.”That hypothesis – of interrupted pregnancies being carcinogenic because they arrest breast cell development in an immature and vulnerable state, and the related finding that the cancer risk is strongly mitigated by an initial full-term pregnancy "

One might assume from this, that women who have not had children or abortions, and as a result their breasts have not fully developed and produced milk, would therefore also be at a higher risk of getting breast cancer. I wonder if this relationship has been statistically tested.

David

Another research question would be whether there is an increased risk of breast cancer in women who have suffered a miscarriage. If there isn't, but there is for induced abortion, then perhaps that points to a mechanism for an increase.

Also, since there is likely some endocrine disruption brought about by induced abortion, then it's likely there is some way of reducing any risk.

thanks David however cool heads rarely prevail when progressive dogma is exposed.

If the author of this article was just a GP, instead of being identified as "... Queensland secretary for the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life." , I might take this article more seriously.

If this vasectomy/prostate link has any truth to it, why don't all the loony-toon right-to-lifers gather together in hordes outside surgeries that perform vasectomies then?

There is no proof that abortions lead to breast cancer, and you know it.
Campaign against abortion by all means, but don't scare/shame women who have had abortions into thinking they will be 'punished' for their 'sins', when there is no actual proof for the breast/cancer link.

If there was proof, then the mad 'World Congress of Families Conference" wouldn't be so on the nose that they couldn't even hire a place to hold it!

"Both hypotheses remain unproven, plagued by conflicting evidence, yet both deal with grave medical issues that demand ongoing dispassionate research."

Correct, and this is where the article should have stopped. However, for some reason you go on, with the assumption that the hypothesis is proven, and provides a superficial criticism of the data to try and support this.

If at some stage in the future there is sufficient evidence that abortions increase the risk of cancer, then that would be the time to discuss actions to inform patients and mitigate risks. Until this time these actions are baed on false assumptions.

There will be people on both sides of the abortion debate shouting from the extremes of the discussion. The fact that one side might be incorrect doesn't make the other side correct.

Seriously, how many times does this have to be dinged on the head. There is precious little good evidence for a link between abortion and breast cancer and bucket loads of good evidence that such a link does not exist.

Yet we have these anti-abortionists harping on about 'the link' as if it really existed. It only exists in their febrile imaginations.

With some experience in working with statistics, I am always amused when people draw a "link" between two things.

The general rule is that the bigger the sample required, the less significant the link. For example, a study of about 100 million people over a decade of mobile phone use showed a statistically significant increase in one rare form of cancer. What this study failed to show is that one is 1000 x more likely to die from distractedly walking in front of a truck, or from cancer induced from drinking coffee. That the only study that seemed to draw a significant link between abortion and breast cancer was one in China based on 100m people tells me that even if it is valid, that it is so insignificant that it can be ignored, or is probably due to other factors such as those needing abortions being more prone to STDs etc.

The other side of the coin is that even discussing a link is politically incorrect, and the left, who so often throw around bogus statistics to prove their points are up in arms. Statistics that they like to ignore or attack is that nuclear power is the safest form of generation in the world, that people on lower incomes use public transport more and thus less fuel, etc.

Susanonline is right on the money!
There is no such scientifically established link, or better explained as a treatable endocrine problem, similar to that created by miscarriage or milk fever!
What is need is knowledgeable heads, rather than completely empty ones; however cool, spreading medieval medicine, or equally magnificent mombo jumbo!?
What follows that as an expansion of real knowledge?
A medicine man reading the runes perhaps, or a hocus pocus witch Dr, rattling the bones?
Rhrosty.

Feminist know best. They are scientist (especially gw), social experts, economist. Mostly they are tax payer funded employees but their word is 'god'. They would rather death over their own dogma.

Runner, it always amuses me that whenever something is upsetting you (and that seems to be often) then it must be the dreaded 'feminists' who caused it.

And there always has to be a 'dogma' involved somewhere in the conversation!
Lol.

No-one has proved a link between abortion and breast cancer so far, and no amount of ranting and praying can change that.

'No-one has proved a link between abortion and breast cancer so far, and no amount of ranting and praying can change that. '

As a staunch defender of the gw lie you have little credibility when it comes to 'proof'. Just very selective. Time and time again you have shown that your defense of the 'right ' for a mother to kill her child always triumps over reason.

I think that whilst Doctor's prescription of a cold shower is very well advised, I think we need to ask "who first?"

If the discussion about abortion and breast cancer links was limited to the rather dry and dusty confines of cancer research journals and ultimately expressed to the public as one more warning amongst hundreds of equivalent or greater others in the fine print, fair enough. It has however become a bit of a hobby horse in a flash, with two or three articles by anti-abortion campaigners published on this opinion forum alone. Social progressives are not entirely wrong to be apprehensive of this "mexican wave" of smug self-vindication on feint grounds.

Can we hope that anti-abortion campaigners will simply accept that this mild, barely detectable and clinically insignificant cancer risk is well within the bounds of personal volition, like smoking whose impact is at least an order of magnitude greater? Do you see any risk that it will be taken up by zealots?

Can we also expect, Doctor, that medical practitioners trained at public expense will assist the private citizens of the public to achieve their private medical aims without fear or favour, *respecting" rather than merely grudgingly tolerating the public's personal right to choose? Do you see any risk that medical practitioners with an axe to grind will selectively play up this incredibly minor aspect? Would *you*?

You see Doctor, "social progressives" might feel there is a lot to lose until "social" conservatives have definitely had a long cold shower first. The topic has been placed before the public eye not by cancer researchers wishing to inform the public of a significant risk but by long-term anti-abortion campaigners wishing to achieve an impact out of proportion to the significance. The topic belongs in the fine print, perhaps you should direct your rebuke to those who would not leave it there.

Rusty.

Runner, I will always support the rights of women not being forced to carry on with a pregnancy they don't want, but where on earth did you get the notion I am a 'staunch supporter of GW'?
Can you find evidence of that lie in any of my previous posts?

" So why would the AMA President treat with such contempt research which might help women know they are higher-risk and therefore needing closer screening?"

The AMA is a lobby group, whose motives are not necessarily driven by duty of care to women patients. If the truth be known, the majority of GPs are not members of the AMA. On this particular issue, the AMA speaks for members whose vested interest is the slaughter of unborn babies-- up to full term in some States.

Regrettably, the AMA is not renown for speaking for practitioners who wish to exercise freedom of conscience by refusing to perform abortions or refer women to abortionists -- the totalitarian abortion laws of Victoria and Tasmania are hostile to the exercising of such freedom of conscience.

Where did you get your facts from Raycom?
How do you know that the majority of GP's aren't with the AMA, or that some of those who are with the AMA do not support abortions?

In case you hadn't noticed, there are now almost equal numbers of female doctors in the profession out there, so they are hardly going to be against women's care are they?

NO doctor is ever forced to perform abortions Raycom, that's a lie.
If you are a doctor who does not believe women should be allowed abortions, then you wouldn't work in that area of medicine, obviously. Any of the religious based hospitals don't do abortions, so they could work there.

In fact, when you really examine the issue, it seems to me that it is mainly middle to old aged religious men who would prefer to see young women forced to carry on with a pregnancy and birth they don't want.
And they are the least likely people who should have any say in the abortion issue at all.

Maybe all you anti-choice boys could band together to campaign against vasectomies, given there may be a chance it is linked to prostate cancer?
The Billings Method of 'natural' contraception works well....most of the time.....

Suseonline
How about tabling the figures on the percentage of GPs who are members of the AMA -- then we will all know.

The ethics of doctors who are pro-abortion are open to question whether they are female or male -- they overlook the fact that abortion necessarily involves life termination of unborn babies, a practice which hardly qualifies as ethical behaviour.

You appear to acknowledge that discrimination against anti-abortion doctors is alive and well "in that area of medicine" in all public hospitals -- not something we should be proud of from a freedom of conscience point of view.

It is not a case of preferring to see young women forced to carry on with a pregnancy and birth they don't want, but the acknowledgement that the unborn baby has a right to life.

A few responses:

To David, top of page - yes, the increased rate of breast cancer in those who never have a child is well established. In fact it was first written up in the 1600s because communities of nuns were noted to have a higher rate! It is explained because the breast cells are never moved from the immature type 1 and 2 lobules (vulnerable to cancer) through to the mature and stable type 3.

To Mayan, second top: generally, early miscarriage is associated with low levels of pregnancy hormones and that means the breast cells are not stimulated into differentiation - and so there is no significant increase in beast cancer risk with such miscarriages. However, a late stillbirth, prior to 32 weeks (which is the point at which maturation of breast lobules is largely complete) is strongly associated with increased breast cancer risk.

The other comments don't seem to have read my article: I specify that this matter should not be a pro-abortion/ pro-life spat but left to dispassionate researchers. The problem is that the irrational denial of valid evidence by the 'progressives' who frame any discussion of the question as an "attack on women". The opposite is true: if this is indeed a risk factor for breast cancer, then to suppress knowledge of it is a violation of informed consent.

If people do want to look at the evidence, they can read dr Lanfranchi's peer-reviewed review article at http://www.bcpinstitute.org/papers/ILM_Vol%2029_No1_1-133.pdf

David, there are many known risk factors with having an abortion already, as you well know.

If the current possible risks, including perforation of the uterus, the usual anaesthetic risks, possible infertility, and uterine infections do not put off women from asking for abortions, why on earth would you think the maybe small risk they might develop breast cancer 30 years later or so would make the choice harder?

Given all the other possible reasons for developing breast cancer, like genetics, lifestyle choices such as exercise and diet problems, obesity, age of menstruation and menopause , not breast feeding etc, how would worrying about whether you had an abortion or not make much difference with the chances of getting breast cancer?

I think you protest too much about the possible link between abortion and breast cancer for me to not be suspicious of your motives.
Women have a choice about abortion in this country, and there is no way this will ever change.

I hope that abortions don't happen at all, but I would never force a woman to go through with a pregnancy and labour she doesn't want.
We all know what happens in countries that don't provide safe, legal abortions....