summary: “you might want to change that law from 200 years ago lads, it’s out of date, no pressure though”
*Judgement
*”In British English, the normal spelling in general contexts is judgement. However, the spelling judgment is conventional in legal contexts, and standard in North American English.”
Judgment is more common in Irish and UK English, judgement in US. Both are correct though. #pedantface
WTF do I know, mind. See above :-)
Thanks Aaaaa and huppenstop. I didn’t know about the legal spelling of the word.
No, Spaghetti Hoop, “judgment” is correct.
Thanks Wrong, you’re Right ;)
I just skipped directly to the end. Normally in a report you expect to find a formal conclusion there, not an excuse for not being able to make a conclusion/formal recommendation. How much did this cost?
….normally in a report you expect to find a summary at the beginning…which is where it is. Back of the class please….beside Bottler.
A summary and a conclusion are not …. actually I don’t care.
James Reilly’s waiting for his next major bowel movement before he gives it a proper read.
The Romanian experience too is interesting, but I’m not sure we can compare it side by side to the Chilean experience.
According to the report you cited: “In 1966 Romanian President Nicolae Ceaucescu introduced pro-natalist policies, outlawed abortion and contraception, and took measures to enforce the law. Mandatory pelvic examinations at places of employment were imposed on women of reproductive age. Informers for the security police were stationed in maternity hospitals.
[...]
After a brief rise, the crude birth rate fell and continued to fall. Thus the policy intended to increase the birth rate failed.
[...]
Many women obtained abortion illegally, and every year approximately 500 otherwise-healthy women of childbearing age died from post-abortion hemorrhage, sepsis, abdominal trauma, and poisoning.”
I’m open to correction, but I don’t think the situations in Romania and Chile are comparable.
Yeah… the point is that there are thousands of factors to take into account in each case and using abortion as a single indicator or cause of MMR is rarely applicable.
Agreed. Abortion is not a panacea for MMR.
And neither is the lack of abortion.
Education is grand as a concept but when the reality is you attend a Catholic school and are told that, despite contraception being on the Junior and Leaving Cert curriculum, to “change the page girls” and thus end up having never EVER received any formal sex education.
Don’t forget the lads school i attended surprising us all with a film for one class in 2nd year.
Yayyy, video! Rambo? Bloodsport?
No.
A gory US SPUC anti abortion video.
Nice.
Yep, at my all-girl’s school we watched The Silent Scream. Even at the tender age of fourteen I thought it was a complete load of bollocks.
I wonder how many of us ever actually got any sex ed at all.
We had two classes in second year. Taught by a nun. She said you should wait until you’re with somebody whom you love. There was exactly no practical content.
Contraception? STIs? An understanding of human anatomy? What are these things of which you speak.
That study has been discredited as being just a statistical manipulation. Chile effectively pulls the same con-job as Ireland when discussing MMR. Instead of using the AICM method and comparing the country’s MMR rate on a level playing field, they make up their own metric. They throw out or ignore the data that doesn’t suit, and get to lie about how their maternal mortality record is amazing.
For example, in the study above, they tried to calculate the number of induced abortions in Latin American countries. Their method? Take the induced abortion rate of Spain in 1987, apply it to each country’s population of women of reproductive age. Science!
They also ignore the thousands of deaths and complications due to illegal abortions – I guess if it’s illegal, it doesn’t count as a maternal death?
The Koch study is widely regarded as using extremely flawed methodology – and, interestingly, Koch himself is pro-life and an attendee of the infamous ‘International Symposium on Maternal Health’ that came out with the ‘abortion is never needed to save the life of the mother’ twaddle.
So you’re saying the Irish system ‘massages’ its MMR figures? Are you relying on any particular source for this statement? Perhaps you’d care to share it?
Equally, where might the ‘flawed methodology’ of the Chilean study be discussed?
I think the Medical Independent article is flawed. The writer cites a WHO report stating that MMR in Ireland ESTIMATE for 2005. Not a mean or a trend over many years, but one figure for one year. On that basis no comprehensive statistical analysis can be undertaken. It seems disingenuous to take one statistical snapshot and argue that all the data is corrupted, for what ever reason. Surely it would make more sense to examine the data over a longer time frame as this WHO document does. [BTW this suggests a 12% reduction in the Irish MMR between 1990 and 2010 with a 3-5% rate of uncertainty about the figures.]
Now I understand the writer is making the point that the WHO data is flawed because the raw Irish data it relies on is flawed but all she has in support of that position is conjecture and (as of yet) no competing statistics. In other words, no real evidence.
As for the Guttmacher critique of the Chilean report it makes bold claims about the incidence of illegal abortion in Chile:
“To properly understand the impact of a clandestine practice, it is necessary to
probe much further. A body of research using data sources such as surveys of women and surveys of health professionals has been developed, peer reviewed and published in scientific journals in recent decades specifically to address the severe limitations of registration systems in measuring the incidence and consequences of unsafe abortion.”
But the critique does not cite or source any of these reports, even though it is a short document with many other citations.
Your expert group report is here.
summary: “you might want to change that law from 200 years ago lads, it’s out of date, no pressure though”
*Judgement
*”In British English, the normal spelling in general contexts is judgement. However, the spelling judgment is conventional in legal contexts, and standard in North American English.”
Judgment is more common in Irish and UK English, judgement in US. Both are correct though. #pedantface
WTF do I know, mind. See above :-)
Thanks Aaaaa and huppenstop. I didn’t know about the legal spelling of the word.
No, Spaghetti Hoop, “judgment” is correct.
Thanks Wrong, you’re Right ;)
I just skipped directly to the end. Normally in a report you expect to find a formal conclusion there, not an excuse for not being able to make a conclusion/formal recommendation. How much did this cost?
….normally in a report you expect to find a summary at the beginning…which is where it is. Back of the class please….beside Bottler.
A summary and a conclusion are not …. actually I don’t care.
James Reilly’s waiting for his next major bowel movement before he gives it a proper read.
And we all know he’s constipated.
Anybody interested in some Science ?
A 50 year study from Chile indicates that education, not abortion, reduces maternal mortality.
After they made abortion illegal in 1989 their Maternal Mortality rates continued to decline.
Fascinating. When they removed the ban on Abortion in Romania in 1989, MMR rates plummeted (to give just one counter example). http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1695851/pdf/amjph00547-0018.pdf
The Romanian experience too is interesting, but I’m not sure we can compare it side by side to the Chilean experience.
According to the report you cited: “In 1966 Romanian President Nicolae Ceaucescu introduced pro-natalist policies, outlawed abortion and contraception, and took measures to enforce the law. Mandatory pelvic examinations at places of employment were imposed on women of reproductive age. Informers for the security police were stationed in maternity hospitals.
[...]
After a brief rise, the crude birth rate fell and continued to fall. Thus the policy intended to increase the birth rate failed.
[...]
Many women obtained abortion illegally, and every year approximately 500 otherwise-healthy women of childbearing age died from post-abortion hemorrhage, sepsis, abdominal trauma, and poisoning.”
I’m open to correction, but I don’t think the situations in Romania and Chile are comparable.
Yeah… the point is that there are thousands of factors to take into account in each case and using abortion as a single indicator or cause of MMR is rarely applicable.
Agreed. Abortion is not a panacea for MMR.
And neither is the lack of abortion.
Education is grand as a concept but when the reality is you attend a Catholic school and are told that, despite contraception being on the Junior and Leaving Cert curriculum, to “change the page girls” and thus end up having never EVER received any formal sex education.
Don’t forget the lads school i attended surprising us all with a film for one class in 2nd year.
Yayyy, video! Rambo? Bloodsport?
No.
A gory US SPUC anti abortion video.
Nice.
Yep, at my all-girl’s school we watched The Silent Scream. Even at the tender age of fourteen I thought it was a complete load of bollocks.
I wonder how many of us ever actually got any sex ed at all.
We had two classes in second year. Taught by a nun. She said you should wait until you’re with somebody whom you love. There was exactly no practical content.
Contraception? STIs? An understanding of human anatomy? What are these things of which you speak.
That study has been discredited as being just a statistical manipulation. Chile effectively pulls the same con-job as Ireland when discussing MMR. Instead of using the AICM method and comparing the country’s MMR rate on a level playing field, they make up their own metric. They throw out or ignore the data that doesn’t suit, and get to lie about how their maternal mortality record is amazing.
For example, in the study above, they tried to calculate the number of induced abortions in Latin American countries. Their method? Take the induced abortion rate of Spain in 1987, apply it to each country’s population of women of reproductive age. Science!
They also ignore the thousands of deaths and complications due to illegal abortions – I guess if it’s illegal, it doesn’t count as a maternal death?
The Koch study is widely regarded as using extremely flawed methodology – and, interestingly, Koch himself is pro-life and an attendee of the infamous ‘International Symposium on Maternal Health’ that came out with the ‘abortion is never needed to save the life of the mother’ twaddle.
So you’re saying the Irish system ‘massages’ its MMR figures? Are you relying on any particular source for this statement? Perhaps you’d care to share it?
Equally, where might the ‘flawed methodology’ of the Chilean study be discussed?
http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown
https://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2012/05/23/Guttmacher-Advisory.2012.05.23.pdf
I think the Medical Independent article is flawed. The writer cites a WHO report stating that MMR in Ireland ESTIMATE for 2005. Not a mean or a trend over many years, but one figure for one year. On that basis no comprehensive statistical analysis can be undertaken. It seems disingenuous to take one statistical snapshot and argue that all the data is corrupted, for what ever reason. Surely it would make more sense to examine the data over a longer time frame as this WHO document does. [BTW this suggests a 12% reduction in the Irish MMR between 1990 and 2010 with a 3-5% rate of uncertainty about the figures.]
Now I understand the writer is making the point that the WHO data is flawed because the raw Irish data it relies on is flawed but all she has in support of that position is conjecture and (as of yet) no competing statistics. In other words, no real evidence.
As for the Guttmacher critique of the Chilean report it makes bold claims about the incidence of illegal abortion in Chile:
“To properly understand the impact of a clandestine practice, it is necessary to
probe much further. A body of research using data sources such as surveys of women and surveys of health professionals has been developed, peer reviewed and published in scientific journals in recent decades specifically to address the severe limitations of registration systems in measuring the incidence and consequences of unsafe abortion.”
But the critique does not cite or source any of these reports, even though it is a short document with many other citations.
Ask and ye shall receive:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rate-of-maternal-deaths-here-is-double-official-figure-3305353.html
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=21316
Missing data for the UK in the very last page table? Coincidence?