and avoid undue weight to minority views. I think it's clear that major psychological organizations and review studies agree that abortion itself does not cause mental illness, while there are correlations demonstrated among other factors. All that said, I'd be interested in hearing what you think is inaccurate or too one-sided in this article specifically. And what you think should be changed. -Andrew c [talk] 22:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that absolutely no weight is given to minority views, and hence this article violates WP:NPOV. Geremia (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what kind of "professionals" Lindisfarnelibrary is referring to. I doubt they are medical ones. This user also seems unaware of how Wikipedia works in terms of how information is included. (If only qualified professionals volunteered to do all the work!) Sounds like someone disgruntled that their personal belief is not prioritized here over near-100% medical consensus (and most physicians who question all the supporting data tend to have religious agendas).-- TyrS  chatties  05:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It could just as easily be said that those denying it have pro-choice agendas. So what? Geremia (talk) 06:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference

  • Steinberg JR, Finer LB (2010). "Examining the association of abortion history and current mental health: A reanalysis of the National Comorbidity Survey using a common-risk-factors model". Soc Sci Med. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.10.006. PMID 21122964. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  • Charles VE, Polis CB, Sridhara SK, Blum RW (2008). "Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence". Contraception. 78 (6): 436–50. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2008.07.005. PMID 19014789. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Steinberg JR, Russo NF (2009). "Evaluating research on abortion and mental health". Contraception. 80 (6): 500–3. doi:10.1016/j.contraception.2009.06.003. PMID 19913142. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

These should probably be incorporated into the article, if they aren't already. MastCell Talk 04:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article is untrue.

This article biased to the point of being false and potentially harmful to society. It off-handedly invalidates the experiences of women who have had abortions and feel depressed or anxious as a result. At a basic, intuitive level, it makes sense that abortion is traumatic experience for some, if not most, women. The procedure is very painful, for one thing. For another, it's scary as hell. For another, the cultural stigma attached to abortion is deep-seated and guilt-inducing. If those aren't basic, trauma-inducing conditions--pain, fear, guilt--then at the very least, this article needs to acknowledge that the wide array of post-abortion care hotlines and support groups exists for a reason.

This article needs be rewritten completely or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.121.152 (talk) 04:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study"

Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.056499, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1192/bjp.bp.108.056499 instead.

Here is a quick summary of the article: "In general, the results lead to a middle-of-the-road position that, for some women, abortion is likely to be a stressful and traumatic life event which places those exposed to it at modestly increased risk of a range of common mental health problems...Finally, the findings of this study have some important implications for the legal status of abortion in societies such as New Zealand and the UK, where over 90% of abortions are authorised on the grounds that proceeding with the pregnancy would pose a serious threat to the woman’s mental health."

Not sure if it was discussed in prior archives (quick scan indicates not). Interesting that it appears to contradict many of the other subjects on the matter. This is likely because of convenience sample bias (PMID 21268725; discussion section). But still, worth mentioning? NW (Talk) 13:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. We do have a section devoted to Fergusson, but I think most of the action on this article pre-dated their 2008 publication. The NZ group has argued, both in the 2008 paper and the 2006 article we cite, that abortion has some element of mental-health risk. That position contradicts most expert-body syntheses of the literature, and as you note, methodological issues have been put forward to explain the discrepancy.

I think the whole article is ripe for a rewrite - the current approach of devoting entire sections to individual primary studies seems inappropriate, and the article could be better organized, more readable, and still cite primary sources such as Fergusson et al. to demonstrate various viewpoints on the issue. MastCell Talk 16:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

For future reference:

  • Major, B.; Appelbaum, M.; Beckman, L.; Dutton, M. A.; Russo, N. F.; West, C. (2009). "Abortion and mental health: Evaluating the evidence". American Psychologist. 64 (9): 863–890. doi:10.1037/a0017497. PMID 19968372.
  • Steinberg, J. R. (2011). "Later Abortions and Mental Health: Psychological Experiences of Women Having Later Abortions—A Critical Review of Research". Women's Health Issues. 21 (3): S44–S48. doi:10.1016/j.whi.2011.02.002. PMID 21530839.
  • Munk-Olsen, T.; Laursen, T. M.; Pedersen, C. B.; Lidegaard, Ø.; Mortensen, P. B. (2011). "Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder". New England Journal of Medicine. 364 (4): 332–339. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0905882. PMID 21268725.
(1990) As compared to other stressful life events
  • Adler, N.; David, H.; Major, B.; Roth, S.; Russo, N.; Wyatt, G. (1990). "Psychological responses after abortion". Science. 248 (4951): 41–44. doi:10.1126/science.2181664. PMID 2181664.
Finland
New Zealand
Positive effects
  • Russo, Nancy F.; Zierk, Kristin L. (1992). "Abortion, childbearing, and women's well-being". Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. 23 (4): 269–280. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.23.4.269.
    • No positive correlation after controlling for childbearing and resource variables
Prior mental health issues
Reardon et al.
Suicide
Teenagers
  • Zabin, L. S.; Hirsch, M. B.; Emerson, M. R. (1989). "When urban adolescents choose abortion: effects on education, psychological status and subsequent pregnancy". Fam Plann Perspect. 21 (6): 248–55. doi:10.2307/2135377. PMID 2620716.
What causes stress

NW (Talk) 02:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coleman's new meta-analysis

Anupam (talk · contribs) is attempting to add, rather prominently, a meta-analysis by Priscilla K. Coleman. Firstly, I would appreciate it if he or anyone else could email me the full text of the article. Secondly, considering her history, I don't believe we should be inserting any study of Coleman's as if it were fact. The article just came out; surely we can wait a month or two before responses come in from the BMJ, NEJM, etc? If you really want to go ahead and add it now, please suggest how we can incorporate into the appropriate article section. NW (Talk) 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is available here.
Hello User:NuclearWarfare, I would request that you kindly revert your edit. I did present the information neutrally as evidenced by my edit. The meta-analysis was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry and is a peer-reviewed reliable source. As such, the position should be presented, along with the current information in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 15:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to our article about the Br. J. Psych., it is open access after a 12 month embargo. Per wp:NOTNEWS, we can wait to see what it contains, and what the peers have to say.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDFLAG indicates waiting would be prudent. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which we're very unlikely to get from Coleman, since a) her studies have been criticized by the APA for their faulty methodology, b) in at least one case, researchers using Coleman's dataset were unable to obtain her results c) the supposed meta-analysis is largely of Coleman's own studies, so it's pretty worthless anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any sources for your claims, Roscelese? Thanks Geremia (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones? Look at the studies in the paper you yourself linked - of 22 studies, 10 are by Coleman herself and another few are by her close colleagues. The other "claims" are already mentioned and cited in Wikipedia's article on Coleman, which you're obviously aware of since you edited it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently some of the reasons for including Coleman in this article:
  1. Coleman's study is the largest meta-analysis to date.
  2. There is absolutely no mention of studies, old or new, that claim to show a correlation between abortion and mental health problems
Geremia (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why should there be? No reputable body supports the claim, and many of the individual studies have been discredited. Please see WP:FRINGE: we are not required to give equal weight to fringe theories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To quote directly from that page: "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article." Currently, this article includes no "significant-minority positions," and Coleman, being the biggest meta-analysis, certainly is a "significant-minority position." If it is not, then what is? Whatever is should be included or else it would remain a violation of NPOV. Thanks Geremia (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article already does mention studies which found a correlation. What more do you want to add? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where? Geremia (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"While some studies have reported a statistical correlation between abortion and clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, or adverse effects on women's sexual functions for a small number of women, these studies are typically methodologically flawed and fail to account for confounding factors. Higher-quality studies have consistently found no causal relationship between abortion and mental-health problems." I think that's the best you can ask for, since it mirrors expert scholarly opinion on the topic. Every reputable expert body that's examined the literature has concluded that there's no evidence that abortion causes mental-health problems. It's inappropriate to highlight individual studies to try to "debunk" or rebut expert opinion (see WP:MEDRS). If Coleman's paper is as substantial as you believe it to be, then expert bodies will revise their opinions. MastCell Talk 02:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claims in this section you quote are completely uncited. Who said the studies are "are typically methodologically flawed and fail to account for confounding factors" and that "Higher-quality studies have consistently found no causal relationship between abortion and mental-health problems"? And the citation given to support these claims is a research paper. We could just as easily make a non sequitur citation of Coleman to prove the opposite of these claims. This isn't the only occurrence of a "non sequitur" citation. See, e.g., citation #5; what does Reagan's politics have to do with whether there is scientific evidence or not? We have not come to a consensus on this, which is why "cleanup-rewrite" tags are needed in order to alert others to help and contribute to this discussion and make this article comply with NPOV. Geremia (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The claims are not "completely uncited". Can we start by acknowledging the reality that there is a citation supporting these claims? There's a footnote immediately following them, linking to PMID 19014789. Maybe we can move on from there. MastCell Talk 19:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion of cleanup tags

Some have been opposed to the inclusion of cleanup tags in this article because they think the WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT, citations, and Wikipedia quality standards issues have been met in this article, but judging from the numerous unresolved WP:POV discussions in the archive and the pleas to rewrite this article, these issues have not been resolved; therefore, cleanup tags must remain until they are resolved. Geremia (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most reliable and authoriative sources that could be found for the lede first sentence are a New York Times article and NOW on PBS a cancelled newsmagazine show, there must surely be something outside of the American News Media that could be used. The BCoP is probably more reliable than news media but surely there are also other scholarly sources that could go with it?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Abortion_and_mental_health&oldid=448973582"