TWO RISKS
The Two (2) Breast
Cancer Risks of elective induced abortion
(Brent Rooney)
Breast Cancer researcher
Nancy Krieger wrote, "Conversely, early age at FFTP
[first full-term pregnancy] consistently has emerged as the strongest
protective [against breast cancer] factor".4 It has been
strongly suspected since the 17th century that 'something' about birth reduces
breast cancer risk for the mother, since it was noted that nuns had a relatively
high breast cancer risk; strict nuns do not deliver newborn. Was it the number
of children, the duration of breast feeding, the age at last delivery, age at
first birth, or something else that conferred BC risk reduction? The answer was
delivered dramatically by Dr. Brian MacMahon (Harvard) and colleagues in 1970:
age at first first full-term birth was the dominant BC reduction factor; note
that it was not just pregnancy, but full-term pregnancies that conferred risk
reduction.6 MacMahon et al. reported that women with a FFTP before age 20
years had 1/3 the BC risk as women with a FFTP after age 35.6 The younger
the age at FFTP, the lower the breast cancer risk.6 It is
not productive when medical science issues
become highly politicized. For almost a decade there has been a U.S. public
debate whether there is an 'ABC' (Abortion-Breast-Cancer) risk. As the
question is framed, it is assumed by many that one and only one independent ABC
risk is being claimed. This assumption is false. The debate is whether there is
a 'second' independent abortion breast cancer risk ("interrupted
pregnancy"). What is well accepted is that there is a 'first'
abortion-breast-cancer risk: medically postponed first full-term birth. Consider
the following statement published in the Journal of the National Cancer
Institute:
"Scientists agree that a full-term pregnancy at a young age
protects against breast cancer." (Troy Parkins (NCI
employee), JNCI, 1993;85:1987).
Each one year delay in
FFTP increases BC risk
In 1983
Brian MacMahon et al. (via re-analyzing their 1970 data) reported
that each one year delay in FFTP increased relative breast cancer risk by
3.5 percent (compounded).1 How much breast cancer protection does an early
first full-term birth provide? Compare a woman with a first full-term birth at
age 20, versus women with later first full-term births (using the 'MacMahon'
3.5% figure):
Age at first Increase in relative birth breast cancer risk (vs. first birth at age 20)
20 0
25
18.7%
30
41.0%
35
67.3%
40
98.8%
What is the connection between an early first birth and elective induced abortion?
Consider a childless
twenty year old 'Alice' who is pregnant and chooses to have an induced abortion
(U.S. consent forms will not tell her that postponing her first birth increases
her breast cancer risk). If 'Alice' waits until age 30 to have her first
birth, her relative breast cancer risk is 41% higher than if she had a full-term
birth at age 20. If the induced abortion had the side- effect of
sterilizing her, 'Alice' will have no children and her relative breast cancer
risk is about 90% higher compared to having a full-term birth at age 20.7
She also doubles her risk of ovarian cancer.9
What is the 'ABC' debate
about? That there is one abortion breast cancer risk (postponed
first full-term birth) is not debatable. If medical researchers
are at least 95 percent confident of increased risk, they have obtained what is
termed "statistical significance". This can be called the 'gold
standard' of medical science. For the second
abortion breast cancer risk ("interrupted pregnancy"), there
have been seventeen (17) studies that have achieved "statistical
significance". Sixteen (i.e. over 94%) of the seventeen studies found that
an induced abortion increases breast cancer risk. How much breast cancer risk
increase would there be for a young (under age 25) childless woman who has an
induced abortion? There is the postponed first full-term birth breast
cancer risk mentioned above and the second risk ("interrupted
pregnancy"). In 1996 a "meta-analysis" reported that this
second risk yielded an increased relative risk of breast cancer of 50 per cent
for an induced abortion before a first full-term pregnancy; this 50 per cent
does not include the independent BC effect of postponing a first full-term
birth.2 The total relative breast cancer risk increase for a young childless
pregnant woman of age 20 years who has an elective induced abortion:
Age at first Total increase full-term in relative BC birth risk
25 years
68.7% (18.7% + 50%)
30 years 91.0% (41% + 50%)
35 years 118.3% (67.3% + 50%)
ABC risk for women carrying to full-term a first pregnancy
The 1996 'Brind' ABC
meta-analysis analyzed twenty-three 'ABC' studies.2 This meta-analysis
excluded the independent effect of postponing a first full-term birth via
induced abortion. The researchers reported an overall significantly
increased relative risk of breast cancer of 30% from any induced abortions; it
must be repeated that this 30% does not include the BC risk increase from a
postponed first full-term birth. 'Brind' estimated an excess of 5,000 U.S.
women contracting breast cancer annually from induced abortion exposure.
However, as the 'Roe v Wade' generation of women enters menopause, the annual
U.S. breast cancer toll may climb much higher. 5,000 utterly dwarfs the infamous
Tuskegee study that involved 412 black men with prior syphilus. These 412
men were not told that they had syphilus, nor were they given therapies for
their syphilus for many years. However, the doctors conducting the
Tuskegee study did nothing to cause any cases of syphilus. For the ABC
risk the number of patients is much greater and the doctors performing
'pregnancy terminations' caused an increase in the risk of breast cancer! As of
August 2001, no U.S. abortion clinic informs women of either the accepted ABC
risk or the second independent ABC risk ('interrupted pregnancy') validated by
the 1996 'Brind' meta-analysis. This failure to disclose a "material
risk" for an elective medical treatment violates a doctor's legal duty to
inform a prospective patient of "material" risks. A doctor also
has a legal duty (in the U.S. and Canada) not to perform any treatment that is
not in a patient's best interests.10 Exposing a patient to an elective
procedure with an increased breast cancer risk can not be considered to be in a
patient's best interests.10 The Hippocratic dictum of "First, do no
harm" is being violated.
The etiology of the Abortion-Breast-Cancer Risk
Dr. Charles
E. Simone explained the etiology of Abortion-Breast- Cancer thus:
"When conception
occurs, hormonal changes influence the breast.
The milk duct network grows quickly to form other
networks that will ultimately
produce milk. During this period of
tremendous growth and
development, breast cells are under-
going great change and are immature or
'undifferentiated'; hence, they are
more susceptible to carcinogens. But when
a first full-term pregnancy is
completed, hormonal changes occur
that permanently alter the breast network to greatly
reduce the risk of
outside carcinogen influence. When a
termination occurs in the
first trimester, there are no
protective effects, and many of
the rapidly dividing cells of
the breast are left in transitional
states...... It is in
these transitional states of high proliferation and
undifferentiation that these cells
can undergo transformation to cancer
cells."8
Summary
1 Breast Cancer researcher
Nancy Krieger wrote, "Conversely, early age at FFTP
[first full-term pregnancy] consistently has emerged as the strongest
protective [against breast cancer] factor".4 A postponed first
full-term birth via an induced abortion is the 'first' independent ABC
risk and is not debatable.4,5,6,7
2 There is very strong
evidence for the 'second' independent ABC risk ("interrupted
pregnancy").2,3,8 Sixteen of seventeen significant studies
reported increased breast cancer risk from prior induced abortions.
3 All U.S. and Canadian
abortion clinic consent forms fail to inform women of either the accepted
ABC risk (postponed first full-term pregnancy) or the second very
probable ABC risk. A medical doctor is legally prohibited from
performing a medical treatment that the doctor knows, or ought to know,
is not in a patient's best interests. 10
.........................................................................
References
1 B MacMahon, D
Trichopolous, et al. Age at any Birth and Breast Cancer
Risk. International J Cancer 1983;31:701-704
2 Brind J, et al.
Induced abortion as an indepdendent risk factor for breast
cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J
Epidemiology & Community Health 1996;50:481-496
3 Daling J, et al.
Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women: Relationship of
Induced Abortion, Journal of the National Cancer Institute
1994;86;1584-1592
4 Krieger N.
Exposure, susceptibility, and breast cancer risk. Breast
Cancer Research and Treatment 1989;13:205-223
5 A Decarli, et al.
Age at any Birth and Breast Cancer in Italy. International J
Cancer 1996;67:187-189
6 B MacMahon, et
al. Age at First Birth and Breast Cancer Risk. Bull WHO
1970;43:209-221
7 White E.
Projected Changes in Breast Cancer Incidence due to the Trend
toward Delayed Childbearing. Amer J Public Health
1987;77:495-497
8 [book] Simone C.
Breast Health. Avery Pub. Group, Garden City Park, N.Y.
1995 (p. 147)
Ovarian Cancer
9 A Whittemore A,
et al. Characteristics Relating to Ovarian Cancer Risk:
Collaborative Analysis of 12 United States Case-Control
Studies. American Journal of Epidemiology 1992;136:1184-1203
A Doctor's Legal Duty to
Protect a Patient's Health
10
[book] Picard E, Robertson G. Legal Liabilities of Doctors and
Hospitals in Canada. 1996 (pp. 264-265)