You Can Sue, 31 January 2019
Chapter 1: Induced Abortions: Severely Contraindicated Treatment
Address for Chapter 1: http://www.top-sue.org/chapter-1
Brent Rooney (MSc, email: youcansue@gmail.com)
Summary:
Induced abortions (IAs) are virtually 100% elective (unnecessary)
treatments & thus must never be provided if the IA has potential
serious adverse risks. IA increases over 20 adverse risks, with
the most serious being: breast cancer, future premature delivery of a
handicapped baby, suicide, victim of homicide, substance abuse,
miscarriage, and reproductive tract infections. On the other side of the
‘health ledger’ are zero IA health benefits for women undergoing
induced abortions validated by ‘study of studies’ (medical study
category that provides the highest confidence, pro or con, about a
claimed risk factor or beneficial effect).
.....__________________________________________________________.....
If a doctor performs a treatment where the possible harms
clearly outweigh the possible benefits, an objective and unbiased
court may well hold that to be an ethical violation against a
defendant doctor in a medical negligence law suit. Virtually 100%
of abortions are elective (ie. unnecessary) medical treatments. If
the potential harms of an elective treatment far outweigh the
potential benefits, the doctor must not provide the treatment to
the patient. Here is what Canadian judge Ellen I. Picard wrote in
her classic legal textbook:
“... However, this does not mean that the doctor has a duty to
provide (and the patient a correlative right to receive) whatever
treatment the patient may request. If a patient requests treatment
which the doctor considers to be inappropriate and potentially
harmful, the doctor's overriding duty to act in the patient's best
interests dictates that the treatment must be withheld. A doctor who
accedes to a patient's request (or demand) and performs treatment
which he or she knows, or ought to know, is contraindicated and
not in the patient's best interests, may be held liable for any injury
which the patient suffers as a result of treatment.....”[1, Picard]
Young Childless Women Undergoing IAs (Induced Abortions)
It should be very obvious that increasing a woman’s lifetime
breast cancer risk via an unnecessary (ie. elective) medical
treatment is very unethical and dangerous. About 1/2 of abortions
in Canada and the USA are performed on childless women. It has
been medical fact for at least 3 1/2 decades that the older a woman
is at her first delivery of a baby (full-term), the higher her lifetime
breast cancer (B.C.) risk (see Chapter 3). In advanced counties there
is a 41% higher relative B.C. risk via a first delivery (full-term) at
age 32 versus a first delivery at age 22 (ie. a 10 year postponement),
according to Harvard University researchers .[2, Trichopoulos] (A
five (5) year postponement of a first delivery increases relative B.C.
risk by 19%). As a general rule, abortion consent forms have
zero warnings directed at CHILDLESS women. So, for example,
pregnant childless women do not see abortion consent form
warnings along the following lines:
“If you are a childless young woman, delivering a baby (full-term)
currently provides you with lower lifetime breast risk compared
to a first delivery of a baby (full-term) when you are older.”
Does elective abortion have short term (1-5 years) health benefits?
What are the top 3 killers of young women between ages
18 and 35 years old in advanced countries? Answer: Accidents
(#1 by far), Suicides, & Homicides. Any study comparing short
term death rates of women who deliver babies to women who
have induced abortions that excludes the top 3 killers of young
women clearly does NOT reveal which of the 2 groups has higher
total death risk. Thus, if a study purports to find that women
who deliver babies have 5, 10, or 15 times higher death risk as
women who have IAs, but that study excludes deaths by Accidents,
Suicides, and Homicides (the top 3 killers of young women), it
has provided readers with a very deceptive statistic. Mortality
studies that do NOT exclude any cause of death are termed
“All-Cause Mortality” studies. If there was just 1 study published
in a peer-reviewed medical journal finding that in the 12 months
“after end of pregnancy’ that women who choose induced abortion
have (on average) lower “All-Cause Mortality” risk than women
who deliver babies, then abortion supporters could claim a
significant benefit for abortion. Such a study does not exist and
the burden of proof that such a study does exist lies on the
‘shoulders’ of abortion supporters. If challenged in a court of law
to provide a copy of such a study, the defendant(s) will be unable
to do so. [So-called ‘maternal mortality’ studies, since they
exclude deaths by Accidents, Suicides, & Homicides, are NOT
“All-Cause” mortality studies.] If a defendant does provide a
claimed copy of such a study and it is shown that “maternal
mortality” was used to compare mortality risk, the defendant has
failed to provided the required study.
The strongest form of evidence for or against a purported
medical risk is provided by the medical study category:
‘study of studies’ (meta-analysis). And if a ‘meta-analysis’ also
provides a systematic review of all studies for a particular risk,
it is termed Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis (SRMA),
the very pinnacle of medical evidence. Using data from 11 prior
published studies, David Reardon (PhD and Dr. John Thorp
(University of North Carolina) in a peer-reviewed November
2017 ‘study of studies’ reported:
“Within a year of their pregnancy outcomes, women
experiencing pregnancy loss are over twice as likely
to die compared to women giving birth”.[3, Reardon]
Pregnancy loss includes: miscarriages, induced abortions, &
stillbirths. In published abortion studies by Finnish researchers,
zero reliance on interviews of women to ascertain IA history
is done. Instead Finnish researchers obtain abortion history
reliably via Finland’s national abortion registry. Using that
Finnish IA registry researchers, led by Dr. Mika Gissler, revealed
the comparative total death risk in the 12 months after pregnancy
end: Finnish women with induced abortions were 3.5 times
more likely to die compared to Finnish women who delivered
babies.[4, Gissler] In addition, in a surprise to many, the
‘Gissler’ study revealed that women who deliver babies have
lower total death risk (in the 12 months after pregnancy end) than
Finnish women not recently pregnant. Bottom line: If the consent
form you signed asserted or implied that induced abortion is safer
for a woman than delivery of a baby, this misinformed consent is
medical negligence. Consent forms must inform patients of safer
alternatives to the one desired, if such safer alternatives exist. A
pregnant woman’s delivery of a baby is a much safer alternative
than an elective induced abortion and optimizes her future
reproductive health.
Overview of Induced Abortion Risks
On 8 November 2018 the deVeber Institute (Toronto,
Canada) released edition 2 of its very well researched book:
COMPLICATIONS. Hundreds of citations are provided to
support many adverse induced abortion outcomes. [ Oder
form for COMPLICATIONS:
https://www.deveber.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Complications-Order-Form.pdf
; if you order COMPLICATIONS via AMAZON,
make sure you get the most recent edition (edition 2), which will
have 2018 as the publication year ]
Address for this Chapter 1: http://www.top-sue.org/chapter-1
…______________________________________________________________...
References
1 Picard EI, Robertson GB, Legal Liability Of Doctors And
Hospitals In Canada, Carswell, Toronto, Canada, pp. 345-346, 2007)
2 Trichopoulos D, Hsien D-C, MacMahon B, Lin T-M, Lowe RC, et al.
Age at any birth and breast cancer risk. Intl J Cancer 1983;31:701-704
[ Abstract: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.2910310604/abstract ]
3 Reardon DC, Thorp JM. Pregnancy associated death in record
linkage studies relative to delivery, termination of pregnancy, and
natural losses: A systematic review with a narrative synthesis and
meta-analysis. Safe Open Medicine 13 November 2017
http://journals.sagepub.com/eprint/N86GqF7e5kx7diHpiRng/full
4 Gissler M, Kauppila R, Merilainen J, Toukomaa H, Hemminki E.
Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 – definition
problems and benefits of record linkage. Acta Obstetrica Gynecologica
Scandinavica 1997;96(7):651-657 [URL:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3109/00016349709024605/full ]