NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/abortion/57301

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-22 | 3.8 KB

Xref: sparky talk.abortion:57301 alt.birthright:580
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.birthright
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!mcochran
From: [e-mail] (Mark A. Cochran)
Subject: Re: Why we are pro-life:
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
    of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
    control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Sender: [e-mail] (netnews admin account)
Organization: None worth mentioning.
References: <z#[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 93 05:17:44 GMT
Lines: 61

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Stephen Matheson) writes:
>From article <z#[e-mail]>, by [e-mail] (rocker):
>> [e-mail] (Ron Graham) writes:
>>>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (rocker) writes...
>
>>>>So tell us Graham, how's the documentation coming on that claim of
>>>>"2% physical complication rate" for childbirth?
>
>>>Hey, kiddo: I gave you the reference once.  Do your homework.  Go look it up.
>
>> Funny, I don't remember any original-source reference for this.  As
>> I recall, you were merely parroting Reardon's book.  If you are citing
>> Reardon's word as the original source, I'm afraid that means no more
>> than my claiming a 99.3% physical complication rate for pregnancy.  Can
>> you refute that?
>
>> In any event, I could hardly credit _any_ reference that would give a
>> 2% physical complication rate (contrasted, as it was, to some
>> ridiculously high rate for abortion) for pregnancy and childbirth.
>> I have repeatedly pointed out that the C-section rate in the US
>> approches 50% in some areas, and runs ~30% generally.  (Matheson,
>> Cochran, any of you medico-types have stats for this?)
>
>Gulp.  Matheson here.  Medico-type?  Uh, I'm a mere graduate student
>seeking a lowly Ph.D. in neuroscience.  While I'm sincerely flattered
>that I've been mentioned in the company of Cochran (Mark? Keith? Both?)
>and "medico-types", I must warn all t.a participants that I'm neither
>a doctor nor a magician.
>
You've proven yourself able to discourse intelligently on the subject
of fetal neural development. That's close enough for most people
Steve. ;)

>End of disclaimer.  While we're on the subject, though, I believe I
>heard on the radio news today that a study in NEJM has demonstrated
>that the sharp increase in the number of C-sections in the US is
>attributable to fear of malpractice suits.  In the report, it was
>mentioned that the US C-section rate is at 23%.  As you point out,
>Cathi, that is an average with a big standard deviation.
>(Pretty good, huh?  My wife, forever an engineer, taught me.:-)
>
Cesarean section is the mode of birth for approximately 30% of all
women, which reflects a steady rise from about 5.5% in 1970. The rise
is attributed mainly to a steadily decreasing morbidity and mortality
for c-sections. [Freeman RK: Can we lower the cesarean birth rate?
Tenth International Symposium on Perinatal Medicine and Obsetrical
Ultrasound. April 9-12, 1990, Las Vegas, Nevada]

The 2% figure for complications sounds resonable, if you're limiting
the complications to severe, life threatening ones. If we include
*all* complications of pregnancy, we get a *much* higher figure.

Morning sickness alone occurs in nearly 50% of all pregnancies.
[Klebanoff R et al: Epidemiology of vomiting in early pregnancy.
_Obstetrics and Gynecology_ November, 1985]

--
                  Mark Cochran          [e-mail]
These are the views of my employer, your employer, your government, the
Church of your choice, and the Ghost of Elvis. So there.
Member, T.S.A.K.C.