The current entry in Wikipedia under the heading "Intact dilation and extraction" does not treat the subject as a medical abortion procedure - which it is - but rather as something open to multiple interpretations and with moral implications, which is not a part of any clinical medical procedure. While almost any medical/surgical procedure can be said to have a moral component, the actual procedure is in fact somewhat mechanical and devoid of morality.
The issue of the ethics of abortion use, or any other medical procedure for that matter, in other words the issue of whether a particular medical protocol should be a part of the approved regimen for public practice of medicine, is an issue for the medical ethics boards and society as a whole to decide. When these two components - medical ethics, and the mechanics of a medical procedure - are attempted to be intermixed, you wind up with an article that is neither fish nor fowel and is too imprecise from either viewpoint to be of any value.
Let me refer you to a couple of politically loaded statements in the current article. It suggests that the name of the procedure may be replaced by Late Term Abortion - which is a synonym - when in fact D&X (ID&X) is *clearly a mid trimester proceudre*, which under very very rare circumstances might be possible to use late term. To present LTA as a synonym for this procedure therefore is just plain incorrect.
In associating the term D&X with the unequivocally undefined political term "Partial Birth Abortion" once more the implication, clearly, is that the procedure is performed close to a normal birth, or perhaps even during a birth, when in fact it can be stated without any equivocation that the majority of such fetuses, if the pregnancy were not deliberately terminated by an induced abortion at the point D&Xs are performed, but by a medical mishap which caused the woman's body to prematurely expel them in a spontaneous abortion, would be considered miscarriages.
Re: Delerium/Mark's suggestion concerning the use of "Partial dilation and extraction". It is a term I am totally unfamiliar with and believe me, if it were a part of the usual, and possibly even unusual, abortion nomenclature I would be familiar with it.
With respect to the Wikipedia project: This was a new phenomenon to me but I was indirectly introduced to it through a reference in an essay I was asked to evaluate. Naturally I am suspicious of any appeal to authority, which after all is what a dictionary or encyclopedia reference is, and thought to check the reliability of the source. I was totally amazed at the lack of real scholarship displayed in that particular entry.
I was further dismayed to discover that your attempt at a democratic, co-operative project lends itself to a tyranny of the loudest voice; or the fastest editorial pen; or the most persistent objecter. Also disappointing is the fact that under the guise of a neutral viewpoint political jargon is being passed of as reliable and accurate information.
When an essay/paper uses a dictionary or encyclopedia as an information reference source I recognize the danger in this but expect at least some form of editorial responsibility will ameliorate the gross distortions found in some less notable journalistic outlets. Your "free for all" approach does not appear to lend itself to editorial responsibility and overview, however. There has to be a point where the buck ends and somebody (or perhaps group) takes responsibility for obviously false content by refusing to permit it to be printed. This will, of course, require a good deal of intestinal fortitude on the part of such a person but without such responsibility to readers the result is an unreliable and unpalatable goulash.
I entered this fray because I thought the Wikipedia concept had merit. However without a responsible editor or editorial board which will make clear what will NOT be accepted there is no chance of producing the reliable source of accurate information I would like to see used.
It has been implied here that I have a "hidden agenda". I make no secret, both in my web page and with the tag on my letters, that I am an abortion choice supporter (I prefer the neutral terms "choice supporter" and "abortion opponent" BTW). However my objective here was to achieve some form of accurate entry(ies) in this subject area. Under the heading 'Abortion' for instance is the information "Very late abortions can be brought about by the controversial intact dilation and extraction (D & X)... " Refer to my statement above for the inaccuracy of this statement. The same article refers in the information concerning 'depression and abortion' to a study by David Reardon, a nototrious anti abortion zealot from the Elliott Institute, who, along with the co-author of the paper Cougle, preface their paper making unwarranted claims they attribute to an article by Major et al. The article they reference, in fact, makes conclusions directly opposite to their own - in fact Major et al clearly conclude that women experiencing negative psychological responses or regret after abortion are those with prior episodes of depression. Furthermore the claim of "Post Abortion Stress", claimed by the likes of Reardon et al, has never been demonstrated to exist by the American Psychological Association. None of the APA information is referenced here.
Unfortunately it does not appear that the presentation and preservation of accurate innformation would be possible under your present editorial policies.
Thank you for indulging me,
Eileen
Cada niño un niño querido. Chaque enfant un enfant voulu. Jedes Kind ein gewünschtes Kind. Cada criança uma criança querida Ogni bambino un bambino desiderato. Every child a wanted child.