Talk:Late-term abortion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. To participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

[edit] Redirect?

Should this page just be a redirect to Partial-birth abortion, or what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

If this article cannot be expaned, then possibly. However, PBA sometimes refers to one specific late term abortion procedure (IDX). So the terms are not always synonymous.--Andrew c 16:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Right now, we have separate articles on PBA, IDX and D&E, as well as this one, which has virtually no content. Those three are all fine, and the one on PBA is really on Late-term abortion. Should we delete this one and move PBA to this title, rewording the lead accordingly? I guess we ought to see what they think over at Talk:Partial-birth abortion... -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion

An editor recently reverted an edit that I made at this page, and I would like to request some further explanation. This is an unusual case where I briefly cited something that I myself had written, among other edits. However, I don't see why it was inappropriate. The relevant Wikipedia policies are as follows:

You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether or not your citation is an appropriate one, and defer to the community's opinion.

And...

This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

How were these policies violated?Ferrylodge 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Severa dropped me a note about this, and I've looked at the content in question. I can see how this self-citation could be seen as a conflict of interest. The relevant policy would be Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. I see that the editor has published in FindLaw his view that "late-term abortion" should be defined in a particular way. However, is this view significant in the debate over late-term abortions? Is anybody else making this claim? If an encyclopedia article is only going to mention 3 different definitions of "late-term abortion", should this be one of them? (20th week, 27th week, and eighth week?)

Part of NPOV is presenting different viewpoints in a way that somehow reflects the proportion in which they are held. It's not clear to me how widely held the viewpoint in question is, and in such circumstances, a self-citation is less than optimal for demonstrating that it's a significant view. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I am happy to defer to the conclusion that my self-cite would be better left out of this article.

However, one thing still puzzles me. This article starts off by saying, "Late-term abortions are abortions which are performed during the late stages of pregnancy." If one clicks on that link, one finds this definition of abortion: "medically, it is defined as miscarriage or induced termination before twenty weeks' gestation." These two Wikipedia statements are grossly inconsistent. In other words, if "late-term abortions" can only occur after 5 months (according to this article), but only include procedures performed before five months (according to the main article on abortion), then we have an absurdity.Ferrylodge 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting! So a "late-term abortion" isn't, strictly speaking, an "abortion" at all, according to these two definitions. The abortion article does note that, commonly, "abortion" refers to an induced procedure at any point during pregnancy. Since Wikipedia is a general-audience encyclopedia, we try to strike a balance between using medically precise terminology, and using terminology that will make sense to general audiences. Perhaps in this case, there's a better way to walk that fine line. Maybe the lead in this article could point out that wrinkle in the language, in the context of talking about different definitions of "late-term abortion"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note the title in this article's very first reference: "Rationale for banning abortions late in pregnancy" (JAMA. 1998;280:744-747). It seems clear that the medical definition presented at abortion is inconsistent with the medical definition of the word "abortion" used in this title. Yet, I have encountered strong resistance whenever I have tried to point out this defect in the abortion article.Ferrylodge 00:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph of the abortion article has been the topic of a lot of contention. Have you seen Talk:Abortion/First paragraph, and its five pages of archives?

I'm not surprised if you encounter resistance trying to change that paragraph, because many of the regular contributors have been burned out on the argument, which seems capable of taking all energy away from other parts of the article, if we let it. The fact is that definitions vary widely, even within the medical community, and that the definition of the term is a topic of controversy.

You can see the problem: It's awkward to get more than a sentence into the article without presenting some definition. On the other hand, we can't neutrally present the definition favored by one "side" as the only correct one, or even the most correct (primary) one. On the other hand (one must be an octopus to keep track of this dispute), if we begin the article by talking about the definition controversy and trying to give appropriate weight to different views, then we give undue weight to that part of the debate, by presenting it very first in the article. I don't know what the solution is - maybe there's a simple way to rephrase the lead of abortion that would indicate a range of medical definitions, instead of a single one? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the intro at stillbirth can serve as a model for the intro at abortion. Here's the intro at stillbirth, which lets the reader know right up front that the definition is somewhat nuanced:

“

A stillbirth occurs when a fetus which has died in the womb or during labour or delivery exits its mother's body. The term is often used in distinction to live birth or miscarriage. Some sources reserve the term "stillbirth" for a fetus which has died after reaching mid-second trimester to full term gestational age. For example, in the United Kingdom, "stillbirth" is used to describe an infant delivered without life after 24 weeks gestation. The sources that use this definition tend to use the term "miscarriage" if the death occurs earlier in development. In contrast, other sources use the term "stillbirth" regardless of the stage of fetal development.

”

We did have a section later in the stillbirth article that went into greater detail, but unfortunately it's been deleted, and even this intro at stillbirth seems to still be the subject of some contention.

Part of the problem here is that medical definitions are being formulated for social reasons. See here, for example, regarding the definitions of "conception" and "pregnancy." Doubtless, the same social forces have attempted to influence the definition of "abortion." It's important for Wikipedia to not take sides.Ferrylodge 01:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with GTBacchus's conclusions above. If a unique definition is going to be included, it should probably be one advanced by more than a single source, to meet standards of Notability, Undue weight, and NOR. -Severa (!!!) 15:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Severa, as you know perfectly well, I did not advocate a "unique" definition. I advocated explaining that there are "non-unique" medical definitions.Ferrylodge 15:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

I do not think that there is cause for placing the term "late-term abortion" within scarequotes in the introduction or for refering to it as a "non-medical term." In the case of "partial-birth abortion," a citation is provided, establishing the fact that the term is not accepted by the medical community. This has not been done in this case, and, per WP:V, WP:CITE, and WP:RS, a source would be need to verify the claims. A slightly different version of the term ("later-" instead of "late-") has been used by the Guttmacher Institute in one of its publications: "State Policies on Later-term Abortion." -Severa (!!!) 19:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)