The scientists using Oxford-like methods have allies, including cancer organizations, the mainstream press, women's magazines, politicians who campaign as abortion supporters, and left-of-center women's groups. The web pages of the NCI and leading American and Canadian cancer organizations contain false statements, misrepresentations, and omissions in their discussions of the research.
Professor Brind calls this "outcome-based science." For instance, the study by Melbye et al., which found no overall elevation in risk, is often cited as a "definitive" study. It is commonly used to disparage studies reporting risk elevations. During a Committee on Commerce hearing to discuss cancer research, however, the NCI's Director of the Division of Clinical Sciences, Dr. Edison Liu, offered perhaps one of the best criticisms of this practice. He told former U.S. Rep. Tom Coburn, M.D. and other members of Congress that "one study doesn't make a conclusion...."
A web page of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, on the other hand, cites a 1998 study by McCredie et al. and a 1995 study by Calle et al. in support of its statement that "there is no association between abortion and risk of breast cancer." However, the former didn't report any data on induced abortion and the latter only examined the effect of spontaneous abortions. An overwhelming majority of the studies reporting risk elevations are omitted from the web pages altogether.
Although American women have a 12.5 percent lifetime risk of breast cancer, and childbearing is known to be an effective means of risk reduction, women are encouraged to delay their first pregnancy and to have smaller families in the name of "reproductive health." Surgical abortion and abortifacients have been aggressively marketed as a "woman's right." Instead of focusing on the merits of the scientific research, American media have portrayed efforts to inform women of the scientific findings as "pro-life scare tactics."
Sample headlines in major newspapers include "Abortion foes seize on reports of cancer link in ad campaign" and "Abortion foes cite dubious health risk." In a 2001 article purporting to discredit research showing the abortion-breast cancer link, readers weren't told that the expert who was interviewed, Mitch Creinin, M.D., had researched the use of ultrasound to determine the effectiveness of RU-486 for chemically induced abortions.
Author Barry Yeoman in the magazine Self told women that the NCI, the World Health Organization (WHO), and the ACS "have reviewed the claims and declared them flawed." The Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer responded on July 25, 2002, with a press release that noted that most of the 15 American studies were funded at least in part by the NCI, and 13 of them found increased risk. The coalition asked, "Does Yeoman really expect women to believe that these scientists, whose research was paid for by US taxpayers, don't really practice science?"
A scientist and five doctors have separately accused the NCI of misleading the public about the research, including former Representatives Tom Coburn, M.D., and Dave Weldon, M.D. Nonetheless, some journalists have uncritically accepted erroneous statements published on the NCI's web page. Women's organizations, which have made abortion advocacy the centerpiece of their missions, were silent about the research until the subject won public attention. They too repeat the misleading statements of the NCI and the ACS.
On its editorial pages this year The New York Times, dismissed women's health concerns about the link and said the NCI and the ACS "found no association." Its editors charged that conservatives in Congress "bullied" the NCI into taking down its web page, a wild assertion in light of accusations that the agency published blatant lies. No mention was made that 12 abortion supporters in Congress led by Rep. Henry Waxman attempted to influence the agency. These members of Congress protested the removal of the erroneous NCI web page in an Oct. 21, 2002, letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson.
For its efforts to inform women about the studies that the NCI neglected to mention, the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer compared to the Taliban by Dr. Fiona Stewart, who was not identified as a sociologist rather than a medical expert, in an Australian newspaper.
Some publications, on the other hand, have provided fair coverage of the issue, including the WorldNetDaily, Report News Magazine, Cybercoast News Service, Chicago Tribune, the Indianapolis Star, and the National Catholic Register. PBS in Columbus, Ohio, and radio talk show hosts including Barbara Simpson of ABC Radio in San Francisco have conducted interviews. Thus, the truth is being heard amid the considerable misinformation.
Politicians who have labeled themselves "pro choice" are complicit in the news blackout. Two years ago, Resolution SR 8, calling for a task force to examine the research, was introduced in the Illinois Senate. Abortion supporters in the legislature fought the measure bitterly. Several argued that the resolution did not belong in the legislature because legislators are not medical professionals. Yet SB 114, which would have compelled Catholic hospitals to direct rape victims to the nearest abortion clinic, was pending at the very same time.
Former Illinois Lt. Gov. Corinne Wood opposed SR 8, although she is a breast cancer survivor, arguing that women should not be informed about the research because it would increase patients' sense of "guilt."
Planned Parenthood, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Organization for Women sent lobbyists to the Senate Executive Committee to officially oppose SR 8. The Illinois State Medical Society lobbyist sat with opponents of the measure during testimony before the committee and did nothing to aid its passage, although the society did not officially oppose the measure.
Three years ago, a former editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, George Lundberg, M.D., told an interviewer that abortion and tobacco are "sensitive issues" that had been on the AMA's "don't touch" list for many years. Even last year an AMA spokesperson told WorldNetDaily that the organization "doesn't have a policy at all" with respect to informing women about the abortion-breast cancer research. This stance is reminiscent of the AMA's opposition to federal legislation requiring tobacco companies to provide health warnings on cigarette packages in 1964. The AMA had accepted $10 million from six tobacco companies to conduct research on the tobacco-cancer link.
Implications for Patient Care
Patients contemplating a surgical procedure or even medical therapy such as hormone replacement ordinarily expect to learn of potential threats to their future health, even if uncommon and not definitively proved. For women considering abortion, evidence of an increased cancer risk should be disclosed as part of obtaining informed consent.
Post-abortive women, if informed of the evidence of risk, may wish to avail themselves of opportunities to seek early detection and undertake risk-reduction measures. They are now being denied opportunities to benefit from clinical trials exploring the efficacy of risk-reduction drugs.
Information is especially crucial for teenagers. For women procuring abortions prior to age 18, Daling et al. reported a relative risk of 2.5. The study also included 12 cases with a family history of breast cancer in which the women obtained abortions before age 18. No controls free of breast cancer in the study had this history. All of the cases developed breast cancer before age 45. For this group, the study reported a relative risk of infinity. Those without a positive family history who had obtained abortions before age 18 and after eight weeks gestation had a relative risk of 9.0. Thus, a significant number of today's abortion-bound adolescents could be, in 15 to 20 years, facing a lethal breast cancer while still caring for young children.
Aside from the independent risk of abortion itself, why does the evidence not compel the nation's cancer watchdogs to initiate a major public health awareness campaign about the confirmed protective effects of childbearing, breast feeding, and early FFTP?
Dr. Lanfranchi offered an explanation by recounting the story of Ignaz Semmelweis, M.D.:
He was an obstetrician in the 1840s who proved that hand-washing would reduce mortality rates from childbed fever from 30 to 2 percent on maternity wards. His reward for this was ridicule from his professors and loss of his hospital appointments. Women continued to die needlessly for another 30 years until the germ theory proved Semmelweis was correct. It must have been very embarrassing for the greatest medical professors of his time to be told by a lowly resident that they were responsible for many women's deaths.
We are in the same situation now. There is overwhelming and convincing evidence that abortion and breast cancer are linked, along with a well-described biologic mechanism. Twenty-eight out of 37 studies have shown this and women still don't know. Not only embarrassment and denial, but also fear of malpractice litigation causes doctors to continue to ignore these data. How can an abortionist not be held liable for increasing a woman's risk of breast cancer and not telling her?
It is unfortunate, but it has become my belief that it will be lawyers who will force the medical community to address this issue.
Karen Malec is President of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer. Email address: response@abortionbreastcancer.com
------
Editor's note: In February 2003, the National Cancer Institute held a consensus workshop on the possible link between induced abortion and increased risk of breast cancer. They produced a Summary Report, which concluded that "induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk." This is now posted as "fact" on the NCI website. (See http://www.cancer.gov/ cancerinfo/ere-workshop-report.)
Although the issue was subject to a vote of "over 100 of the world's leading experts," the NCI website does not state the result of the vote itself. And although the Summary Report did not mention that there was dissent, the NCI's website did post a "minority dissenting comment" indicating that one of the participants remains "convinced that the weight of available evidence suggests a real, independent, positive association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk."
Sorting out the science and truth of the matter is of the utmost importance so that relevant informed consent information can be provided to women considering an abortion. Consensus and political correctness must not inhibit the open discussion and evaluation of the scientific data.
Lawrence R. Huntoon, M.D., Ph.D.
Article Source: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons - Vol. 8 No. 2, Summer 2003
www.jpands.org - www.aapsonline.org
|
