Nadine Dorries & abortion

May 9th, 2008 § 0 comments

Putting my oar in, on that stupid bint for mid-Bedfordshire.
The Guardian:

[Professor David Field from the neonatal unit at Leicester Royal Infirmary and colleagues] looked at all premature births in two time periods, 1994 to 1999 and 2000 to 2005. They found that while survival rates for babies at 24 and 25 weeks had risen, there was no improvement in those born at 23 and 22 weeks.

In both periods, only 18% of babies born at 23 weeks survived. None of the 150 babies born at 22 weeks lived.

That suggests, say the authors, that further improvements in medicine and technology may not make any difference to the chances of life before 24 weeks.

“Our findings concur with the view of Hack and Fanaroff, who suggested in 2000 that the limit of viability had been reached,” they write.

Three MPs heading the campaign to defend the present 24-week limit, Dr Evan Harris, Jacqui Lait and Chris McCafferty, said the new study undermined the arguments of the anti-abortionists.

“This peer-reviewed, published research from an entire population over many years completely blows out of the water the spurious claim of anti-abortionists that the threshold of foetal viability has reduced from 24 weeks since the early 1990s,” they said in a statement.

“The medical research literature is very clear that it is these whole population studies that provide the most reliable indication of survival rates. In contrast, single hospital figures, usually unpublished, cited by anti-abortion groups are misleading because they preferentially select those cases which are likely to survive in the first case.”

So we have research from “an entire population over many years” published in a peer-reviewed journal and what is Nadines’ reaction to it?

Nadines ‘blog’ yesterday:

The BMA, along with other unions, funds ‘Voice for Choice’ which is the pro-abortion lobbying organisation.

The BMJ is the union’s trade magazine and has produced a report showing that there has been no improvement in neo-natal survival rates for 12 years

I think this report insults the intelligence of the public and MPs alike.

No improvement in neo-natal care in twelve years? Really? So where has all the money that has been pumped into neo-natal services gone then?

A baby born at 23 weeks today stands no better a chance of living than it did in 1996?

This report is the most desperate piece of tosh produced by the pro-choice lobby and it smells of one thing, desperation.

No reasoned argument then Nadine? Just a ‘Pah! It’s biased!’ response.

The BMJ is not the trade magazine of the BMA. The BMA publishes it, but doesn’t tell doctors what to do through it. It is a peer review journal. Which means it publishes original articles and research that have been throught the peer review process. If you’re still not clear, that neans there is just as much chance of an anti abortion item appearing in it as there is a pro-abortion article, as long as the research holds up.
The report is not just compiled from a few leading hospitals, like Nadines reports and claimed figures do, which skew the figures in favour of one side or the other, as the sample info is much bigger and gives a better average survival age.

Basically Nadine, you’ve smeared the BMJ with being biased and just dismissed the rest out of hand without countering anything they’ve said withthing solid.


Nadines ‘blog’ today:

The report presented on TV today by the Doctors’ Union the BMA – which I believe, along with other Unions funds the pro-abortion activists ‘voice for choice’…

She believes (yesterday she knew for sure) that Voice for Choice is funded by, among others, the BMA. A quick look at the VfC site says not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What's this?

You are currently reading Nadine Dorries & abortion at Sim-O.