Posted on 01/04/2002 7:11:49 AM PST by Notwithstanding
In what may be the first case of its kind in the world, an Australian woman has reached a settlement with an abortionist whom she had sued for not telling her about research findings linking abortion to breast cancer.
The information was disclosed during a recent legislative session in the state of Tasmania, where lawmakers were debating abortion legislation. Attorney Charles Francis warned the legislature about the risk of future litigation against doctors who perform abortions.
Francis has represented several women suing abortionists for not warning them of the possible psychiatric consequences of abortion.
Last year, he represented a woman who included in her psychiatric damage lawsuit the additional failure to warn of an increased risk of breast cancer caused by abortion.
The landmark case was settled out of court, Francis said by phone from the state of Victoria Friday.
His client cannot be identified because of a confidentiality clause in the settlement, he said, but he believed it to be the first case of its kind anywhere. Another, similar case was pending in the neighboring state of New South Wales, he added.
While preparing the cases, Francis said, "I had to go into all the evidence and the expert medical views for the purpose of presenting the case. It seemed to me, looking at it as a lawyer looking at evidence, the evidence was fairly strong - certainly strong enough, we thought, for [us to have] a good chance at winning."
Francis said there was no indication one way or the other that the doctor had decided to settle because he was worried about the cancer link claim.
Still, the doctor had not insisted that the cancer link claim be dropped before agreeing to settle.
"My impression is there is a good deal of reluctance to see this litigated in public. Often you have conflicting medical views [in court cases]. Doctors are called, give differing evidence and then the court decides what it thinks it the most likely situation."
The question of a link between abortion and breast cancer is a major source of contention between pro-life and pro-abortion campaigners. Each side points to research it claims backs its stance, questions the methodology of the other's research, and accuses the opposition of using the issue to promote its cause.
According to the U.S.-based Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, 27 out of 35 studies published since 1957 have found a link.
Groups advocating abortion, backed up by some leading medical bodies, deny that such a link exists.
Karen Malec, president of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, welcomed news of the Australian settlement.
"The abortion industry and its medical experts know that it will be far more challenging for them to lie to women about the abortion-breast cancer research when they are called upon to testify under oath," she said in a statement.
"Scientists know that abortion causes breast cancer but are afraid to say so publicly in today's hostile political climate."
Dr. Joel Brind, president of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, is regarded by the coalition as a leading authority on the abortion-breast cancer link.
He believes there is a 30 percent overall increased risk of breast cancer after having an abortion, and an 80 percent increased risk for women with a family history of cancer.
Summarizing Brind's argument, Francis explained that upon conception, the level of estrogen in a woman's body increases dramatically. This results in the development of undifferentiated cells in the breast, which pose an additional cancer risk.
Late in the pregnancy, these cells become milk-producing cells, cease posing a greater cancer risk, and in fact provide added protection against cancer.
If a woman has an abortion before that stage - and the vast majority of abortions would occur before then - her body is left with a high number of undifferentiated cells which increase the risk of her contracting breast cancer, it is argued.
Francis said a woman who suffers a miscarriage well into a pregnancy - in a motor accident, for example - would face the same risk. However, in cases where a spontaneous, early miscarriage occurs, the woman would not have had the surge in estrogen in the first place, and therefore would not face the additional cancer risk.
The U.S. National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society, and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Britain are among those who argue that there is no need to tell a woman considering an abortion that there may be an increased risk of breast cancer. Doing so would only add to the woman's anxiety at an already stressful time, representatives have said.
Brind and others have slammed the approach as "paternalistic."
"There is no other issue than abortion that would be so immune from the concept of informed consent," Brind was quoted as saying last month.
A court in Fargo, North Dakota will hear a case in March in which a woman is suing an abortion clinic for allegedly misleading women to believe there is no link between abortion and breast cancer.
Plaintiff Amy Jo Mattson says pamphlets distributed by the Red River Women's Clinic quote the National Cancer Institute as saying there is no evidence of a direct relationship between breast cancer and abortion or miscarriage.
"None of [the claims of a link] are supported by medical research or established medical organizations," the pamphlets reportedly stated.
You never stop amazing me. The study says that there is a LINK showing that women who have an abortion are 30% more likely to develop breast cancer, but you go and STATE that these "poor minority women in Florida" WILL be suffering from breast cancer later. Do you know something that even these questionable studies don't show? Have a crystal ball? You sound like the idiots that say "your'e gonna shoot your eye out" because you own a gun.
I have even a better question: Please Ms. Duffy, speculate if you will, how many women who have already shown up at Planned Parenthood seeking an abortion would change their minds because several studies show a link between having and abortion and a 30% greater chance of getting breast cancer? Of course, we can not really know unless PP is doing it, but please 'O Wise one, speculate for us.
People KNOW that smoking cigarettes INCREASES your chances for lung cancer, yet millions still do it and start doing it. Unfortunately, for those who have seriously considered and abotion to the point that they go to PP to have one, I would think that the selfish reasons to kill their unborn child would outweigh any chance of having a 30% higher likelihood of getting breast cancer.
Well, if she asked: "Are there any other long term effects?" and the Doctor failed to inform her, that should be enough.
For any other medical procedure, the doctor is required to tell the woman what the risks, are. Its called informed consent. When my wife had a double miscarriage at 10 weeks into the pregnancy, the doctor sat down with us, and told us all the risks we were going through with her going through a D&C. Then, he told us all the risks that we would face waiting for it to spontaneously pass. This is informed concent. The doctor is required to tell all the risks, when giving you all the options. However, Abortionists are not required to give this type of information. Even for a D&C Abortion, there are very serious medical risks.
My wife had the procedure done post-miscarriage, and she was warned. Why are mothers who ask for abortions not warned as well?
Ok, two studies conduct research in links to breast cancer and having an abortion. One study says "Its a 40% higher risk", while the other concludes "140%". It takes very little scientific scrutiny to conclude that a 100% deviation is not acceptable.
Given the millions of abortions performed each year, is there ANY chance that some researchers maybe, just maybe went looking for women who had abortions and had breast cancer?
A study in 1981 found that women who had an abortion before having a full-term pregnancy had a 140% increased risk of breast cancer, while another major study in 1994 found a 40% increased risk for the same category of women.
This leads even the least knowledgeable person to question how two "scientific" studies deviated by 100%.
Cancer is a BIG unknown for man. We really don't know what causes it, but think we have discovered links. These "links" change from year to year, with some being added and some being removed. To require abortionists to tell women of a "link" would be legal precident to require any company that manufactures ANYTHING that may have a "link" to cancer to proclaim it.
You are wanting to try and convince women to not have an abortion based upon a "risk of getting breast cancer". These people have already decided to KILL A LIFE! A "link to a greater risk" of breast cancer is going to stop them?
Studies that found low risk usually used very conservative numbers and statistical analysis. The absolute numbers are somewhere greater than 45% increased risk for developing breast cancer for a woman having an abortion before first full term pregnancy (FFTP), and increase with number of abortions prior to FFTP, and decreasing age for abortion prior to FFTP.
If the former, to what quantifiable degree?
No it doesn't.
Anyone knowing anything about epidemiological studies knows that every study finds differing percentages of risk for every risk factor. Just review heart disease stats for the last 75 years. You are making a fool of yourself using this weak tactic.
--Dr. Kopp
Who is dumb enough to think that you can kill someone and forget it for the rest of your life?
The facts of this case are the only thing that should be considered. This is what I dislike about liberals. They all decide the answer to difficult questions through the use of their "feelings" vs. rational thought.
Regardless of whether or not abortions are morally wrong, they were legal where this doctor performed it. He did not go out on the street and force pregnant women into his office for the purpose of forcing them to abort their pregnancies. He performed the procedure on this woman at her request. She now feels that she made the wrong decision and feels the doctor should compensate her in the form of a monetary handout. How ludicrous is this? This is an action without merit.
I think I will go file suit on my college advisor as he did not warn me that being a CPA would expose me to long days and clients who underapreciate my service. I now hav pshyciatric problems as a result of this!!!!
Justin
I almost went that route...
Very sad.
As per their founder, noted Eugenicist/Nazi Peter Singer Margaret Sanger?
The Western medical profession traditionally does not rely upon Chinese studies
WOOPSIE!
You forgot to quote the rest of my sentence! A non-replicated study using Chinese data which contradicts the fndings of a vast majority of all studies done is suspect. YOU need to do more than quote a questionable Chinese study.
By the way - the link between abortion and breast cancer has been shown repeatedly by medical/science professionals with no agenda. The only studies done which show no link are those conducted by people who love abortion.
Prominent medical and cancer professionals who are abortion supporters concede there is an extremely significany link between abortion and higher rates of breast cancer. I have yet to read of any prominent medical or cancer professionals who are pro-life who concede there is no suich link.
Western jurisprudence has seen fit to require doctors to warn patients of any possible increased health risk before any medical treatment is given. This is known as informed consent.
If an individual might have changed his mind about undergoing the medical treatment based on the warning, then the warning is considered one that MUST be given to comply with informed consent requirents.
If you have a corn removed you are warned about countless possible complications or increased risk factors. Yet abortion is SACRED and no warnings are given.
Why should abortion be given special treatment - a special loophole to avoid such warning requirements?
There are 4 factors known by epidemiological studies to increase risk of breast cancer:
1) fewer children and delaying first childbirth
2) decreased breast feeding
3) the birth control pill (and exposure to other hormonal medications)
4) abortion.
All other supposed risk factors are just that, theoretical with no proven link in epidemiological studies. This includes diet and environmental exposure to toxins.
You can argue from scientific fact and medical research, or you can argue from presumptions, assumptions, anecdote, and ill informed personal opinion.
The readers here can discern the difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.