[WikiEN-l] Following up -

[Eileen]

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.

http://www.eileene.cjb.net

-- 
NEU FÜR ALLE - GMX MediaCenter - für Fotos, Musik, Dateien...
Fotoalbum, File Sharing, MMS, Multimedia-Gruß, GMX FotoService

Jetzt kostenlos anmelden unter http://www.gmx.net

+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More! +++