Via Media

Via Media


A slight omission

posted by awelborn

The press coverage of the fetal pain study left out something: Well, actually, the study itself left something out.

In today’s Journal of the American Medical Association, five researchers from the University of California, San Francisco, review nearly 2,000 studies on the hotly debated questions. They conclude that legislative proposals to allow fetal pain relief during abortion are not justified by scientific evidence.

But their seven-page article has a weakness: It does not mention that one author is an abortion clinic director, while the lead author – Susan J. Lee, a medical student – once worked for NARAL Pro-Choice America.

JAMA editor-in-chief Catherine D. DeAngelis said she was unaware of this, and acknowledged it might create an appearance of bias that could hurt the journal’s credibility. "This is the first I’ve heard about it," she said. "We ask them to reveal any conflict of interest. I would have published" the disclosure if it had been made.

UCSF obstetrician-gynecologist Eleanor A. Drey, medical director of the abortion clinic at San Francisco General Hospital, said: "We thought it was critical to include an expert in abortion among the authors. I think my presence… should not serve to politicize a scholarly report."

ee



Advertisement
Comments read comments(44)
post a comment
Jay Anderson

posted August 24, 2005 at 1:09 pm


The whole fetal pain inquiry is really quite irrelevant. Since when is it okay to kill people so long as they feel no pain while you’re snuffing out their lives?



report abuse
 

Roberto

posted August 24, 2005 at 1:15 pm


Look at the bright side: even looking at the question, albeit for a biased purpose, suggests that the abortion idea continues to bother all. Or why would they try to convince us that it is really painless, you know..



report abuse
 

Eric Giunta

posted August 24, 2005 at 1:22 pm


I don’t see what the big deal is.
Everyone’s got their biases. Everyone. Had the researchers in question reaches opposite conclusions, and turned out to be devout Christians I don’t think any pro-lifers would be subjecting them to this scrutiny.
Their research should be allowed to speak for itself, and no prejudgement made because of suspected biases.



report abuse
 

Celine

posted August 24, 2005 at 1:39 pm


Eric is right. The principal proponents of fetal pain legislation are all prolife. Does this mean that their claims that fetal pain exists earlier in pregnancy should be discounted? This amounts to an ad hominem attack and should be discounted on such a basis as to the truth or falsity of the claims made. Must every debate in this country — even a debate as crucial as abortion — be debased to the level of talk-radio spin-doctoring and innuendo-mongering?



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 24, 2005 at 1:41 pm


Eric, if some pro-lifer had conducted the study and found that, indeed, the unborn can feel pain in utero, the pro-aborts and their willing accomplices in the MSM would have called “bias”.
The key difference is that the MSM would not have reported it as a straightforward news story without calling attention to the “biases” of those who conducted the study.



report abuse
 

Ian Laurenzi

posted August 24, 2005 at 1:42 pm


Eric:
The problem is that it wasn’t their research. They didn’t experiment on fetuses themselves, but dug through the literature.
The problem with this kind of research is that you can pick and choose the paper you think are credible. Sort of like blogging. ;) But formulating hypotheses and testing them really requires a dedicated experimental design. This paper does not do so.



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 24, 2005 at 1:43 pm


But again, the whole thing is irrelevant – lack of pain doesn’t make it okay to kill people.
That’s why legislation calling for anesthesia to be administered before an abortion misses the mark completely.



report abuse
 

Roberto

posted August 24, 2005 at 1:46 pm


Eric,
just in case you missed, the point is that to publish in a major scientific journal you must declare you potential conflicts of interest. And they did not do that.
I totally agree that everyone has a bias. But the criticism is that JAMA should have been told. And that smacks of dishonesty.



report abuse
 

Joel

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:17 pm


Good point, Jay. The same can be said for euthanasia. Just because someone may find a way to make it a painless process shouldn’t make it acceptable or something that’s not evil.



report abuse
 

Tinny Tim

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:18 pm


The whole philosophy of the abortion industry is based on a lie, so should we really be surprised when they distort facts or make omissions of material fact in order to mislead?



report abuse
 

Tinny Tim

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:24 pm


In any event, we should not accept the invitation to adopt the premise of the whole issue, which is that feeling pain is a factor in determining personhood or the human-ness of a given being. The inabilities to feel pain or think cognitively or communicate with others do not make one sub-human, or non-human, or an inanimate object that can be thrown into the trash.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:25 pm


We have Eric and Celine…but where’s Katherine?
‘This amounts to an ad hominem attack and should be discounted on such a basis as to the truth or falsity of the claims made.’
The journal itself asks all contributors to reveal conflicts of interest. The editor recognizes that there is an appearance of conflict of interest here. The editor would have published the authors’ affiliations if they had been made known to the editor. This has nothing to do with and ‘ad hominem’ attack and everything to do with the journal’s policies.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:29 pm


‘lack of pain doesn’t make it okay to kill people’
This is one article. There is other evidence that contradicts this article’s findings. (For example M. Fisk, et al., Fetal Plasma Cortisol and B-endorphin Response to Intrauterine Needling, Lancet, Vol. 344, July 9, 1994)It’s precisely because the article’s findings on a controversial issue are so unusual given so much other evidence that a disclosure of their backgrounds–as is demanded by journal policy–would have been appropriate.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:35 pm


‘The whole fetal pain inquiry is really quite irrelevant.’
If the fetus feels pain then abortionists may be required to give fetuses an anaesthetic before killing them. This would be a pretty effective way of reminding both the doctor and the mother that a human being is about to be killed. It’s not at all irrelevant to the battle against abortion.



report abuse
 

Mary Kay

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:39 pm


Amy,
A special note of thanks for this one. I figured there was a catch someplace, but frantically trying to finish packing before tomorrow’s move prevented me from doing my own research.



report abuse
 

Katherine

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:40 pm


Eh? I don’t know what you were expecting me to say–clearly nothing good–but in fact I agree with you. I know next to nothing about how peer reviewed medical journals operate and basically trust JAMA’s editor to know what she’s talking about and what should and should not be disclosed. It doesn’t mean that the study is false of course, but if JAMA’s editor says this is the sort of thing they customarily make a note of and that they ask authors to reveal, well then, the authors should have done so.
Based on my very brief, very unimpressive career as a reporter, JAMA’s policy seems similar to good newspaper disclosure practices about disclosing reporters’ relevant affiliations. But if it were more stringent than a newspaper, I’d still trust it.



report abuse
 

wilson

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:47 pm


The claims of the study can be easily refuted by asking any nurse who works in a neo-natal intensive care unit, working with premature babies in the 22-wk to 27-wk range. Why else would these babies cry when an IV is inserted, or other procedures performed? Granted, premature babies are no longer fetuses, but brain development doesn’t occur instantaneously when a preemee is born!



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 24, 2005 at 2:55 pm


“It’s not at all irrelevant to the battle against abortion.”
Sorry, I disagree. Once pain or lack thereof enters into the moral equation, then it only becomes a question of doing what is necessary to “ease” the suffering.
Killing people is wrong regardless of whether or not the person being killed feels pain in the process of being killed.



report abuse
 

Dan Crawford

posted August 24, 2005 at 3:04 pm


Yes, “the research should be allowed to speak for itself”, but its conclusions and methodology are based on assumptions and definitions that need to be challenged from the outset. The study,like so man others in the “hard” and “social” sciences reaches conclusions and makes judgments unwarranted by the evidence itself. It’s one of the reasons why the social sciences and “evolutionary” science and now “abortion” science can’t be taken all that seriously. This study can’t even figure out what “pain” is, nor how it can be discerned except in the crudest way. The newspaper article itself suggests that the author apparently lacks any faculty for critical thought.



report abuse
 

Tinny Tim

posted August 24, 2005 at 3:09 pm


brain development doesn’t occur instantaneously when a preemee is born!
Sure it does, just like that blob of tissue magically becomes a living human person at birth. You know, it is rather curious that the religiously-minded, attacked as narrow-minded know-nothings, are greater defenders of scientific fact than are so-called scientists, who cling to arbitrary, irrational views of nonreality to justify their actions.



report abuse
 

reluctant penitent

posted August 24, 2005 at 3:10 pm


‘Once pain or lack thereof enters into the moral equation, then it only becomes a question of doing what is necessary to “ease” the suffering.’
Of course it would not be a decisive victory over the pro-abortion side. But the pro-abortion side is very much opposed to this for a reason–because the requirement that the unborn baby be given a painkiller risks humanizing the baby. It would be one battle won in the war against the killing fo the unborn.
‘Killing people is wrong regardless of whether or not the person being killed feels pain in the process of being killed.’
I agree. But this has nothing to do with the importance for the pro-life side of a legal requirement to treat the unborn baby as one would a regular human patient. It makes the opposing side’s claim that one is dealing here with just a clump of tissue more difficult to sell to the public.
I apologize Katherine. I was under the impression that you were inclined object to posts on this blog that are critical of the pro-abortion side.



report abuse
 

ATP for short

posted August 24, 2005 at 3:24 pm


I agree with Reluctant Penitent. It does matter whether or not we can make another dent in the “just a blob of tissues” lie by ascertaining that the fetus does, indeed, feel pain.



report abuse
 

Katherine

posted August 24, 2005 at 3:32 pm


Only occasionally; I’m much more inclined to irritate y’all in other ways on other issues.
I do think there is a tendency on both sides of the abortion debate to describe the other side’s subjective motivations and beliefs in an inaccurate way and/or to impute the views and actions of an extremist fringe to anyone who disagrees with you, which is locking us into a morally unacceptable status quo. I also think that convincing people of this is way beyond my weak powers of persuasion. I’ve had no success whatsoever in convincing militant pro-choice people of this, and they’re the ones who don’t believe that there’s an ongoing genocide and who overlap much more with my general political and religious views than people here and thus trust me more. So I focus my irritating arguments elsewhere.
Technical question: when newspapers speek of the fetus’ age, do they start counting on day of fertilization, the day of the first missed period, or do they carelessly switch back and forth?



report abuse
 

Ed

posted August 24, 2005 at 3:36 pm


Celine wrote, in defending Eric :
“This amounts to an ad hominem attack …”
Isn’t abortion the ultimate “ad hominem” attack ?



report abuse
 

Katherine

posted August 24, 2005 at 4:50 pm


btw, the initial New York Times article notes that Ellen Drey has performed abortions; she actually brings it up:

Dr. Eleanor A. Drey, one of Dr. Rosen’s co-authors, said that as an obstetrician who performed abortions and the medical director of an abortion clinic, she would find it troubling to be compelled to bring up the subject of fetal pain with her patients. “I would be forced to drag them through potentially a lot of misinformation,” Dr. Drey said. “Our systematic review has shown it’s extremely unlikely that pain exists at a point when abortions are done. I’m going to have to talk about something I know will cause the patient distress, something that by our best assessment of the scientific data is not relevant.”



report abuse
 

Chris

posted August 24, 2005 at 4:54 pm


USCF, by it’s own admission, thought it was “critical to include an expert in abortion” but didn’t think it was critical to disclose that to JAMA?
At best, it shows bias. At worst, it’s dishonest.



report abuse
 

Tinny Tim

posted August 24, 2005 at 5:01 pm


she would find it troubling to be compelled to bring up the subject of fetal pain with her patients.
OK, she believes in “choice” and “autonomy,” but she does not believe in informed consent or that choices should be made knowingly and intelligently, with a full understanding of the nature and consequences of the choice.



report abuse
 

Tim Young

posted August 24, 2005 at 6:10 pm


Note to Katherine et al
Don’t trust peer reviewed medical journals. Over half the time, the published articles don’t contain enough evidence to support the authors conclusion. ( I’m a physician, and spend a good deal of my time evaluating articles in peer reviewed journals for validity. The 50% figure comes from a review in a British medical journal.) I haven’t seen the JAMA article yet, so can’t comment on it, but wonder how one can study a largely subjective thing ( pain ) in a fetus.



report abuse
 

Mary Kay

posted August 24, 2005 at 7:57 pm


Tim, I wondered about your comment about studying “a largely subjective thing (pain).” While trying to re-find the sites describing Dr. Anand’s research, I came across several sites that describe the fetus responding to a needle the same a newborn would, withdraw etc.
Perhaps others use more stringent criteria but sites like the following sure have me convinced:
http://www.fetal-pain.com/



report abuse
 

catholic

posted August 24, 2005 at 9:08 pm


A scholarly work which has passed peer review and appears in JAMA is not likely to be a propaganda piece. Even if one slips through, science has the nice property that experiments can be repeated, new data can be analyzed, and new inquiry which holds to the rigorous standards of the discipline can correct past mistakes.
peace



report abuse
 

jthomas

posted August 24, 2005 at 9:40 pm


Ever wonder why one week a study shows one outcome, and in another week a similar study shows the exact opposite outcome. Unfortunately scientific studies are abysmal and many times data is fudged to present the outcome the researchers hypothsize, to enable further funding for additional studies to try to confirm their findings.



report abuse
 

cv

posted August 24, 2005 at 10:12 pm


The story about this fetal pain study appeared on the front page of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, just below the masthead, above the fold.
To the editors, it was clearly big news…not to mention anyone who wants to have an abortion but is worried about “hurting” the baby. (Yes I know this story is timely because of the fetal pain legislation issue, but Jay Anderson truly cuts to the heart of the matter in his first post.)
On the same front page was a long story about Paris Hilton’s shortcomings as an owner of teacup chihuahuas. She recently traded in said doggie for an even smaller one that will be easier to carry in her purse. This is downright mean, see, and demonstrates a lack of compassion for the animal’s right to live as a happy, dignified and well-exercised dog and not a fashion accessory.
I love dogs and think the criticism of Paris is justified, but does anyone else see a DISCONNECT between these two front page stories?



report abuse
 

Stacey

posted August 24, 2005 at 10:17 pm


Technical question: when newspapers speek of the fetus’ age, do they start counting on day of fertilization, the day of the first missed period, or do they carelessly switch back and forth?
None of the above. Generally, when the age of an unborn baby is referred to (or the number of weeks that a woman is pregnant), it is from the first day of the last period. So, when a baby is referred to as 8 weeks, that’s from the first day of the last period that the mother had, which is really more like 6 weeks actual age of the baby. The only exceptions that I have seen to this general rule come when you are reading books on embryology or things of that nature that will show the level of development from the point of fertilization. But everybody else (including the woman’s ob doctor) will refer to how far along things are from the first day of the last period.



report abuse
 

Jay Anderson

posted August 24, 2005 at 10:30 pm


Exactly, cv.
What if a whole lot of newspapers report on this study, and as a result, a whole lot of people believe this study to be accurate?
The argument HAS to be made that whether or not the fetus suffers pain in utero is irrelevant to whether or not it is moral to take its life. As one astute person pointed out to me tonight, it takes us right back to the arguments over whether Terri Schiavo was in pain during her ordeal. IT IS IRRELEVANT!
Just because death can occur without pain doesn’t give you the right to kill someone.



report abuse
 

catholic

posted August 25, 2005 at 1:28 am


Research fraud = lost funding & lost reputation & lost academic appointment & lost career.
Rather than try to find some evil political motive in this research, read the above posting by Jay Anderson. He has it right. Fetal pain is irrelevant to the issue of abortion.
peace



report abuse
 

Mary Kay

posted August 25, 2005 at 6:45 am


Yes, it can be said that fetal pain is irrelevant to the issue of abortion.
But ackowledging fetal pain might begin to break through the wall of denial for some.



report abuse
 

Donald R. McClarey

posted August 25, 2005 at 7:35 am


Yet another example of politicized junk science attempting to masquerade as objective research. Yawn.



report abuse
 

Melissa

posted August 25, 2005 at 8:45 am


When I was pro-choice, I thought these little babies in utero where nothing but a blob of tissue. It was a couple of surprisingly “irrelevant” issues that dissolved the false premises upon which my beliefs were based. Fetal pain is just one more way to do this. If it were irrelevent the abortion doctor wouldn’t be so opposed. It is the same with ultrasound pictures. It humanizes the baby and forces a woman to fully weigh her “choice”. The difference between the conflict of interest that may have existed if the researcher was pro-life and these researchers is PROFIT.



report abuse
 

Tim Young

posted August 25, 2005 at 8:16 pm


“A scholarly work which has passed peer review and appears in JAMA is not likely to be a propaganda piece”
Got the article today and read it. The first sentence of the abstract is “Proposed federal legislation would require physicians to inform women seeking abortion at 20 or more weeks…This article examines whether a fetus feels pain…”. Combine that with the obvious confilct of interest of 2 of the authors, and you have perfect recipe for bias.
The article, by the way, does have some significant threats to its validity, not to mention that it is largely observational in nature, not experimental.



report abuse
 

BlogRodent

posted August 25, 2005 at 9:53 pm


JAMA, abortion, and all the crying babies

“If Congress wants an objective evaluation of whether calves and lambs are being slaughtered humanely, they will not rely too much on the report from the operators of slaughterhouses.”—Douglas Johnson, legislative director of t…



report abuse
 

George

posted August 25, 2005 at 11:14 pm


This is a highly relevant debate, only not for Catholics. Some other Christians and most other people follow the pre-nineteenth century understanding of the embryo and second-trimester fetus to be pre-human. The Church has “developed” a much higher understanding of the holiness of humanity, especially in the womb, than many other Christians. Liberal yet orthodox Christians who allow for abortions in some cases are actually consistent with medieval Catholic theology, which followed St. Thomas’ understanding of quickening and viability.
The issues around feeling pain are relevant in several areas. The basic thesis of abortion supporters is that fetuses (and embryos of course) are not conscious and do not feel pain, or anything. They are pre-human and therefore mere vegetables with a special status, based solely on the conscious mother’s intentions and sentiments. Remember the weighing of Terri Schiavo’s brain at autopsy in attempt to prove that she had no consciousness, felt nothing, and therefore was not really human. Same with the fetuses who do not feel pain. The issue is consciousness and whether this being is human.
To be fair to some abortion supporters, they do not consider an abortion of a non-conscious (in the sense of self awareness) and nonfeeling pre-human to be murder. There I did it. I explained how people support the abominable action of abortion.
As Catholics, we don’t really care. Humans of any stage and status deserve protection, even from their mothers. But for those here who think that natural law dictates the immorality of abortion, the feeling pain issue is important as it is one attempt to get at the level of consciousness, if any, possessed by a fetus.
I think Amy is right to point out the bias of these reproductive health professionals–they are not researchers, really. And I think that science, properly conducted, is likely to show fetuses to have a much higher level of consciousness than many doctors, especially abortion provides, now think exists.
The problem for us is that we are really arguing about the status of late-term abortions. I think it is unlikely that first trimester embryos feel pain or have other higher functions that humans and even animals have. So if we base our argument against this heinous practice on evidence of pain and bloodshed of late abortions, we may be in effect conceeding that early abortions are less evil.



report abuse
 

alkali

posted August 26, 2005 at 9:36 am


wilson writes:
The claims of the study can be easily refuted by asking any nurse who works in a neo-natal intensive care unit, working with premature babies in the 22-wk to 27-wk range. Why else would these babies cry when an IV is inserted, or other procedures performed?
Do premature babies in the 22 to 27 week range in fact cry when such procedures are performed? I would not be surprised if they did not; I think in general they are on ventilators and wouldn’t have the strength to cry if they wanted to. (I am actually not sure that there are any examples of babies born prior to 25 weeks that have survived more than a few minutes after delivery.)
(This is not to say that the study is right or wrong, but just a question of fact about this objection.)



report abuse
 

Joel

posted August 26, 2005 at 2:11 pm


Here’s an article at this link that further shows the study was biased: http://www.lifenews.com/nat1562.html



report abuse
 

mom to preemie

posted November 21, 2005 at 2:21 pm


I think that if a woman kills her baby she should be killed in the same manner.My daughter was born at 28 weeks and I saw her in pain even at that tiny part of her life she couldnt cry out loud buti saw the tears in her eyes when they put her IV in and Another babies silent cries when he was on his vent.Babies are alive and feel pain.And are a gift we should make sure are taken care of not cut into peices and thrown into the trash.I went through alot to give my baby the chance to live and these women dont even give it a second thought.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

There is nothing I shall want
A couple of weeks ago, a memorial Mass for Michael was held here in Birmingham at the Cathedral. The bishop presided and offered a very nice, even charming homily in which he first focused on the Scripture readings of the day, and then turned to Michael, whom he remembered, among other things, as on

posted 9:24:16am Mar. 05, 2009 | read full post »

Revolutionary Road - Is it just me?
Why am I the only person I know..or even "know" in the Internet sense of "knowing"  - who didn't hate it? I didn't love it, either. There was a lot wrong with it. Weak characterization. Miscasting. Anvil-wielding mentally ill prophets.But here's the thing.Whether or not Yates' original novel in

posted 9:45:04pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Books for Lent
No, I'm not going to ask you about your Lenten reading lists...although I might.Not today, though. This post is about giving books to others. For Lent, and a long time after that. You know how it goes during Lent: Prayer, Fasting and Almsgiving, right?Well, here's a worthy recipient for your hard-

posted 9:22:07pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Why Via Media
How about....because I'm lame and hate thinking up titles to things? No?Okay...how about...St. Benedict? Yes, yes, I know the association with Anglicanism. That wasn't invovled in my purpose in naming the joint, but if draws some Googling Episcopalians, all the better.To tell the truth, you can bl

posted 8:54:17pm Mar. 04, 2009 | read full post »

Brave Heart?
I don't know about you, but one of effects of childbirth on me was a compulsion to spill the details. All of them.The whole thing was fascinating to me, so of course I assumed everyone else should be fascinated as well in the recounting of every minute of labor, describing the intensity of discomfor

posted 10:19:45pm Mar. 03, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.