Hello all,
we had another great meeting of the Galway SITP! We discussed all manner of things related directly, peripherally and not at all to our supposed topic, "Cults and New Age Movements".
Yolande provided us with a jumping off point with a list of top ten cults and brought us around to cycling, $cientology, doomsday cults, mormons and more.
Podge wants to bring our attention to this fund raising activity in aid of St. Jude's Children's Hospital. It's all in honour of Dr. Burzynski's 70th Birthday - look, it's complicated. :) Follow the link through or come join us on our Facebook Page for more details. We're going to make a mass donation in the name of Galway Skeptics. Get in touch with us on the Facebook Page or via email if you want to help them out!
Come join us on the 28th for more Galway Skeptics in the Pub!
Showing posts with label galwayskeptics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label galwayskeptics. Show all posts
Monday, 14 January 2013
Tuesday, 18 December 2012
Galway Skeptics Meeting 17 DEC 2012
So we had a very fine get-together last night in McSwiggans. If the world ends on Friday, at least we spent some of our time well, discussing Science and Skepticism in the pub (btw, Phil Plait has a great blog on why nothing is going to happen on Friday).
Yolande, Podge and Charles all presented great mini-talks on failed Apocalypse predictions - Harold Camping, Apocalypse Predictions as a resource and Y2K respectively.
You can find their presentations here. Give me a heads-up if the link doesn't work.
Huge shout out to the Galway Humanists from NUI,G- their Auditor, Peter, came to join us and start a process of linking up between us and them.
As part of revitalizing the blog, we'll do our best to put up a summary of every meeting we have. Keep an eye out for more blog updates and synopsises on our fortnightly meetings! Any feedback as to how to present/the content for these updates would also be hugely appreciated.
Our next regular day would be on the 31st of December, so there's no way we'ld have peace and quiet in our regular to discuss Science in a sensible fashion, so our next actual meeting is on the 14th of January, 2013.
Thanks,
donalfall
Yolande, Podge and Charles all presented great mini-talks on failed Apocalypse predictions - Harold Camping, Apocalypse Predictions as a resource and Y2K respectively.
You can find their presentations here. Give me a heads-up if the link doesn't work.
Huge shout out to the Galway Humanists from NUI,G- their Auditor, Peter, came to join us and start a process of linking up between us and them.
As part of revitalizing the blog, we'll do our best to put up a summary of every meeting we have. Keep an eye out for more blog updates and synopsises on our fortnightly meetings! Any feedback as to how to present/the content for these updates would also be hugely appreciated.
Our next regular day would be on the 31st of December, so there's no way we'ld have peace and quiet in our regular to discuss Science in a sensible fashion, so our next actual meeting is on the 14th of January, 2013.
Thanks,
donalfall
Saturday, 8 December 2012
Ireland abortion debate and a particular dubious claim
I don’t often blog, but I was recently given cause to do so, and thus here we are. While I’m sure most people have, by now, heard of the sad case of the death of Savita Halappanavar, the summary found here should be reasonably clear and current. This case has very much been at the forefront of Irish political discourse for the last few weeks and rightly so, as it seems that due to a long standing lack of clarity on the law regarding abortion in Ireland a woman may have needlessly died. Abortion has long been a fiercely debated topic in Ireland, with most politicians trying desperately to avoid ever having to address the issue. Indeed it is only after a ruling by the EU court of Human Rights, several high profile cases in the Irish courts and the death of a woman in an Irish hospital that legislation seems to be imminent. However, this has all been covered in depth elsewhere, and with greater clarity than I could manage.
That said, there is one specific claim which I would like to address, and that is the oft repeated nugget on social networks and elsewhere, and which has again surfaced as part of the current Irish debate; that having an abortion makes one six times more likely to commit suicide. This claim is supposedly backed up by a pair of Finish papers, the most recent of which covers maternal deaths from 1987-2000. I intend to examine this claim briefly, and provide some commentary on the same.
Firstly, the data itself. The paper indicates the following;
The first thing you should notice is that the mortality due to suicide after induced abortion (31.9 / 100,000 women) is not six times that of the general population of women (age adjusted 11.8 / 100,000 women) as is implied, but rather a little less than three times that figure. It is around six times the suicide rate of women who are pregnant, but being pregnant and giving birth is in fact a protective factor for suicide; that is, becoming pregnant is generally associated with being less likely to die by suicide than in the general population of women. Should you become pregnant and choose an abortion, you may be at a higher risk of suicide, but that risk has not increased six fold compared to your risk before becoming pregnant. It is misleading to compare these two statistics side by side without explanation - after all, given that a pregnant woman is less than half as likely to commit suicide as she normally would be, one could just as easily say that giving birth double’s your risk of suicide as you are no longer benefiting from being pregnant! Both of these statements misrepresent what is shown in the data. There is nevertheless an increase in the rate of suicide among women who have had an abortion when compared to the general population of women. To put this risk in context, it is worth nothing that Finnish women included in this study and who have had an abortion are still less likely to commit suicide than Finnish people who suffer from the debilitating condition of being male. (Suicide rate of Finnish men c.45 / 100,000 at the midpoint of the period when this data was gathered.) I assume that we’re not going to see the people willing to make this rather alarming claim proceed to suggest that we should take action to curtail the number of males in society, so perhaps they might also take a moment to consider if it is reasonable to use this data to suggest that the number of abortions should be similarly curtailed.
That said, I have no intention of ignoring this statistic; lets take a further look at the data provided in this study and perhaps come to some understanding of what it means. Helpfully recorded along with the number of suicides per 100,000 we also find the number of deaths by homicide and unintentional injuries. In both cases, the risk to women who have had an abortion is higher - in the case of injury almost twice as high as the risk to the general population of women (20.4 vs 10.8 / 100,000) and more than five times higher than the population of pregnant women (20.4 vs 3.9 / 100,000). The risk of homicide displays a similar pattern; women who have had an abortion are more than three times as likely to be killed violently than a women in the general population (7.7 vs 2.1 / 100,000) and eleven times more likely to be murdered than a pregnant women (7.7 vs 0.7 / 100,000). Eleven times more likely! I wonder why those making these claims decided to focus on the comparatively paltry six times increase in the number of suicides among women who have had an abortion when there existed a much larger and more shocking increase in the rate of homicide occurring to the same group? Could it perhaps be that it is much harder and more taxing on one’s credulity to draw a link between abortion and homicide rates than it is to draw a link between abortion and suicide rates? The data doesn't show a causative abortion-suicide link specifically; rather, those making this claim rely on the reader's presumption that there must be an intrinsic, common sense and causative link between abortion, guilt and suicide. What this data in fact shows is not that there is a cause and effect relationship between abortion and suicide, but rather that women who are more likely to have an abortion are also more likely to be killed by accident or violence, including suicide, than those who do not have one. To take it a step further - women who in their day to day life are more likely to suffer a fatal injury, become suicidal or be murdered are also more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy, and thus choose to have an abortion. Rather than being a causative factor, an abortion is much more likely to be a symptom of whatever underlying cause is also making these women more likely to be murdered or suffer a fatal accident. While this is in some sense shocking, it is not exactly surprising. Such data was sadly not gathered in this study, but I would not be terribly surprised to find that those women who choose to have an abortion may also be more likely to come from abusive homes or be economically disadvantaged, both factors associated with a higher incidence of violence, mental illness and abortion. While this data does not show that there is no causative link between abortion and suicide, neither does it demonstrate that there is; much like a tasty but ultimately irrelevant sponge cake, it informs us very little in this matter. Rather than being an argument against abortion, this data is instead an argument for greater post abortion support services, and perhaps follow up investigations to look at the social and economic situations of women who choose to have abortions and determine if some form of assistance is appropriate. In summary, while I do not doubt that the notion of a causative link between abortion and suicide will continue to be bandied about, if you feel the urge to perpetuate such a hypothesis please note that the above studies support for your claim is dubious at best.
P.S. In this post I have focused mainly on debunking a specific claim, which in fairness to the authors of the paper they did not themselves make without qualification: the conclusion surmized that "The increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health." As I'm sure is clear, I tend toward the former suggestion, as the evidence does not goes as far as supporting the latter. In general, the literature has shown either no or little difference in mental health outcomes for unwanted pregnancies which end in abortion or are carried to term. Regardless, the practice of shaming such women should be roundly condemned, as studies have shown a causative relationship between social exclusion and suicide risk. For those interested in more recent and broader ranging studies that specifically address the relationship between abortion and mental health, I would direct you towards a 2011 systematic study by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health as a good starting point.
Note: This is a crosspost from my own blog, From Which We Sping.
The first thing you should notice is that the mortality due to suicide after induced abortion (31.9 / 100,000 women) is not six times that of the general population of women (age adjusted 11.8 / 100,000 women) as is implied, but rather a little less than three times that figure. It is around six times the suicide rate of women who are pregnant, but being pregnant and giving birth is in fact a protective factor for suicide; that is, becoming pregnant is generally associated with being less likely to die by suicide than in the general population of women. Should you become pregnant and choose an abortion, you may be at a higher risk of suicide, but that risk has not increased six fold compared to your risk before becoming pregnant. It is misleading to compare these two statistics side by side without explanation - after all, given that a pregnant woman is less than half as likely to commit suicide as she normally would be, one could just as easily say that giving birth double’s your risk of suicide as you are no longer benefiting from being pregnant! Both of these statements misrepresent what is shown in the data. There is nevertheless an increase in the rate of suicide among women who have had an abortion when compared to the general population of women. To put this risk in context, it is worth nothing that Finnish women included in this study and who have had an abortion are still less likely to commit suicide than Finnish people who suffer from the debilitating condition of being male. (Suicide rate of Finnish men c.45 / 100,000 at the midpoint of the period when this data was gathered.) I assume that we’re not going to see the people willing to make this rather alarming claim proceed to suggest that we should take action to curtail the number of males in society, so perhaps they might also take a moment to consider if it is reasonable to use this data to suggest that the number of abortions should be similarly curtailed.That said, I have no intention of ignoring this statistic; lets take a further look at the data provided in this study and perhaps come to some understanding of what it means. Helpfully recorded along with the number of suicides per 100,000 we also find the number of deaths by homicide and unintentional injuries. In both cases, the risk to women who have had an abortion is higher - in the case of injury almost twice as high as the risk to the general population of women (20.4 vs 10.8 / 100,000) and more than five times higher than the population of pregnant women (20.4 vs 3.9 / 100,000). The risk of homicide displays a similar pattern; women who have had an abortion are more than three times as likely to be killed violently than a women in the general population (7.7 vs 2.1 / 100,000) and eleven times more likely to be murdered than a pregnant women (7.7 vs 0.7 / 100,000). Eleven times more likely! I wonder why those making these claims decided to focus on the comparatively paltry six times increase in the number of suicides among women who have had an abortion when there existed a much larger and more shocking increase in the rate of homicide occurring to the same group? Could it perhaps be that it is much harder and more taxing on one’s credulity to draw a link between abortion and homicide rates than it is to draw a link between abortion and suicide rates? The data doesn't show a causative abortion-suicide link specifically; rather, those making this claim rely on the reader's presumption that there must be an intrinsic, common sense and causative link between abortion, guilt and suicide. What this data in fact shows is not that there is a cause and effect relationship between abortion and suicide, but rather that women who are more likely to have an abortion are also more likely to be killed by accident or violence, including suicide, than those who do not have one. To take it a step further - women who in their day to day life are more likely to suffer a fatal injury, become suicidal or be murdered are also more likely to have an unwanted pregnancy, and thus choose to have an abortion. Rather than being a causative factor, an abortion is much more likely to be a symptom of whatever underlying cause is also making these women more likely to be murdered or suffer a fatal accident. While this is in some sense shocking, it is not exactly surprising. Such data was sadly not gathered in this study, but I would not be terribly surprised to find that those women who choose to have an abortion may also be more likely to come from abusive homes or be economically disadvantaged, both factors associated with a higher incidence of violence, mental illness and abortion. While this data does not show that there is no causative link between abortion and suicide, neither does it demonstrate that there is; much like a tasty but ultimately irrelevant sponge cake, it informs us very little in this matter. Rather than being an argument against abortion, this data is instead an argument for greater post abortion support services, and perhaps follow up investigations to look at the social and economic situations of women who choose to have abortions and determine if some form of assistance is appropriate. In summary, while I do not doubt that the notion of a causative link between abortion and suicide will continue to be bandied about, if you feel the urge to perpetuate such a hypothesis please note that the above studies support for your claim is dubious at best.
P.S. In this post I have focused mainly on debunking a specific claim, which in fairness to the authors of the paper they did not themselves make without qualification: the conclusion surmized that "The increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health." As I'm sure is clear, I tend toward the former suggestion, as the evidence does not goes as far as supporting the latter. In general, the literature has shown either no or little difference in mental health outcomes for unwanted pregnancies which end in abortion or are carried to term. Regardless, the practice of shaming such women should be roundly condemned, as studies have shown a causative relationship between social exclusion and suicide risk. For those interested in more recent and broader ranging studies that specifically address the relationship between abortion and mental health, I would direct you towards a 2011 systematic study by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health as a good starting point.
Note: This is a crosspost from my own blog, From Which We Sping.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Swaddling
Okay, it's a weird topic I know, but I was browsing independent.ie and I came across this article which says that swaddling has come back into fashion and is causing an increase in hip dysplasia which we haven't seen in 25 years. Presumably women are being advised to do this at childcare classes or websites, so I decided to look up what it involved and why it's come back in to fashion.
I didn't really know anything about it, other than that it's mentioned in the bible story, but it involves binding the baby tightly in a blanket in order to sooth it and help it sleep more soundly by eliminating it's startle reflex. It's also said to reduce SIDS and colic. It was formerly believed that it was necessary in order to ensure that the limbs grew straight.
Throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, philosophers and doctors realised that it was not necessary for straight limbs and was in fact overly restrictive for muscle development. Jean Jacques Rousseau (who I suspect didn't much like women) said that women despised their duty to nurse their own children and entrusted them to mercenary wetnurses who would have to pay less attention to a swaddled baby than one who could move freely.
Modern swaddling seems to be less restrictive and its advocates say that it simulates the closeness of the womb and calms the baby. It is believed to reduce SIDS because it keeps the baby in a supine position which reduces the risk of SIDS. But if the baby does end up on it's front, there is no way to roll over again as the arms are bound within the blanket. Recent studies actually suggest that it could contribute to SIDS. Of babies who died of SIDS, 24% were swaddled, while only 6% of the control group were.
So that's a brief version of what I learned from Wikipedia. Then I went to see what the rest of the internet said. Most of what comes up does say to be careful to leave room for the hips and legs, because of the risk of dysplasia. A lot of sites also recommend to stop swaddling at about one month old, presumably because the baby will want to start moving around at that time. That all sounds okay.
But I did find some video tutorials that said nothing about dysplasia, and a suspicious number of deleted comments. My guess is someone criticised the technique and it proved easier to delete the comments than to engage them. There was also a comment saying that more SIDS victims were unswaddled than swaddled. But that is simply a corruption of the actual statistics seen above as the control group had far more unswaddled babies who didn't suffer from SIDS.
Also, try doing an image search on google for swaddling. It does not look comfortable.
I'm inclined to think that the ideal way to mimic the womb to sooth the baby is to hold it closely. Hugging soothes the huggee and the skin on skin contact is a major part of the mother and child forming a bond. Binding it up just seems to be the lazy solution so you can go do something else. And I wonder if it is inadvisable to swaddle in order that the child will wake less. It seems like a good way of making sure everybody knows baby is still alive. Plus it's how they realise they need a feeding, a change, or maybe even can help prevent SIDS.
So anyway, back to where I started with hip dysplasia. Although some conscientious advocates of swaddling stress to be careful of the hips, not all sources do. And I have no idea what goes on at childcare classes or what hippy alternative women think is better than what the doctors say. I don't doubt that lots of people are shown a safe way to do it and mess it up.
It's really best to drop the practice altogether - when we weigh up the benefits, they turn out to be erroneous, or achievable in another way. It doesn't make for straight limbs, it doesn't prevent SIDS and if it does mimic the womb, a hug is better.
Again, I know it was an unusual topic for a post here, but it piqued my interest and I thought the re-emergence of a traditional method despite despite warnings of its danger might interest a few of you too. Especially when you throw in the misinterpretation of statistics. :)
Wednesday, 20 April 2011
Ooops, new post wednesday! Podcasts & recommendations
As I was saying before, who minds so much if someone's post is a day late or even non-existent! I've been working up to write a big piece of semi-investigative work, but people and institutions are slow to write back with some information I need for my piece. Also, I'm in no rush. :)
So just another general information post for you today. It's impossible to understate how great and informative podcasts have become. In the spreading of information of all kinds, skeptical and otherwise, they're becoming a cornerstone of modern life. You could yak on and on about citizen journalism and the death of print and blah blah blah, but they certainly do form a cornerstone of whatever our consumption of media and information is becoming.
If you carry a phone around with you, you almost definitely have a platform to listen to some podcasts right there in your pocket. There are a huge amount of ways to get your home computer to download your podcasts automatically, from iTunes to Juice and a gigantic range in-between. In fact, now that smartphones are getting to the point where downloading podcasts directly becomes easier and easier, there are plenty of apps like Stitcher which let you stream your audio rather than download it.
For the last couple of years I've been listening to upwards of 40 podcasts a week. They keep you highly entertained at work, that's for sure. I do have a hardware question for the community though - my Sony Ericsson XPeria X10 is a great phone, but 6 hours of continuous audio kills the battery - these Android phones just don't make good mp3 players. My previous phone could make it more than 24 hours, playing music the vast majority of that time. But I'm kind of hooked on these smart phones now, so my question for you is, what is the Battery life like on the Blackberry range of phones? If anyone has any experience with them, I'ld appreciate the feedback. My enviromentalist sensibilities discourage me from charging my phone as much as I do.
Anyway, some podcast recommendations for you! If you haven't tried out the podcasting thing, I encourage dipping your toe in the water. Here's some pro-science, rational, skeptical podcasts for you to try. They're generally very entertaining too. Stick them on your phone or mp3 player and try one out on your commute/gym trip/while ironing - they just might change your entertainment habits.
Here's some recent Irish podcasts - local and skeptical:
Dublin SITP's Skeprechauns via RSS.
On DCU FM, Occam's Barbershop.
Just across the water, some great skeptical podcasts from the UK:
From Merseyside Skeptics, Skeptics with a K & InKredulous - very funny!
Righteous Indignation, a weekly podcast about skeptical issues.
And elsewhere, another bunch of podcasts to keep you informed and entertained:
The premiere example of skeptical podcasts, NESS' Skeptics Guide to the Universe.
George Hrab's hugely popular and entertaining Geologic Podcast.
From Australia, The Skeptics Zone - also worth subscribing to their email newsletter.
There are so many more that this is just the tip of the iceberg. But it's an iceberg that's well worth mapping out and investigating for yourself. If you haven't tried listening to podcasts before, you really should give a few a listen. I'll be back soon, hopefully with the results of what I've been looking into.
ps. The Birmingham Skeptics did a nice link page on their blog, which you can find here. We got a line there, as well as linkage to this blog. If you use google reader or some other RSS reader, you should give them a follow, they post good stuff there. If you're on twitter, follow them @Brum_Skeptics. I'm going to push the design of this blog around soon, put up a similar page for us and get a better look and feel to the page, as well as linking in all our members contact details, blogs, etc. If you have a blog and/or twitter account or other site you want highlighted, email galwayskeptics@gmail and I'll add it to the list!
So just another general information post for you today. It's impossible to understate how great and informative podcasts have become. In the spreading of information of all kinds, skeptical and otherwise, they're becoming a cornerstone of modern life. You could yak on and on about citizen journalism and the death of print and blah blah blah, but they certainly do form a cornerstone of whatever our consumption of media and information is becoming.
If you carry a phone around with you, you almost definitely have a platform to listen to some podcasts right there in your pocket. There are a huge amount of ways to get your home computer to download your podcasts automatically, from iTunes to Juice and a gigantic range in-between. In fact, now that smartphones are getting to the point where downloading podcasts directly becomes easier and easier, there are plenty of apps like Stitcher which let you stream your audio rather than download it.
For the last couple of years I've been listening to upwards of 40 podcasts a week. They keep you highly entertained at work, that's for sure. I do have a hardware question for the community though - my Sony Ericsson XPeria X10 is a great phone, but 6 hours of continuous audio kills the battery - these Android phones just don't make good mp3 players. My previous phone could make it more than 24 hours, playing music the vast majority of that time. But I'm kind of hooked on these smart phones now, so my question for you is, what is the Battery life like on the Blackberry range of phones? If anyone has any experience with them, I'ld appreciate the feedback. My enviromentalist sensibilities discourage me from charging my phone as much as I do.
Anyway, some podcast recommendations for you! If you haven't tried out the podcasting thing, I encourage dipping your toe in the water. Here's some pro-science, rational, skeptical podcasts for you to try. They're generally very entertaining too. Stick them on your phone or mp3 player and try one out on your commute/gym trip/while ironing - they just might change your entertainment habits.
Here's some recent Irish podcasts - local and skeptical:
Dublin SITP's Skeprechauns via RSS.
On DCU FM, Occam's Barbershop.
Just across the water, some great skeptical podcasts from the UK:
From Merseyside Skeptics, Skeptics with a K & InKredulous - very funny!
Righteous Indignation, a weekly podcast about skeptical issues.
And elsewhere, another bunch of podcasts to keep you informed and entertained:
The premiere example of skeptical podcasts, NESS' Skeptics Guide to the Universe.
George Hrab's hugely popular and entertaining Geologic Podcast.
From Australia, The Skeptics Zone - also worth subscribing to their email newsletter.
There are so many more that this is just the tip of the iceberg. But it's an iceberg that's well worth mapping out and investigating for yourself. If you haven't tried listening to podcasts before, you really should give a few a listen. I'll be back soon, hopefully with the results of what I've been looking into.
ps. The Birmingham Skeptics did a nice link page on their blog, which you can find here. We got a line there, as well as linkage to this blog. If you use google reader or some other RSS reader, you should give them a follow, they post good stuff there. If you're on twitter, follow them @Brum_Skeptics. I'm going to push the design of this blog around soon, put up a similar page for us and get a better look and feel to the page, as well as linking in all our members contact details, blogs, etc. If you have a blog and/or twitter account or other site you want highlighted, email galwayskeptics@gmail and I'll add it to the list!
Monday, 4 April 2011
Admin post from galwayskeptics
Hey everyone! Don't forget we have a gathering next monday in McSwiggans at 20:30 GMT. You can find the page for the event here - event!
Also don't forget to spread the word to any who are interested in Skepticism in the west of Ireland. You can jump onto our Facebook Page to stay in touch.
And we're still looking for you guys to sign on to the group blogging effort here on the blog! (no pressure!) :D
Also don't forget to spread the word to any who are interested in Skepticism in the west of Ireland. You can jump onto our Facebook Page to stay in touch.
And we're still looking for you guys to sign on to the group blogging effort here on the blog! (no pressure!) :D
Saturday, 2 April 2011
Blog Schedule/Rotation etc
Okay, so we're looking for contributors to the Galway Skeptics blog. The basic idea at the moment is that there will be a fortnightly rotation, where each person will have a "day" to fill. The topic can be a full blog post, or even just a link/picture/item of interest the author found interesting in the days since their last post. The users' post may even just be a question they want their fellow Galway Skeptics to have a think about and respond to if they have a chance.
Our slots are slowly filling up:
Week 1
Monday - Admin post from galwayskeptics@gmail
Tuesday - donalfall
Wednesday -
Thursday - Charles Doyle
Friday -
Saturday -
Sunday -
Week 2
Our slots are slowly filling up:
Week 1
Monday - Admin post from galwayskeptics@gmail
Tuesday - donalfall
Wednesday -
Thursday - Charles Doyle
Friday -
Saturday -
Sunday -
Week 2
Monday - Admin post from galwayskeptics@gmail
Tuesday - Yolande O'Brien
Wednesday -
Thursday - Podge Murphy
Friday -
Saturday -
Sunday - John Birrane
get in touch for a daily posting slot!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)