Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 20th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Abortion 'increases risk' for future births



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
18 December 2007
HAVING a miscarriage or abortion can significantly raise a woman's chance of having a premature or low-weight baby in the future, research suggested yesterday.
The study found that women who had miscarried or had an abortion were three times more likely than other mothers to go on to have a low birthweight baby.

And the more abortions or miscarriages a woman had, the greater her chance of subsequently ha
ving a premature or small baby.

The researchers, from Virginia Commonwealth University in the United States, said women and doctors should be aware of the increased risks following miscarriage or abortion.

The researchers looked at more than 45,500 mothers and their children. They found a strong link between miscarriage and abortion and an early or underweight birth, even when they took into account other risk factors such as smoking and alcohol abuse.

Having one miscarriage or abortion raised a woman's chance of giving birth to an underweight child almost threefold.

Women who had undergone two miscarriages or abortions had a fivefold risk, and those with three or more had a ninefold increased risk.

The study found that women who had had one miscarriage or abortion were 67 per cent more likely to have a premature birth.

Those with three or more were over three times more likely to have an early baby compared to women who had not had abortions or miscarriages.

The researchers, writing in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, said some other studies had found that abortion and miscarriage had no effect on later births, but other research had indicated a significantly increased risk.

The researchers said: "Previous abortion is a significant risk-factor for low birthweight and pre-term birth, and the risk increases with the increasing number of previous abortions."

They added: "Women and healthcare professionals should be informed of this potential risk."

The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) said the findings needed to be backed up with further research in a UK setting.

"Previous studies have reported a link between an induced abortion with subsequent pre-term birth but more research on the risks of abortion with low birthweight and term low birthweight is required," a spokeswoman said.

"There have been seven studies published since 2002 into abortion and low birthweight/pre-term labour and all reveal inconclusive results.

"Over the past 15 years, newer and safer medical methods of abortion have been introduced in clinical practice, and conclusions drawn from studies using historical data need to be interpreted carefully."

The RCOG said guidelines stated that women should be provided with information about the risks of an abortion before giving consent.

EXPOSURE TO SMOKE IN INFANCY 'RAISES ALLERGY RISK'

BABIES exposed to second-hand smoke are at a higher risk of developing allergies, new research suggests.

Those who breathed in such smoke in early infancy were almost twice as likely to be allergic to certain substances, the study led by the Institute of Environmental Medicine, in Stockholm, Sweden, found.

More than 4,000 families were questioned about their children's allergies.

They were asked about the environmental factors to which the child had been exposed before and after birth, including parental smoking, animal hair and dead skin and certain foodstuffs.

A blood sample was taken from more than 2,500 children at the age of four to look for immunoglobulin E (IgE) – an antibody released in the immune system to fight off an allergen.

High levels of IgE indicate a sensitivity to an allergen.

The authors concluded that children exposed to second-hand smoke early in life were almost twice as likely to be allergic to inhaled allergens, as those who had not been exposed, and almost 50 per cent more likely to have an allergy to foods.



The full article contains 632 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 17 December 2007 9:49 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Abortion
 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/12/2007 00:48:28
If you read this article carefully, its more about abortion, than miscarriages!
If so its NO surprise is it?
Deliberate, 'termination', may just be telling the body, its not meant to be there, after all the work the body does trying to, 'Make-a-Baby' and
'Wham-Bam' you 'get-rid'
Whats your Body meant to think?
Later pregnancies 'reject'??
This is neither News or Surprising, it falls down to,
'Common Sense'
Why 'Cry-Wolf'??
2

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/12/2007 01:05:44
I must get a Job in "research" I will be
'Worth a Fortune' ;-)
NO WONDER, BOY WONDER, is up to his 'tricks'
How much are you worth now 'BW'?
(our secret mad scientific researcher)
3

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 18/12/2007 06:49:32
It's likely that some people are more prone to aborting foetuses than others. That's sad if the baby is really healthy and wanted.

Much sadder are those who regard abortion as a birth control option. There are five groups whose rights should be taken into account with these kind of aboertions: the mother, the father, the baby, the community, the medical staff. Often the baby's comments are silent.
4

somerferg,

oz 18/12/2007 07:36:05

#1/2 - as usual I have no idea what on earth you are banging on about.

#3 - ridiculous comment which makes no sense. Firstly, "it is likely that some people are more prone to aborting foetuses" - says who ?? you are making a huge generalisation which I would reject as mere ill informed opinion NOT fact. Secondly, ....."if the baby is healthy and wanted" what a contradiction in terms that is! And then of course the stick used to justify taking away access to safe abortions i.e. 'those who regard abortion as a birth control option" - nonsense. And of course the "piece de resistance" that there are 5 groups whose 'rights' are to be taken into account etc, etc. - wrong it is the woman whose rights come uppermost in this situation not the partner/community/medical staff or foetus.
5

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 18/12/2007 08:10:13
#4. First: yes. Some women are genetically more prone to abortions than others. Same as some ar more prone to hear attacks, or any other medical complaint.
Second: healthy and wanted babies are daily aborted by parents unwilling to allow adoption (hence the wanted). The daily planes from Ireland are witness to this traffic.
Thirdly: the mother does not 'own' the child. It has an independent right from the moment of conception (if people didn't think so then there would be little or no fuss. The baby would be regarded as is the liver, a wart or a sore throat).
The mother has control over her own health, but not sole control over that of the baby. There are five groups involved and it is arrogant and ignorant to dismiss four of them merely to satisfy a blind prejudice.
6

Dave from Barra ©,

Western Isles 18/12/2007 08:46:14
I find myself agreeing with Rules here. I guess it's not all about the "woman" in these types of situation.
7

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 18/12/2007 09:07:39
#4 somerferg, Don't just 'Diss' my post!
You will see, many the things I talk about are 'Factual' and ARE realized in years to come as to be 'True'!

Be the one that 'the truth hurts', its called choice!
In your case, 'The wrong choice'!
8

Eve,

Scotland 18/12/2007 19:51:05
I've always suspected that Abortion (even legal safe wans) may have effects on future pregnancy and the health of the mother.
9

Boy Wonder,

18/12/2007 22:06:22
Charles ... you missed your meds today, didn't you?
10

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 19/12/2007 00:55:39
BW, never mind the meds yet, this new Scotsman site is real bad, I cant make comment from my mobile through the day and topics on this site, seem to
'just disappear'
If I end up in the 'loony bin', blame the Scotsman Johnston press!!
11

Dr Finlay,

Tannochbrae 19/12/2007 20:25:56
In order to understand the comments of the researchers here it is important to understand that the medical term "abortion" covers spontaneous abortion (aka miscarriage)and induced abortion (ie intentional abortion) as well - doctors use the term to cover both types. There is no difference medically in the terms abortion and miscarriage.
12

Granny,

20/12/2007 20:13:23
There might not be a difference medically in the terms.
but in the reality of the event there is a world of difference. Most miscarriages (not those following abortions) are due to hormonal problems. Therefore the woman is not in the same danger of being left "estrogen dominant" such as is the case in surgical or chemical or mechanical abortions. An abortionist working "blind" with a suction machine or a curette cannot do other than damage to different degrees the womb that he is "working" in... this in turn affects future pregnancies. Then there is the guilt..known as PTSD or Post Abortion Stress.. which affects future pregnancies also. The body and mind work together...

God always forgives, man sometimes forgives, but NATURE NEVER FORGIVES... Nature always FIGHTS BACK..and wins
13

Anne-Marie Rey,

Switzerland 26/12/2007 16:48:36
The data concern births in 1959-1966 - and previous abortions in the 1950ies or early 60ies!!! Were these backstreet abortions with high risks? or abortions for serious health problems (the only legal ones at the time), abortions by curettage (the only technique then available, a more risky technique seldom used today)? And how would they know women had had induced abortions anyway (most women in those times would not tell anybody...)
- These findings are of no relevance whatsoever as for possible effects of induced abortions (with modern techniques) on later births ! Several large studies have not found any increased risk after abortion.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.