Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes
BMJ 2024; 384 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076518 (Published 27 February 2024) Cite this as: BMJ 2024;384:e076518
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor
I write with growing concern and disquiet, in an attempt to redress the imbalance that has repeatedly filled the pages of the BMJ and advertising leaflets that accompany the paper copies delivered through my front door.
I refer to the incessant pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia views that occupy prime place without any attempt to mention those of us with differing views. The analysis from Professor Littell et al occupy in the BMJ published 2nd March 2024 occupies a 3-page section of your publication with highly emotive colour photographs in the name of correcting scientific research but once again promoting the views of those who are pro-abortion.
Contrast this with the few lines detailing the news that a Loss Certificate is to be made available to parents who "lose a baby before 24 weeks" in England (Seven Days in Medicine article in the same issue).
Regarding abortion alone, since October 2023, I have only found ONE article published that questions this (Tom Scanlon BMJ 2023;383:p2347 (12 October 2023) compared to MULTIPLE pro-abortion articles and opinions (cite BMJ 2024; 384: e07833 pages 25-27 (3rd Jan 2024) “Applying global lessons to protect access to abortion in the United States”; BMJ 2023, 383:p2639 (10th Nov 2023); BMJ 2023; 83: p2920 (11 Dec 2023); BMJ 2023; 8 p2863 (08 Dec 2023); BMJ 2023; p.2863 (04 Dec 2023); BMJ 2023; 383 p.2771 (23 Nov 2023); BMJ 2023; 383 p.2719 (23 Nov 2023) “The abortion trail to England from the rest of the British Isles is on rocky ground” and BMJ 383 p 2734 (20 Nov 2023).
Many of us went into the medical field to preserve life and improve it rather than end it . One would imagine that those of us privileged enough to hold a medical degree might have the capacity to withstand and welcome ethical debate rather than allowing those with the loudest voices to have the biggest say.
Sincerely
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes
Dear Editor,
Julia Littell (1) and colleagues have done us all a service in reporting how bad science feeds into and can create bad politics, harmful laws and suffering for women. The report is truly astonishing.
Even as a blogger, the first thing I do is to check my sources, a process which seems to have been absent and would have spotted evident anti-abortionists authors who didn't declare glaring conflicts of interest. (2) That errors and intentional misinterpretations slipped through into mainstream medical journals is a cause for concern. In an age when medical misinformation is a growing problem, respected journals must surely take more care.
Creating academic debate can be seen as worthy, but let's not fall into the trap of giving equal platform to contrarians just for the sake of fairness - the BBC used to give air time to climate deniers until told not to. Nicola Wright (3) complains of 'incessant pro-abortion views', but women with unwanted pregnancies are not the loudest voice, they need help. I remember the frightening predicament of so many women I helped obtain abortions and how the procedure allowed them to learn and move on in their lives, often to future planned parenthood, that defining and most important facet of our lives.
Of course, if all pregnancies were planned and wanted, the world would be a different place, but that is not the world in which we live. As well as pure bad luck and contraceptive failure, a highly sexualised culture, predatory males, poor family planning education, religious extremism, inaccessible services, poverty and coercion all contribute to suffering largely borne by women struggling to bring children up in child unfriendly societies.
That unplanned unwanted pregnancies can be a personal disaster is the reality of the world we live in. Not just for the woman, but also for her potential future planned, wanted children. That is why provision of accessible, quick and safe abortion services is an important last resort for when all else fails.
Yours Sincerely
1. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-076518\
2. https://www.bmj.com/content/324/7330/151?ijkey=f82997fed40e868f77cbb6f30...
3. https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-076518/rapid-responses
Competing interests: No competing interests