TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 13 °C Monday 20 May, 2013

10 interesting moments from the Oireachtas hearings on abortion

Tuesday was one of the more interesting days in the world of Oireachtas committees. Here’s what’s happened in 10 quick points.

Image: Screengrab via Oireachtas website

YESTERDAY WAS ONE of the more interesting days in the world of Oireachtas committees.

Firstly, it was unusual just by dint of its sheer size: taking advantage of the fact that the Oireachtas is still technically on Christmas holidays, the hearings on how Ireland should legislate for abortion took place in the Seanad, instead of the usual more modestly-sized committee room.

These hearings are big. They’re taking place over three full days (i.e. not just one or two meetings over an afternoon – instead, there were four meetings yesterday, three today and a further three tomorrow). In the world of Oireachtas committees, this is unprecedented.  Lots of TDs and Senators who weren’t on the Committee on Health and Children turned up to take notes and ask questions of the invited medical professionals about how exactly Ireland should act to implement the findings of the ABC judgment on abortion.

We liveblogged everything as it happened yesterday but in case you missed it, here are 10 of the most interesting moments from the Committee on Tuesday.

1. The facts and figures

Holles Street

Dr Sam Coulter Smith of the Rotunda Hospital in Dublin told the Committee there had been six terminations in the Rotunda last year in order to save the life of the mother. Dr Rhona Mahony (pictured) of the National Maternity Hospital said there were three terminations in the hospital last year where the woman’s life was at risk and the foetus was not viable. Two women in Ireland took their own lives while pregnant between 2009 and 2011, according to Dr Mahony.

In a debate that can frequently become emotive and not based on evidence, hard facts about the exact situation on whether abortions in Ireland are carried out can be difficult to come by – making the contributions from the doctors particularly compelling viewing.

2. Deaths because of current abortion laws

More facts and figures: the head of the Irish Medical Council said he did not know of any maternal deaths which have happened because of Ireland’s current abortion regime.

3. Doctors are worried about doing jail time

One issue that repeatedly came up when doctors spoke was the fear of jail time because of the lack of clarity in the law. It doesn’t matter that no-one has been sent to jail under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, Dr Rhona Mahony told the Committee – the issue is that doctors perceive that there is a significant risk that either they or the woman involved could be sent to jail for a procedure which the doctor may carry out in good faith as the right thing to do to save a woman’s life.

4. Yes, doctors refer women to other countries for abortions

Seanad committee

Professor Fionnuala McAuliffe confirmed what has long been suspected: there have been cases where doctors have referred women to have terminations abroad because of “a bit of legal uncertainty here”. She said this was most likely to take place where the woman’s life may have been in danger (but not immediate danger). She described one particular case where a woman was sent to the UK for an abortion and returned to Ireland for further care.

5. Can doctors conscientiously object to abortions?

The Irish Medical Council said any legislation should allow doctors to exercise the right to conscientious objection when it comes to a termination – as long as it is balanced against the right of the patient to be treated, particularly in an emergency. The implication was that a doctor can only cite a conscientious objection if an alternative doctor is available and can act with appropriate speed. The IMC was responding to one sentence in the expert report stemming from the ABC judgment which suggested that a doctor’s right to a conscientious objection is not absolute.

6.  Why the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act should be repealed

Throughout the hearings, a significant number of medical professionals called for the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – which makes abortion a felony and criminalises both the woman who undergoes one and the doctor who performs the procedure - to be repealed. Dr Anthony McCarthy of the College of Psychiatry Ireland said his obstetric colleagues will feel “very exposed” if the Act is not abandoned.

7. Division among the psychiatrists

Committee abortion

It quickly became clear when the five psychiatrists spoke that there were major differences of opinion between them. Professor Patricia Casey of the Mater Hospital in Dublin and the Iona Institute said legislation for the X Case would lead to “widespread abortion within a short period of time”. The other psychiatrists disagreed. This led to some clear tensions, as the psychiatrists spent time clarifying what their professional colleague said rather than answering questions from Oireachtas members.

8. Ireland has a distinct lack of perinatal psychiatrists

Of the 19 maternity hospitals in Ireland, only three have perinatal psychiatrists – and they’re all in Dublin.

9. The religious ethos of a hospital doesn’t matter when it comes to treatment

On the issue of whether the religious ethos of a hospital could come into play when treatment is being decided for a woman whose life is in danger, the doctors who spoke were very clear that it does not not. “We practice according to clinical demand,” said Dr Rhona Mahony. “It is a science”. What was unspoken here was Ireland’s treatment in the past of women who died because of their treatment while pregnant, including Sheila Hodgers in Dundalk in 1983 and, more recently, the allegation that Savita Halappanavar was told that Ireland “is a Catholic country” when she reportedly requested a medical termination.

10. Jerry Buttimer is a tough but fair chairman

Jerry Buttimer

Oireachtas committees are a great place for people who like the sound of their own voices. Meandering points which take five minutes to actually become a question and TDs and Senators who are sweetly oblivious of the idea of time constraints mean committees can often become a swirling mass of waffle.

Not so under the stewardship of committee chair Jerry Buttimer. Each of the four sessions began and ended exactly on time. He politely but firmly smacked down members who tried to go off-topic (he told one Senator that he was “out of order” and being “unfair to the witness” when he tried to raise an adjacent topic). Questions were kept (relatively) brief and everyone who wanted to got time to speak.

And it worked. There were some excellent questions and responses and the debate remained civilised (at least, for the most part).

All in all, unprecedented. More of this in the Oireachtas, please.

(All images: Screengrabs via Oireachtas.ie)

As it happened: Oireachtas hearings on planned abortion law >

Read next:

Comments (64 Comments)

  • This country must come to terms with the fact that if the right to life of the unborn is given equal status to the life of the mother, it is inevitable that these rights will, from time to time be in conflict, so long as they share the need for the same body – ie hers.

    This is inevitable & must be addressed. Excellent reporting on an event that is at last addressing this issue in a mature fashion.

    Reply
  • Just read up on the Sheila Hodgers case – omg that was even worse than Savita’s story (if that is even possible). The hospital kept referring to the ‘Bishop’s contract’ as justification for not helping her. This country has not moved on since then

    Reply
  • Interesting that one of the most productive days at Leinster House was actually during their holidays! I hope Jerry Buttimer keeps it going like that but as soon as the fanatical groups get in I bet he’ll have a tough job trying to keep order.

    Reply
  • Not come across Rhonda Mahoney before in the media – probably because she is too busy dedicating herself to a very demanding difficult job to get involved in such debates very often. A shame for the national debate that she is not more active in it but reassured to know there are some very good people such as her in top jobs.

    Wonder how much time prof casey gets to do any actual psychiatric work with her hectic pro life media schedule?

    Reply
  • Professor Patricia Casey, founder member and patron on the iona inst. is against divorce and was advisor to govt during divorce referendum, she is also against ‘unatural conception’ such as OFF and surrogate parents, she is also against same sex marriage and same sex adoption. She is a highly qualified psychiatrist with some serious dogmatic views. She is the senior psych in a hospital that has a very clear catholic ideology and has other members of iona involved. I have had several experiences with this hospital and have nothing but praise for it but the fact that they do not treat pregnant women perhaps is a reflection of their acknowledgment that pregnancy has many complications, many of which are at odds with catholic ethos.

    Reply
  • Ivf typo, not OFF…

    Reply
  • The case for change has to be made publicly, and as far as is able, dispassionately. in addition, the widest possible support has to be garnered in order to get this across the line. That is what the hearings are designed to do. It is a necessary and vital process in order to successfully legislate for X.

    Reply
    • Looking at what happened yesterday I think we can draw the following conclusions. First generally the level of care despite the difficult infrastructural and physical difficulties that might exist is what we as as an advanced society would expect for pregnant women in a maternity setting, second the law has not caught up with the standard of care that is being given and that principally relates to the 1861 act rather than anything to do with legislating for X, thirdly the numbers are “relatively” small and in the words of one TD last night “we have tied ourselves up in knots politically over this” and finally most disturbing of all if clinicians are saying that 15% of women are presenting with what are deemed to be “mental health issues” which while they did not go into it I suspect in many cases are underlying problems rather than pregnancy specific which says alot more about us as a society and our historical attitudes to mental health. This final issue is the one that we have to latch onto because to me that was the most fundamental nugget of information that came out of yesterdays hearing!

      Reply
  • @ William. I totally agree. I would argue that every person in this country has an opinion on abortion, and medics, by virtue of being human, are no different.
    I seriously doubt that hospitals with a religious ethos, are always successful (‘truly scientific’) in having no bearing on clinical practice. I’ve worked in some of these hospitals and on a very superficial level the religious paraphernalia (statues, pictures, chapels etc) which permeate throughout certainly speak of a significant influence.

    Reply
  • “Professor Patricia Casey of the Mater Hospital in Dublin and the Iona Institute said legislation for the X Case would lead to “widespread abortion within a short period of time”. The other psychiatrists disagreed. This led to some clear tensions, as the psychiatrists spent time clarifying what their professional colleague said rather than answering questions from Oireachtas members.”

    Which is exactly what she wanted to happen and is a common tactic used when fighting from an unpopular position. Make the debate about yourself, or some outlandish comment you make, and stifle proper discussion.

    Reply
  • Goldie said, “I would argue that every person in this country has an opinion on abortion”.

    If someone who is a MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL has an opinion on anything to do with their WORK, then I would expect that opinion to be arrived at by scientific logic & evidence and not because they were brainwashed into a primitive cult when they were children and have been unable to break free of it.

    The Prof’s Pope gave a blessing before Christmas to a women parliamentarian in Uganda who wants to lock up gay people for life because of their sexual orientation. What next a Scientology psychiatrist who believes that Autism is evil and that mental illness doesn’t exist?

    Reply
  • “the head of the Irish Medical Council said he did not know of any maternal deaths which have happened because of Ireland’s current abortion regime.”

    Surely we can all sadly name at least one?

    Reply
    • Just playing Devil’s Advocate, the inquiry into Savita’s case isn’t over yet. It might be a little improper of them to refer to it as having been caused by the current abortion regime before the inquiry even produces it’s report.

      For instance: They might rule that the doctor would have been legally justified to offer a termination and that her death was caused by a misunderstanding of the law rather than an actual constraint of the law itself.

      At any rate it’s irrelevant: If doctors are referring patients abroad because they’re worried about prosecution the legal situation needs to be at least clarified.

      Reply
    • Savita as you correctly state is not a concluded case and we can only hypothesise on it at present..
      The other woman though – Sheila Hodgers? (Not sure if I have the name correct and I apologise if I have got it wrong).. That’s just as likely to be the answer to the comment you replied to..

      Reply
  • The Iona Institute are a very strange group indeed. Somehow I’m not surprised to see their tentacles here.

    Reply
  • Aine, a Psychiatrist, who has been trained first as a doctor, today is like a biologist before Darwin or a Physicist in the 15th century. They don’t know much about mental illnesses but they know more than anyone else. By scientific progress they learn more every year. If I had a mental illness I would still feel it useful to attend one. The drugs they prescribe do save lives and allow people live a normal life who otherwise might have to be institutionalised. You share the same opinion as Scientology I see.

    That experiment you referred us to is interesting but it involved “patients” lying to their doctors. As one commentator said, “If I were to drink a quart of blood and, concealing what I had done, come to the emergency room of any hospital vomiting blood, the behaviour of the staff would be quite predictable. If they labelled and treated me as having a bleeding peptic ulcer, I doubt that I could argue convincingly that medical science does not know how to diagnose that condition”

    Reply
  • the Master of Holles St got it in a nutshell yesterday.Law is inadequate and a nightmare for Doctors.
    would have liked to comment on twitter but my account has been hacked now for 3 rd time,
    I cannot believe the Bishops are being listened to ahead of the group who had to travel because of Fatal foetal syndrome ,
    we also need to cover the tragic cases of rape and incest where there is a real risk of suicide, which we are unable to assess because of travel to England.
    repeal rhe vile 1861 act which pro life want to retain.John McGuirk on Vincent Brown said he wants Doctors to be jailed.Pro life’s real agenda to retain the supreme status of the foetus , women seem expendable to this group

    Reply
  • Can you provide a link about the pope and Uganda. Not saying it didn’t happen just didn’t hear him talk about it.

    Reply
  • @William: Well put. I think she has a point though in that psychiatrists have more of an opportunity to pass off their prejudice as professional opinion than other medical fields. Some parts of psychiatry, such as drug trials, are highly scientific. Others… less so.

    Reply
  • Where on earth does Science come into mainstream Psychiatry? Pseudo science is more like it. They would be the last person I would go near if I was pregnant and suicidal. They mainly prescribe psychoactive drugs. I have come across a few good ones though. Professor Ivor Browne (also a trained Psychotherapist so understand emotional trauma and distress), Peter Breggin (New York), Professor Of Psychiatry David Healy (in Wales) Pat Bracken (West Cork) and Joanna Moncrieff (London). As for some of the rest of them, I wouldn’t send my pregnant cat near them. If I had a cat. She would probably end up a prescribed drug addict. [Never stop or change medication without consulting a good doctor, due to the dangers of withdrawal]

    The Rosenhan experiment was done about 40 years ago and is still true to this very day. I also have a lot of respect for Scottish Psychiatrist R D Laing and his work using game theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG4mOpQpmpw

    Reply
  • Again you’re perpetuating what is at present hear say that Mrs Halappanavar was told that this was a Catholic country, you don’t know that’s what was said, the facts of the case haven’t been fully revealed at this time.

    Reply
    • I think we should probably take for granted that it was said unless it’s proven otherwise by the inquiry, it’s not like this is a court of law or anything and I don’t think her husband would greatly benefit from lying.

      That said, it’s not entirely clear what the context of the quote was. The above article seems to imply that it was evidence of religious bias on either the part of the doctor or the institution, but it’s at least possible that he was trying to explain why the laws governing abortion in Ireland (as he interpreted them) didn’t allow him to perform a termination and why those laws were the way they were. It’s also possible that he refused on the basis of his own religious beliefs, but we don’t know that either.

      Reply
  • DB 09/01/13 #

    Waste of time and money just legalise .

    Reply
    • I disagree, I think yesterday was one of the most productive day seen by our much maligned parliament.

      Reply
    • Government action(good) to help “caught out girls” led to a substantial increase in the numbers joining this widely acknowledged poverty trap.

      Reply
    • DB 09/01/13 #

      @Sean . We do too much talking and investigating and analysis but never do much action. We need action not talk.

      Reply
    • @DB most of the time I would agree but yesterday was a good day and I had not time to expand on it earlier, heares why I think it was a good day. It put a lot of myths to bed and those at one side of the coalface who have not spoken (the clinicians) told us what they do, why they do it and what they want to continue to do without the risk of looking over their shoulder at the risk of being prosecuted for breaking a law while acting within the constitution (theres a prime example of the old saying that “the law is an ass” but there you go). They have clearly told us that at 24 weeks plus they only want to terminate a pregnancy by delivery of a baby. I await with interest the legal submissions today and it is up to the legislators to now give us legislation that matches the current (best) practice that is taking place. As I posted above the most telling piece of information to emerge from yesterday was that we have serious mental health issue in our population at large is that up to 15% of pregnant women are presenting with what they consider are mental health issues.

      Reply
  • Shanti. Jumping onto one study of old studies (this was not a new study) is the sort of thing The Daily Mail does. Here is what some experts say about that meta study…

    The report published in JAMA isn’t new research — it’s a pooled analysis of data from six previously published studies. And it only includes two types of antidepressants — selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) and older drugs called tricyclics.

    In light of those limits, experts interviewed for this story caution against reading too much into the findings.

    “This is the kind of study that really gets misinterpreted by the general public. It’s always frustrating when that happens,” says Jennifer Payne, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and director of the Women’s Mood Disorders Center.

    Some other psychiatrists agree. The report is “very limited,” says David Mischoulon, MD, PhD, associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and director of research at Massachusetts General Hospital’s Depression and Clinical Research Program.

    You personally take an anti-medical pro sCAM approach and therefore are on the lookout for anything that boosts your already established position. How come studies that show sCAM is useless don’t impress you?

    Reply
  • *trialed not tricked

    Reply
  • Meta analysis is a literature review of all studies on a topic/drug. It judges previously done studies based on modern standards of interpretation . Commonly done and a good judge of all evidence . Psychiatry is difficult . The brain is a complex organ . Some conditions have a chemical organic cause which can be treated with medication . Some don’t . Medicating can be trial and error and sometimes multiple agents need to be tricked before the patient feels well . Sometimes nothing works . This happens in general medicine too, resistant hypertension , chronic pain , severe respiratory problems . I could go on …

    Reply
  • I don’t like it either, but she’s a recognised expert in the area. She’s representing her profession, not the Iona institute. The government can’t shut her out just because they disagree with her.

    Reply
  • Sorca, that’s a very good point. All other medication & treatment treats physical problems, similar to a hardware fix. Very mechanical & chemical and straightforward. Mental illnesses may be a mixture of the physical and the mind. Now treating the mind is tricky.

    Reply
  • I don’t think she was part if the original lineup . Her presence made the afternoon all about suicide and abortion . This is supposed to be about modernising the legislation to give legal clarity to medics not whether a suicidal woman should be given a termination . I know a lot if this is based on x case which was about suicide threats but the hearing has been expedited by the events in Galway recently . If that had not happened I doubt this current hearing would be occurring now , more like ten years down the line !

    Reply
  • The GROW conference in Trinity College on Friday (opening speech by President Michael D Higgins and even Vincent Browne chairing the discussion at the end) exposed Psychiatry and psychoactive medication for what it really is. And I discover that one of the top inspectors of Psychiatric hospitals in the Mental Health Commission (MHC) is a Psychiatrist! Now things are starting to make sense! So Irish!

    Slides from one of the speakers : http://www.peter-lehmann.de/dublin

    These over prescribed drugs knock decades off people’s lives, when used long term. Not to mention the serious side effects. Luckily, I personally became “enlightened” and stepped away from the brainwashing. Tranquilizers (which include the “anti-psychotics”/”mood stabilisers”) can help some people short term, over a few days but long term are quite damaging. Not to mention the damage that is been done by “anti-depressants”.

    Never stop or change medication without consulting a good doctor, due to the dangers of withdrawal.

    Reply
  • Shanti, neither myself or yourself are psychiatrists . I looked up the opinions of psychiatrists. It’s their learned opinions I posted. What’s in The Daily Mail today? Another cure for Cancer? Have you read the book Trick or Treatment?

    Reply
  • No William, but Ben Goldacre was and look what he had to say.. Have you seen his TED talk? Read Bad Pharma?
    And while we are at it – have you ever heard of logic? All of that last response was fallacious – the study is a meta analysis of clinical data – it doesn’t take a psychiatrist to read the conclusion, which is pretty clear. And attacking me won’t change the outcome.. It’s just ad hominem nonsense..

    Reply
  • Shanti, if you are referring to my Daily mail comment, the point is quite clear. They constantly jump to conclusions on the basis of a single study or a meta study. I think for the time being I’ll have no choice but to listen to professionals on the matter as I quoted rather then non professionals. You ignored my point re studies that show sCAM doesn’t work, which studies you ignore.

    Reply
  • “Societal delusion” runs deep. Psychiatry has ruined my life from the age of 3. Scientologists are probably the few groups of people that are not afraid to speak out against the injustice in Psychiatry, that has been going on for decades and longer. But I have nothing to do with Scientology.

    The drugs Psychiatrists prescribe save lives? Maybe in some situations, but proper Psychotherapy and real help for someone in “trauma and distress” is what is needed. Some of the drugs they over prescribe have lawsuits against the makers. For example Zyprexa ans Seroquel. Refer to New York Times as I don’t seem to be able to post the links here:

    1. “Lilly Settles With 18,000 Over Zyprexa”
    2. “For $520 Million, AstraZeneca Settles Case Over Marketing of a Drug”

    There is no need to try to discredit the Rosenhan experiment or to try and deflect from the TRUTH. Psychiatrists are best avoided as they can destroy your life and disable you with powerful, prescribed psychoactive medication. I have come across lots of people damaged by them in Critical Voices Network. http://www.criticalvoicesnetwork.com And I just have to remember what happened to Dr Michael Corry when he spoke out about the dangers of SSRIs (Rest in Peace). There are a few whose work I follow. Professor David Healy being an example.

    Reply
  • My opinion has nothing to do with men in frocks. Its a moral opinion that abortion on tap is wrong.

    Reply
  • @Peter According to Dr David Healy, the negative trials on some drugs are suppressed. See 6 mins in for discussion on “anti-depressants”/SSRIs. He is speaking in Cardiff university:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YB59EKMKw

    [Never stop or change medication without consulting a good doctor, due to the dangers of withdrawal]

    Reply
  • http://www.salon.com/2012/11/27/50_reasons_to_boycott_the_catholic_church/
    the above 50 reasond why the Bishops should not be listened to on morals and ethics by our Government.
    the will talk dogma/doctrine and want to see staus of unborn enshrined in law,
    Care for women well they have always been second class citizens any way. So let them die

    Reply
  • Silly comment DB – What if a woman wants to have 5 late abortions in a row? All because its on tap.

    Reply
    • Rob, what’s your position on this exaggerated hypothetical example, put her in jail? She can go to England anyway so what’s your point?

      Reply
    • Personally I’d love to have abortion on tap! You absolute clown. Obviously I’ve made an outlandish statement (and I’m male, should we work in a gender-bias issue here too?). No woman would risk getting pregnant, just because it’s convenient to have it aborted. I can’t exactly imagine it being a fun procedure for the involved.

      People saying that everyone will have them never back this up with evidence this is the case. If the State have a duty of care to all citizens, irrespective of their personal belief this should be legislated for. If you have beliefs that this is morally wrong, fine, that is your opinion. I cannot see why people should force their will upon others. Ireland is just showing itself up in how backwards leaning we are.

      Reply
    • Also, what if 5 women’s live can be saved by having an abortion? We can all throw out wild hypothetical situations.

      Reply
    • You’ve had two decades to absorb information about what the X case means Rob.

      Reply
    • What woman ‘wants’ to have 5 abortions, mug?

      Reply
    • Well if a woman wants to have 5 abortions ‘on tap’ she can do so anyway but travelling to the uk. Its a very traumatic stressful, upsetting and expensive method of contraception however. Quite why any woman would use it or any man infer that she would is beyond me but then there are some very strange people about Rob

      Reply
    • She can have 10 abortions as far as I’m concerned. Its her body, her embryo and her business, of which none of it yours.

      Reply
    • There are very few places you can obtain a “late” or third trimester abortion . It’s certainly not available “on tap” as you say . If a woman’s life is at risk directly by a pregnancy it is ended . Termination if pregnancy means ending it before term . People assume this involved the death of a baby . Not so . It depends at what stage the pregnancy ends and what condition the baby is born in . At 24 weeks plus the baby may be cared for in a nicu and may survive . Obviously if the baby is less than 24 weeks and a pregnancy has to be ended this may not be possible .

      Reply
  • Seems we are safe from the curse that is abortion for a long time yet in this country.

    Reply
  • Hey William, perhaps this may help you to see what Aine is saying;
    http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045

    These drugs – initially hailed as better than the older tricyclic or MAOI antidepressants and with less side effects, as it turns out – are no better than placebo in mild to moderate depression, and the improved performance in the case of more severe depression is more accurately attributed to a decrease in the response to placebo in these groups than the drugs having any discernible benefit.

    Put simply, the drugs – which are the mainstay of psychiatric treatment for depression – don’t work.
    Billions are spent on these ineffective drugs which list: mania, hypomania, psychosis, dissociation, dysphoria, tardive dyskenesia, violence and suicide as KNOWN side effects in the package inserts..
    Drugs are supposed to be used on a benefit vs harm basis – but as this meta analysis shows, there is no benefit outside placebo while there are some real and serious harms.
    These drugs shouldn’t be on the market (ps – those side effects are most frequently experienced in starting or quitting medication – hence why supervision is needed at these stages – if you’re thinking of quitting – PLEASE be careful).

    Need I remind you what exactly it was that got Ben Goldacre on the warpath?

    Reply
  • Why doesn’t the journal.ie just stick to the facts? No need to tell us what was unspoken as you do in point number 9.

    Reply
    • It’s called additional reporting. Are you saying that its not true.

      Reply
    • @Garreth: Actually I think he has a point. I can think of several possible contexts for that sentence which don’t imply that either the doctor or his institution were religiously biased. They chose to go with the worst case scenario one.

      Other than that it’s a fantastically balanced article, which is something extraordinarily rare when it comes to discussion surrounding abortion.

      Reply
  • Wow.. You really should have tried reading it before critiquing it William..

    It was a meta analysis, of 6 different types of SSRI meds which represent all but one type on the market – not just 2 of them as you would try to assert (had you read it you would not have made this mistake)

    It wasn’t a meta analysis of 6 studies, it was a meta analysis of everything submitted to the FDA,and the stuff that wasn’t. It covered over a decades worth of research. They used meta analytics to arrive at their conclusion – the hallmark of clinical EVIDENCE as opposed to, as you would quite rightly dismiss, the results of ONE study..

    You call me a scam artist while you trot out other people’s opinions of a study that you didn’t even read when linked to.. And completely misrepresent it while you are at it out of willingness to accept other people’s critique rather than to see for yourself.
    And you accuse me of picking and choosing.. Hypocrisy much?

    Reply

Add New Comment