Angry Doctor

Thursday, September 28, 2006

Teen has sex and abortion after reading magazine

Well, it *might* happen. According to this letter anyway...


Goodie bag has magazine with questionable contents

MY HUSBAND participated in the recent Safra Sheares Bridge Run. Participants of all ages took part in the event and they were given a free goodie bag.

In it was a magazine with an article entitled 'What to do if she is pregnant?'

It discusses the different options for a man who makes a girl pregnant. One of the options listed is to abort the baby.

Is it the policy of Safra to encourage irresponsible sex and encourage abortion even though it leads to, as the article acknowledges, "severe repercussions for her, both physical (she may become infertile) and mental (she could end up with depression from the trauma and guilt and have nightmares for the rest of her life')?

There could also be an enhanced risk of breast cancer following an abortion.

It surely cannot be Safra's policy to champion irresponsible sex and abortion.

The organising committee should have vetted the goodie bag's contents to ensure that they were acceptable. Safra's lapse is disappointing. I trust it will take steps to prevent this from happening again.

What happens if a young teenager were to take up one of the options suggested by the article?

We should be promoting wholesome values and strong families.

Also, we need to be sensitive to each other as this is a multi-racial, multi-religious society.

All of us have our own opinions about sex outside marriage and on abortion.

I would like a response from the organising committee.

Dr Tan Siew Pin


angry doc is once again, as he often is, confused.

So 'all of us have our own opinions about sex outside marriage and on abortion', but none of us should be allowed to mention abortion as 'one of the options' in an article on unwanted pregnancy, even when we highlight in that same article the physical and mental repercussions that may come with abortion, Dr Tan?

angry doc doesn't like abortions and he tries to have nothing to do with it at all. He is disgusted by the way some people repeatedly 'use' abortion as the *only* form of 'family-planning' they practise - that's really stupid and irresponsible.

But is omitting all mention of abortion (with the hope that eventually no one will choose it because no one will even know that such an option exists?) really a viable strategy?

Or should we openly discuss it as an option, but an option that comes with potentially severe repercussions, and one that should not be chosen hastily?

Maybe angry doc is truly confused, and Dr Tan isn't against the idea of abortion or the mention of abortion at all, but just the mention of abortion in a free magazine?

Perhaps we should just not put magazines in goodie bags in the future then. That ought to reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancies.

Labels:

7 Comments:

  • I, too, was flabbergasted when I read that letter. I guess Dr Tan's view that we be "sensitive to each other" & having opinions about sex outside marriage and on abortion" means that we can only express views if we agree with her???

    And could someone please enlighten me on the enhanced risk of breast cancer following an abortion - I must have missed that lecture during Med School.

    By Blogger aliendoc, At September 28, 2006 9:45 pm  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger blindcat, At September 29, 2006 12:03 am  

  • Now that angrydoc has published this letter, i may consider an abortion simply because he wasn't sensitive to others who are reading his blog despite the wide reach of the internet to people of different cultures.


    Well well, use a big magnanimous cliche to cover up that you have a narrow minded view. Tsk tsk.

    aus blog: maybe all women in singapore have to go through mandatory contraception insertion, like the implant you mentioned, and you would have to opt out like the HOTA. But that would be too much for the nanny state i guess. And no, i'm not being sarcastic.

    By Blogger blindcat, At September 29, 2006 12:25 am  

  • aliendoc, the abortion-breast cancer link (the ABC link) is something used by the Pro-life lobby to support its position. Some studies show a link, some do not, as I understand it.

    In any case, I think it's silly to imagine that a woman will choose to have a child she does not want being born in less than a year just because of a several-fold rise in what is really a small risk of a cancer many years down the road.

    By Blogger angry doc, At September 29, 2006 10:28 am  

  • I googled it & found this on the National Cancer Institute...
    http://pediatrics.about.com/cs/orthopedics/a/osgoodschlatter.htm

    By Blogger aliendoc, At September 29, 2006 8:31 pm  

  • oops sorry....wrong website!!! Fingers faster than eyes..here's the right one.http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/abortion-miscarriage

    By Blogger aliendoc, At September 29, 2006 8:32 pm  

  • Actually, I was wrong about breast cancer incidence; breast cancer incidence in Singapore was lower compared to the west but has been rising steadily:

    http://www.nccs.com.sg/epub/CU/vol1_06/p2.htm

    This would make a several-fold increase in risk significant, IF it were true.

    However, I still think is largely irrelevant. We know pregnancy protects against breast cancer and celibacy protects against cervical cancer, but women do not base their lifestyle choices on cancer risks.

    By Blogger angry doc, At September 29, 2006 9:57 pm  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]



Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home