Update on Fetal Pain Study :: Abortion

Abortion: August 24, 2005
Update on Fetal Pain Study

Tim has covered the story regarding a new study on fetal pain which said an unborn child was unlikely to feel pain before 28 weeks.

A new story out today reveals something that I could have only guessed at: One of the authors in this case heads an abortion clinic. Why am I not surprised?

It does not mention that one author is an abortion clinic director, while the lead author - Susan J. Lee, a medical student - once worked for NARAL Pro-Choice America.
JAMA editor-in-chief Catherine D. DeAngelis said she was unaware of this, and acknowledged it might create an appearance of bias that could hurt the journal's credibility. "This is the first I've heard about it," she said. "We ask them to reveal any conflict of interest. I would have published" the disclosure if it had been made.

I wonder why a former NARAL employee and an abortion clinic director didn't want the JAMA to know that they were involved in the abortion industry?

Posted by JivinJ at August 24, 2005 8:05 AM

Subscribe with Bloglines

Get our free Daily Newsletter filled with Pro-Life News and Commentary.

Prior Articles:

OSA Atlanta and National Event - July 12-19 - Jun 10, 2008
Irresponsibility, Birth Control and Abortion - Jun 10, 2008
Miracle's Happen - Jun 05, 2008
Abortion Issue's Ability to Cause Confusion - Jun 03, 2008
New Stanek WND column, "Pastors revolt against the IRS" - May 28, 2008
Coast Guard Reverses Decision On Vaccine - May 21, 2008
New Stanek WND column: "NARAL fuels pro-abort civil war" - May 21, 2008
Vitae Caring Foundation's Bottom Line - May 09, 2008

Trackback

TrackBack URL for this entry (note that all trackbacks from posts without a link to this entry will be considered spam and deleted):

Fetal pain study authors, unbiased? Please! from jillstanek.com
Here's more info on fetal pain study authors. All are from the University of California, San Francisco: Susan J. Lee, JD: Lead author, medical student, attorney, once worked for NARAL Pro-Choice America Henry J. Peter Ralston, MD: Unbiased? According t......[read more]

Tracked: August 24, 2005 9:39 AM

Fetal Pain Scandal from blogorithm
Recently the news media began reporting on a "study" (actually, a re-interpretation of existing medical literature) published in this week's Journal of the American Medical Association. The authors claim that there is no substantial reason to believe t......[read more]

Tracked: August 25, 2005 10:12 AM

Comments

simply unbelievable - I think its important to remember that the "new study" drew all its conclusions from existing literature.

Posted by: tim on August 24, 2005 9:23 AM

The JAMA authors clearly state that the article is compiled of research from many sources, so what difference does it make what their personal or professional views are? If the information was wrong, that would be a reason to get upset and attack the messengers. If the authors were the ones doing the research, that might be a reason to attack them or point to personal bias. Since neither of those conditions exist, how can anyone possibly think their personal views in some way "slanted" the report or blame them for the conclusions of other researchers? Some reason, please!

Posted by: Tulan on August 26, 2005 9:01 AM


Disclaimer: The statements and articles listed here, and any opinions, are those of the writers alone, and neither are opinions of nor reflect the views of ProLifeBlogs. Aggregated content created by others is the sole responsibility of the writers and its accuracy and completeness are not endorsed or guaranteed. This goes for all those links, too: ProLifeBlogs has no control over the information you access via such links, does not endorse that information, cannot guarantee the accuracy of the information provided or any analysis based thereon, and shall not be responsible for it or for the consequences of your use of that information.