Sarah
Vitet and the Capilano Courier editor would be outraged, if the most common
elective surgery performed on British Columbian women has ZERO published
nonhuman animal studies to validate its safety. When Sarah Vitet wrote her 29
Feb. 2012 article, she was 100% unaware that 'suction' (i.e. vacuum aspiration)
abortion has zero published animal studies to validate its safety: URL: http://www.jpands.org/vol13no4/rooney.pdf
If Sarah Vitet can correctly cite such an animal study, she wins a $20,100
prize; for contest details, visit: http://justiceforkids.webs.com/ch1020100contest.htm
Why Sarah and others want to support quack medical treatments is hard to
fathom.
Cordially,
Brent
Rooney
Dear
Brent,
While
I appreciate your letter, I cannot give you a proper response as I do not fully
understand your concern. My article was regarding abortion access in Canada,
and I do not at any point discuss published studies (human or nonhuman)
validating the safety of vacuum aspiration, as that was not my topic. I will
mention that regardless of past studies, abortion is one of the safest medical
procedures performed, with only .5 per cent of all legal abortions resulting in
serious complications, thus not a “quack procedure” in any way. I did a brief
amount of research into vacuum aspiration, but as with any medical procedure,
it required learning a lot of terminology and understanding more about the
technicalities of surgical procedures than I had the energy to learn at this
point in time. Though the $20,100 prize is a thoughtful incentive,
unfortunately you have contacted the wrong person. I am, alas, only a
journalist, not a medical researcher.
Thanks
anyway,
—Sarah Vitet
|
