Talk:Abortion and mental health

changes to article

I suggest changing the first sentences to the following: "Scientific and medical expert bodies have repeatedly concluded that induced abortion poses no greater mental-health risks than carrying unwanted pregnancies to term.[3][4][5] Nevertheless, the relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political controversy."

Also the following should be changed:

"The U.K. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists likewise summarized the evidence by finding that abortion did not increase the risk of mental-health problems relative to women carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term."

"The correlations observed in some studies may be explained by pre-existing social circumstances and emotional or mental health.[3][16] Various factors, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of support, and conservative views on abortion may increase the likelihood of experiencing negative emotions."

Get rid of sentence that reads: However, negative mental health impacts can result from any pregnancy outcome. Reason: It is out of place here and not true. Mental health problems may occur after any pregnancy outcome but that doesn't mean they are the result of (i.e., caused by) the pregnancy outcome. Also, the topic here is abortion and mental health not any pregnancy outcome. So, I am not sure why the article is shifting to negative mental health impacts that result from any pregnancy outcome. Negative mental health is also a poor use of worlds. There is a term for depression after pregnancy -- postpartum depression -- or more serious mental health problems such as postpartum psychosis according the DSMs. The event occurs after birth but we cannot be certain it is caused by birth (though it likely is).

Among those women who do experience mental health issues following an abortion... - add 'an abortion' after following.

"Anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers and religious groups offer counseling[1]" should be deleted. They do not offer counseling. See this article (there are more pieces too).

A.G. Bryant, S. Narasimhan, K. Bryant-Comstock, E.E. Levi Crisis pregnancy center websites: information, misinformation and disinformation Contraception, 90 (2014), pp. 601-605, 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.07.003

Noit821 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)noit821

Imbalance of article is potentially harmful

After reading this I would suggest including a couple citations that do not lack sufficient emphasis on mental health and how it can be damaging to women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelynvpizarra (talk • contribs) 05:51, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

There article lacks sufficient emphasis on the fact that all the expert bodies agree that some women do have negative mental health problems following abortion. The APA report specifically lists a number of risk factors that predict higher incidence rates of mental illness. (I've added these to the lead.) The APA also states: "[I]t is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety," but this is not stated in the lead, where it belongs!

I realize that most editors are focused on the big public health perspective, which is what most of the cited reviews are referencing, stating as a conclusion, in essence that abortion does have mental health problems associated with it, but so does carrying a pregnancy to term. BOTH are problematic. For individual women these risks may vary (look at the list of risk factors). But when you look at studies that average all of these findings together, on AVERAGE it does not appear that abortion is a bigger problem than unwanted pregnancies.

Okay. That's a consensus view about the average public health risk of abortion versus unplanned pregnancies. But the consensus is also that for many individual women, abortion does pose mental health risks and these women deserve good counseling.

But think about a woman who is having problems who comes to read this article. Is she seeing any compassion for the fact that she believes her abortion is contributing to her mental health issues? No, she's seeing a one-sided article that focuses on the lack of a significant public health risk difference between abortion and delivery of unplanned pregnancies that is framed in a way that implies that there are NO mental health effects associated with abortion and therefore she is "crazy" to attribute her feelings of grief and loss to her abortion, because the "experts all agree there are no mental health effects from abortion" (the last quote not being literal, but rather the tone of this article.)

This article needs to reflect the difference between the statements" "The mental health risks of a single abortion for an adult woman with no pre-existing risk factors is similar to the mental health risks associated with carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term," and the acknowledgement that "Some women do have clinically significant mental health problems related to their abortions, just as many do with regard to facing the burdens of an unwanted pregnancy."

Let's find a way to acknowledge both the fact that it abortion is associated with mental illnesses and the fact that, from a public health perspective, these risks appear to be on the same order as that of carrying unwanted pregnancies to term.Saranoon (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"Is she seeing any compassion for the fact that she believes her abortion is contributing to her mental health issues?" Is John Q. Public seeing any compassion for the fact that he believes that vaccines cause autism and Hillary Clinton runs a ring of pizza pedophiles? What do you think this encyclopedia is for? Your changes did not address the issues that this comment claims to address. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

There are many ways to address the problems with this article. Certainly there are more comprehensive solutions that could be accomplished in a major overhaul to improve the balance. I was attempting to show respect for the previous edit of the first sentence in the lead by retaining it in full but adding the additional material that clarifies that "expert bodies" are also actually acknowledging that abortion does involve mental health risks....especially for subgroups of women.

Here is the problem with the lead. Nothing in it clearly states, that some women do experience mental health problems associated with their abortion. The APA report clearly states that...not as a headline, but in the body of the paper. Instead, the whole tone of the article is "we can ignore the medical evidence that there are some cases of mental health problems that are triggered or exasperated by abortion because many medical experts believe that there are just as many mental health risks associated with carrying an unintended pregnancy to term." But as soon as you do a comparison like that, you are talking about a public health issue...like the risk of death is greater from driving than from flying. The latter fact doesn't mean that flying is perfectly safe and should not be the lead on an article regarding aviation safety issues, much less the predominate theme for dismissing aviation safety issues altogether.

In fact, in this comparison, [Fergusson's 2013] review shows that the few studies that do directly compare mental health risks of abortion to carrying unintended pregnancies to term indicate there are greater risks associated with abortion. Even though this review was published after the APA and NCCMH reviews, these findings are not properly reflected in the article. Saranoon (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why you repeat the same arguments every couple of months hoping for different results. Our most fundamental responsibility is to provide the reader with accurate medical information. People can develop mental-health issues after any major life event. Medical evidence indicates that if a woman has an unplanned pregnancy, then abortion is no more likely to cause mental-health issues than carrying the pregnancy to term. Our article states this correctly. Your edits have consistently sought to obscure these facts, and to imply, falsely, that abortion is inherently riskier from a mental-health perspective. Given the proliferation of politically-motivated falsehoods about abortion, our responsibility to provide accurate and non-misleading information is particularly relevant here. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Saranoon, I think you are mischaracterizing the tone of the article in an attempt to make your point. Restating Fergusson over and over does not cancel out the overwhelming body of evidence on this topic. Your edits were more inflammatory than you are claiming. SeeJaneEdit (talk) 21:05, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

I would remind the above editors that they should follow the wise policy of recognizing and assuming good faith WP:AGF regarding my edits. My edits are indisputably based on reliable secondary sources. I understand that the objections are about weight. So let me simply ask, "Where in the lead is due weight given to the fact that, numerous sources, including the APA review, state that some women do have clinically significant mental health issues related to their abortions?" If you don't like the way I try to word it, please offer your own edit suggestions which give due weight to Fergusson's review and the APA's own statements regarding the fact that some minority of women do have significant problems. Saranoon (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Unbalanced and Potentially Misleading Lead/Introduction

Instead of presenting the information plainly and clearly, this lead seems to introduce controversy and opinions on the topic within only the first two sentences. I believe this could be greatly improved by editing the beginning sentences to objectively and plainly state the subject of the article as to give readers a clear look into the topic without presenting any discussion. As you read further through the lead, you read statement after statement that the writer presents to support the idea that abortion has no more effect on mental health than does carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. For this reason, I believe this could be perceived as presenting strong bias towards this side of the argument. Following this long first paragraph, there is a second, much smaller paragraph included in this lead that briefly and seemingly dismissably introduces the opposing side to this argument, claiming that there is no evidence to support these opposing claims. This lead seems to espouse personal bias rather than objectively and plainly state the subject while simply introducing the discussion. A simple read through and deletion of opinion statements as well as the addition of information/evidence to support the opposing argument would do the article well.

Adamhampton99 (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Please read WP:DUE. We do not give equal validity to all claims and positions. Instead, we present them in the context and with the prominence that reliable sources do. Reliable sources overwhelmingly support the position that abortion does not have more negative effects than carrying pregnancy to term. That means we will present that position with greater prominence. What you are complaining about is actually a feature, not a bug, of this encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I note specifically that the lede cites three separate major medical science organizations - the National Academy of Sciences, the American Psychological Association, and the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health. Which medical sources do you have to dispute the findings and conclusions of these organizations? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Adamhampton99. There is a distinct lack of balance and a failure to give WP:DUE to numerous studies and reviews, such as the review by Fergusson, previously discussed. There is also a cherry picking of concepts in the lede, and body of the text, which ignore the fact that the 2008 APA report, upon which all the other reviews rely so heavily, states quite clearly that SOME women do have negative mental health problems, especially those who fall into a long list of high risk categories, which may well include the majority of women having abortions.

Adamhampton99, I would encourage you to propose how you would edit the lead here for discussion. Saranoon (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with NorthBySouthBaranof. Wikipedia follows reliable sources. We're saying what the National Academy of Sciences, the American Psychological Association, and the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health say. That's the right thing to do. Bondegezou (talk) 10:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

The reason the article is primarily framed through the lens of controversy is because of the persistent politically-motivated myth that abortion causes mental health problems. Our article handles the situation correctly in noting that no such relationship exists, according to medical bodies. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. I suggest reading the talk page archives where this has been discussed frequently. While political debates exist about the topic, the science is what the article should reflect. —PaleoNeonate – 18:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Adamhampton99 is correct. The lead paragraph is very misleading, especially the first two sentences. Not a single one of the three cited sources concludes that "abortion poses no greater mental health risks than carrying an unintended pregnancy to term." If you disagree, please give the exact page cite and quote from the source. Much less, none of the three sources "have repeatedly" come to that conclusion. The closest to making that statement is the APA which actually makes a very much narrower, more nuanced statements. I tried to edit this to reflect that the statement is limited to a single abortion of an adult woman, since the APA acknowledges that multiple abortions and abortions for younger women may be problematic. Similarly, they acknowledge aborting a wanted pregnancy is also problematic. But this is not being disclosed in the lead. For example, from the APA executive summary: ""None of the literature reviewed adequately addressed the prevalence of mental health problems among women in the United States who have had an abortion. In general, however, the prevalence of mental health problems observed among women in the United States who had a single, legal, first-trimester abortion for nontherapeutic reasons was consistent with normative rates of comparable mental health problems in the general population of women in the United States." They also acknowledge that "Nonetheless, it is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety." Yet this fact that abortion can contribute to "clinically significant disorders" is nowhere in the lead.--Saranoon (talk) 23:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Criticisms September 2021

The article, specifically the lead, lacks organization. There is much improvement to be done in terms of expanding on the already noted research, and in terms of generating a more understandable format. Starting with the lead, this paragraph should flow more like a simple introduction, rather than an entire paragraph of facts. Asbozue (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

What changes would you propose? Incidentally, your added sentence is so vague and bare as to be meaningless and I don't see the point of keeping it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead: First 2 sentences slight rearrangement?

This is an exceptional article; kudos to all involved! I’m wondering whether the first 2 sentences of the Lead might be improved with a slight rearrangement. We currently have:

Scientific and medical expert bodies have repeatedly concluded that abortion poses no greater mental health risks than carrying an unintended pregnancy to term. Nevertheless, the relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political controversy. (cites removed, bolding in original)

I suggest something like this:

The relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political controversy. However, Scientific and medical expert bodies have repeatedly concluded that abortion poses no greater mental health risks than carrying an unintended pregnancy to term. (with the cites we’ve already got appended to the info we’ve already got them on)

I understand the reason why the first 2 sentences are as we’ve got them currently: This is a medical and scientific issue, there is overwhelming MEDRS-backed consensus on the issue, and that consensus should be front-and-center. However: Someone (blissfully) ignorant of the merely political controversy, or someone only aware of the political controversy who incorrectly assumes the political controversy reflects a medical and scientific controversy, may get a bit turned around by the way we’ve got things now. If I understand things right, much of the reason scientists and doctors cared about investigating this issue to begin with is because of the unsupported assertions in the political sphere that abortion is causally responsible for mental health problems, and the suggested rearrangement implicitly addresses that issue (as the Body of the article details). Added bonus, even though this is not strictly required: The rearrangement gets the bolded topic of the article into the first sentence.

This is such an excellent article that I wouldn’t want to mess with the Lead unilaterally, and this isn’t a huge issue (and it’s only stylistic, not content-based). What are others’ thoughts on this rearrangement/proposed wording? ThanksForHelping (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Your statement of the reason why the first 2 sentences are in their current form summarizes the issue well: the medical/scientific consensus should be front and center. The problem with reversing the sentences is that it would suggest that the question is primarily a political one, meaning that people on both sides are politically motivated (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). Although it's not your intention, that would feed into the anti-abortion claims that the consensus view of MEDRS can't be trusted. NightHeron (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that response and explanation; that’s entirely acceptable to me. ThanksForHelping (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

See also

@NightHeron: I believe that “Menstruation and mental health” can be seen as tangentially related to the topic of “Abortion and mental health” in the context of women’s reproductive health and mental health. In your edit summary, you mentioned that these two topics were "unrelated," so I would like to propose an alternative approach. Instead of directly linking “Menstruation and mental health” in the “See also" section of the article, we could create a new category titled “Women’s mental health” or something similar. Please let me know if you find this solution acceptable, or if you have any further suggestions. – Mariâ Magdalina (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with your proposal to put the article in a new category of women and mental health. Note that all of the current "see also" articles concern mental health and childbirth, whereas menstruation does not. NightHeron (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)