Snubbing cancer study will only hurt women

From an October column by Dennis Byrne in the Chicago Tribune [boldface mine]:

During National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, it is fitting and proper that women be informed about any newly discovered dangers, even as the public groans under the weight of all the warnings surrounding the mere act of living.

For example, a well-researched Chicago Tribune story last week disclosed that women who have just a couple of alcoholic drinks daily increase their breast cancer risk by 13 percent. Coincidentally, a new study reported that abortion is an important breast cancer risk factor, yet I couldn't find a word describing the research in mainstream media.

How to explain this disparity? I'll be vigorously advised that "most" studies disprove an abortion-breast cancer link. Or that the study in question appeared in a "conservative" scientific journal. Or that the study is bogus or unimportant. Or, more rudely, that the whole breast cancer argument has been concocted by anti-abortion rights advocates to make women afraid to have abortions. The issue is dead, I'll be notified. Kaput. Here I would remind critics that in science it's not who says it or how many say it that counts. What does count are the data and the rigor with which they are collected, analyzed and held up to a scientifically credible hypothesis.

So let's look at the science of this latest study, which appeared in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. Using statistical techniques and reliable national health data, the study of eight European countries found, to a statistically significant degree, that the incidence of breast cancer increases with the incidence of earlier abortions. The researcher, Patrick Carroll, used the same mathematical model employed in a 1997 study that predicted with extraordinary accuracy breast cancer increases in England and Wales from 1998 to 2004. Using that model, Carroll predicts that countries with higher abortion rates -- England and Wales -- could expect a troubling increase in breast cancer rates. The Irish Republic and Northern Ireland, where abortion rates are lower, should experience a smaller increase. And in Denmark and Finland, where abortion rates have declined, cancer rates should similarly decline. Some will object because the study is "only" epidemiological -- meaning that it relies on a statistically significant relationship between the incidence of breast cancer and abortion to infer that one causes the other. The standard, but simple-minded, objection to epidemiological studies is that a correlation does not necessarily prove causation. That's true, to some extent. But, epidemiologists use correlations in more complex ways, combining them with a range of medical, sociological, psychological and other information to lead their research in the right direction, to support or debunk hypotheses, and toward solutions for significant public health problems.

In the study of the abortion-breast cancer link, the working hypothesis is simple: For a woman who has not had a child before, an induced abortion is more likely to cause cancer because it interrupts the hormonal development of breast cells for later lactation, thus leaving the cells more vulnerable to uncontrolled and abnormal division, i.e. cancer.

The problem with dismissing the Carroll study because it is epidemiological is that you'll also have to dismiss a multitude of public health studies, including ones claiming a link between radon and lung cancer. These are the same epidemiological studies that alarmed millions of Americans, frightening them into buying radon detectors and creating a huge radon mitigation business. No study is perfect, and Carroll's shortcoming is that his data do not allow comparisons of individual women over time. But other major studies have, and according to one unchallenged compressive analysis of those studies, they show that a pregnant woman who has never had a child before and aborts in the first term increased her chance of breast cancer by 50 percent. . .

Read it all.

Outsourcing wombs in India

From CNSNews.com:

In a new twist to the outsourcing for which India has become renowned, poor Indian women are renting out their wombs to foreigners.

Surrogate motherhood -- carrying to term and giving birth to another woman's baby - once was limited in India to helping close relatives who couldn't complete a pregnancy due to medical difficulties.

But leading gynecologist Dr. Kamla Selvaraj says it's now becoming a regular "profession" in India, with more and more women willing to carry babies for others, for a fee.

India has for years been providing foreigners with in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment at a cheaper rate than the equivalent services in Western countries.

Surrogacy comes in when the biological mother is unable to carry the child. Alternatively, a surrogate also provide eggs when the woman wanting a child is unable to do so herself.

Apart from low-cost IVF treatment, India also is offering surrogate mothers at a considerably lower price than couples would pay in the U.S. or Europe.

Women's counselor Harleen Ahluwalia says surrogacy cases are estimated to have nearly doubled in the past three years.

"Foreigners find Indian legal procedures easy and less exploitative, unlike [in the] U.S., where any complication could cost a fortune," she said.

Although surrogacy cases have been reported from various regions, one area that appears to be over-represented is Anand district in the western state of Gujarat, where more than 50 economically deprived women are reported to be presently carrying babies for foreigners and non-resident Indians. . .

Leading advocate of surrogacy, Dr. Naina Patel of the Akanksha Fertility Clinic in Anand, contends that it is a positive service. "Infertility is a global problem and we have its global solution," she said.

Responding to criticism that poor Indians are being exploited, Patel insisted that surrogate mothers were extremely well looked after by those paying for their services. They were housed comfortably and were under expert medical supervision to ensure healthy children for their clients, she said.

But not all share Patel's enthusiasm and many believe surrogacy carries a huge physical and emotional cost for the women.

Dr. Mohanlal Swarankar, chairman of the Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences in Jaipur and one of the leading fertility experts in India, is firmly opposed to the practice of surrogacy and wants what he called the "commercial sale of wombs and babies" to be outlawed. . .

Swarankar said he worried that in a country where women are often forced into submission, "Who could tell if a woman hadn't been pressured to be a surrogate mother for the sake of big money?". . .

He said he was also distressed at the increasing number of young healthy, married working women unwilling to put their careers on hold to have a baby, and thus paying someone else to do so on their behalf.

This was nothing short of sacrilege, he said.

Meanwhile, in the absence of clear-cut statutes, Indian courts have found themselves grappling with cases of proprietary rights of rival mothers. Most rulings to date are stated to favor surrogate mothers, and legal experts note that if a surrogate mother decides not to give up the baby, nobody can force her to do so. . .

Read it all.

Maine Middle School to offer the Pill

From the Associated Press:

PORTLAND, Maine (AP) - Pupils at a city middle school will be able to get birth control pills and patches at their student health center after the local school board approved the proposal Wednesday evening.

The plan, offered by city health officials, makes King Middle School the first middle school in Maine to make a full range of contraception available to students in grades 6 through 8, according to the state Department of Health and Human Services.

There are no national figures on how many middle schools, where most students range in age from 11 to 13, provide such services.

"It's very rare that middle schools do this," said Divya Mohan, a spokeswoman for the National Assembly on School-Based Health Care.

The Portland School Committee voted 5-2 for the measure.

Chairman John Coynie voted against it, saying he felt providing the birth control was a parental responsibility. The other no vote came from Ben Meiklejohn, who said the consent form does not clearly define the services being offered.

Opponents cited religious and health objections.

Diane Miller said she felt the plan was against religion and against God. Another opponent, Peter Allen, said he felt it violated the rights of parents and puts students at risk of cancer because of hormones in the pill.

A supporter, Richard Verrier, said it's not enough to depend on parents to protect their children because there may be students who can't discuss things with their parents.

Condoms have been available since 2002 to King students who have parental permission to be treated at its student health center.

About one-fourth of student health centers that serve at least one grade of adolescents 11 and older dispense some form of contraception, said Mohan, whose Washington-based organization represents more than 1,700 school-based centers nationwide. . .

Read it all. Not even addressing how wrong this is on so many levels, there are serious long-term health issues on taking contraceptives at such a young age.

Abortion: “Best predictor” of breast cancer

From the StatGuy at Magic Statistics:

"A longitudinal study of national cancer registry data has found that induced abortion is the factor with the greatest explanatory power in accounting for the incidence of breast cancer. Fertility and age at first birth were also determined to be important risk factors. The study examined data on abortion and breast cancer from 1971 through 2004 in eight European countries with comprehensive medical records.

Recent trends in breast cancer incidence by age and socio-economic status were compared with trends in potential explanatory variables.

Seven known risk factors were examined as an explanation for these trends:

• When a woman is nulliparous [never given birth to a child], an induced abortion has a greater carcinogenic effect because it leaves breast cells in a state of interrupted hormonal development in which they are more susceptible.


• A low age at first birth is protective.


• Childlessness increases the risk.


• A larger number of children (higher fertility) increases protection.


• Breastfeeding gives additional protection.


• Hormonal contraceptives are conducive to breast cancer.


• Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is also conducive to breast cancer.

The researcher, Patrick S. Carroll, of Pension and Population Research Institute (PAPRI), London, then used the results to model breast cancer incidence in England and Wales.

Previous forecasts using the same model and incidence data for years through 1997 for England & Wales are compared with numbers of cancers observed in years from 1998–2004 in an Appendix. The forecast predicted 100.5% of the cancers observed in 2003, and 97.5% of those observed in 2004.

The study was published last week in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, a peer-reviewed journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons."

Read it all.