@angelobottone@qoto.org

New podcast: ‘Why Leading Doctors Oppose Assisted Suicide’ by Angelo Bottone on #SoundCloud #np
https://soundcloud.com/user-965111391/why-leading-doctors-oppose-assisted-suicide-with-clips

I have added a few items to my
@ResearchGate
and http://Academia.edu pages.
https://researchgate.net/profile/Angelo_Bottone
https://dbs.academia.edu/AngeloBottone

New video: Do restrictive abortion laws reduce the abortion rates? https://bitchute.com/video/9q1KnZFVFdSG/ #BitChute

New podcast: ‘Growing Support Among Doctors For Infanticide’ by Angelo Bottone on #SoundCloud #np https://soundcloud.com/user-965111391/growing-support #euthanasia

Listen to: ‘A Debate On How To Tackle A Shrinking Population Is Long Overdue’ on #SoundCloud #np https://soundcloud.com/user-965111391/a-debate-on-how-to-tackle-a-shrinking-population-is-long-overdue

CW long post (original content)

More restrictive laws contribute to reduce the incidence of abortion.

A new study found that 70% of unintended pregnancies end in abortion in countries where it is broadly legal, while in countries where abortion is restricted, this happens only in 50% of the cases.

A new multi-authored study ( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214109X20303156 ) published by The Lancet medical journal investigated the occurrence of abortion in unintended pregnancies world-wide. By unintended they mean pregnancies that occurred sooner than desired or were not wanted.

The researchers developed a new statistical model that jointly estimates unintended pregnancies and abortion.

It should be highlighted that four of the eight authors of the article are from the Guttmacher Institute, historically associated to the US abortion provider Planned Parenthood. Funding was provided by pro-choice organisations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Nonetheless, the study proves what pro-life groups has always claimed: more restrictive laws contribute to reduce the incidence of abortion.

The study divides all the countries in the world in two categories: where abortion is restricted and where it is “broadly legal”. By restricted they mean that it is prohibited, permitted to save the life of the woman or to preserve physical and mental health. By broadly legal is intended where abortion is available on request or on broad socioeconomic grounds.

Interestingly, Ireland is listed among those countries where abortion is available on request while the United Kingdom is among those where it is permitted on socioeconomic grounds.
( https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2214109X20303156-mmc1.pdf )

Two results are particularly significant: in the period 2015-19, in countries where abortion is broadly legal, the abortion rate per 1,000 women aged 15-49 was 40. The rate was 36 where abortion is restricted.

In the same period, 70% of unintended pregnancies ended in abortion in countries where it is broadly legal, while in countries where it is restricted, this happens only in 50% of the cases.

Those two results prove that where more restrictive laws are in place, both the abortion rate and the number of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion are lower, compared to countries with more liberal abortion regimes.

There is no simple cause and effect between legislation and those two rates, as they are determined by a complex number of factors (socioeconomic conditions, quality of the health system, culture, etc.), but the association is clear.

The study also divided countries into three groups, according to their income as calculated by the World Bank, and found that the annual unintended pregnancy rate is 34 per 1,000 women aged 15-39 in high-income countries, 66 in middle-income countries, and 93 in low-income countries. It is not a surprise that unintended pregnancies are inversely proportional to the country income. Nonetheless, both the abortion rate and the proportion of unintended pregnancies ending in abortion is higher in middle-income countries, than in low or high-income countries. In other words, even if in poor countries there are more unintended pregnancies, those pregnancies don’t end in abortion as much as in middle-income countries.

The limit of this world-wide studies is that they group dozens of countries that might have one element in common (abortion legislation, in this case) but too many other factors that cannot be taken into consideration.

In the study the authors make some claims that are contradicted by their own results. For instance, they say: “We found no evidence that abortion rates were lower where abortion was restricted”.

In saying this, they refer not to the figures that I have quoted above. Instead, they have to exclude India and China, so that abortion rate in countries where abortion is legal decreases from 40 per 1,000 women to 26 per 1,000 women.

But why should those countries be excluded? Because they “skew” the results and the authors of the study are not happy with that.

In a quite unreasonable explanation they say: “We found that China and India, which comprised 62% of women who were at reproductive age in countries where abortion was broadly legal, skewed the averages in countries was broadly legal. Averaging among all other countries where abortion is broadly legal, abortion rates were higher among countries where abortion was restricted.”

( https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214109X20303156 )

That is quite astonishing. Of course, if you exclude 62% of the population, the results will be different but that is not a good reason to do it. Manipulating a sample to achieve a preferred result is not science.

Yes, even this new study from pro-choice researchers confirms that abortion rates are lower where abortion is more restricted, unless you want to ignore the two most populated countries in the world.

A rose from my garden.

New video: The religious will inherit the Earth https://www.bitchute.com/video/Dr5CNPL0mSM3/

(I am mentioned in this article)
Birth-control icon Margaret Sanger blanked by Dublin's Epic museum for racist past
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/birth-control-icon-margaret-sanger-blanked-by-dublin-s-epic-museum-for-racist-past-2hsj5kqgf

CW Long post (original content)

The purposes of medicine

Medicine has three main purposes: to prevent and cure diseases, and to take care of patients. It is not simply a science but also a practice inspired by ethical values. So, what is the difference with the other sciences? Take for instance mineralogy. It is the description of the chemical and physical properties of minerals. Medicine, instead, aims not simply at describing what a human body is but it is also based on the assumption that there is a natural order, which we call health, and the purpose of the medical practice is to keep or to restore this order. There is an intrinsic good (health) that we discover through science and we preserve and reestablish through practice.
For instance, anatomy and physiology tell us what is the proper function of the eyes, i.e. to see. This is not simply a description but it also contains a prescriptive element because the ideal eye is also the normative model that the doctor uses when she acts to keep the patient’s eyes healthy or to prevent their diseases.
This understanding of medicine doesn’t require a particular religious faith but it is nonetheless intrinsically ethical. It is inspired by a certain conception of the good (health) that we find in human nature through the correct use of reason. The principle of “do not harm”, which has guided health care since ancient times, has the form of an ethical imperative.
Not everything that happens (or might happen) in a hospital or a clinic is medicine, unless it aims at preventing and curing diseases, and also at the same time at taking care of patients. Not all interventions that alter our bodies surgically or chemically are medicine, even if a scientist (medical expert) might be involved. Getting your facial features surgically changed to look more like your music idol is not medicine. Killing the unborn because she was unplanned or is disabled is not medicine. Augmenting your muscles through drugs to win a weightlifting contest is not medicine. Removing a perfectly healthy organ to adjust your body to your perceived gender is not medicine. Facilitating suicide is not medicine.
In all these examples a certain level of scientific knowledge is necessary but they lack what makes medicine more than a science: the ethical value of health. They might involve someone who has a proper knowledge of the human body but his purpose, in these examples, is not to restore or preserve the good of the functioning body. They are instances of scientific techniques without good and true medical ethics.
There is a growing pressure by certain ideologies to transform medicine, which is necessarily led by an objective good that we call health, into the satisfying of the subjective requests and choices of the patient. If bodily autonomy (my body, my choice), rather than health, is the ultimate value then there is no reason why doctor should not amputate a healthy arm or leg, when requested, or administer a dangerous substance, for recreation or self-harm or death. Without the guiding principle of health, practitioners become simply the executors of someone else’s desires. Obviously, people can do what they want with their bodies but this is not medicine.
There is no good medicine without ethics. Hospitals don’t need to be under church or religious influence but they cannot exist without an ethos, without values. When their core value is not health – an intrinsic good indicated by human nature- they don’t serve medicine anymore but trends, ideologies, business.

CW long post (original content)

The future of the world population

The world population will peak and then decline by the end of this century, according to a new study. Countries with low fertility rates will suffer economically.
A new major study published by The Lancet, one of the most prestigious scientific journals, presents a new model to forecast the changes in the world population.
The study projected the global population to peak in the year 2064 at 9.73 billion people and then decline to 8.79 billion by the end of the century. In 2017, the world population was estimated at 7.64 billion but, the study claims, this figure could go as low as 6.28 billion by the end of the century, if certain measures will be implemented.
The paper forecast population changes from 2018 to 2100 for 195 countries and territories and found that all regions, except sub-Saharan Africa, will have substantial population declines in the next eighty years.
These estimates invalidate some of the predictions based on other models, particularly the model from the United Nation which is the most commonly quoted. The Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the UN Secretariat (UNPD), in their last forecast claimed that in the year 2100 the global population will be 10.88 billion and the sub-Saharan Africa will be 3.78 billion.
Demographic forecasts are based on a complex series of variables but there are two key factors at stake: the fertility rates in sub-Saharan Africa and what happens to countries with fertility levels below replacement rate. 2.1 children per woman is considered the miminum rate for generational replacement. When the total fertility rate (TFR) goes be below 2.1 some countries experience declines followed by upturns, while others stagnate at very low levels.
The study developed 5 different scenarios. The “reference scenario” is the one more likely to happen, in their view, and it is the one I will refer to. Other four possible alternatives are also presented and they reflect two faster and two slower trajectories for key drivers such as education of women and access to birth control.
For instance, the Irish population was 4.86 million in 2017. It will peak 5.77 in the year 2057 and decrease to 5.44 by the end of the century, according to the reference scenario. Nonetheless, it might go well below the current figures in the fastest pace scenario. (In some countries the decline will be dramatic. Italy will go from 60 to 30 million, Spain from 46 to 23).
The global total fertility rate (TFR) will drop below the replacement level (2.1 children per woman) in 2034, reaching 1.66 in 2100. By then, 183 out of 195 countries will have a TFR below replacement level.
Sub-Saharan Africa, which is the region with the highest TFR in the world, will stay above replacement level until 2063 and then drop.
The only regions forecast to have higher population in 2100 than currently are sub-Saharan Africa, north Africa and the Middle East.
This means that after a peak, the global population will likely continue to decline, even in the next century.
All five scenarios forecast substantial changes in the age structure of the population. People will live longer and the proportion of adults will also increase.
The number of children under 5 will decline from 681 million in 2017 to 401 million in 2100 (-41%) while individuals over 80 will increase form 141 million to 866 million.
In 1950, 25 births occurred for every person turning 80. In 2017 the number was 7 and in 2100 there will be only one birth for every 80-year-old person.
There will be significant differences between countries, according to their fertility rates.
In Ireland, the over 65 will account for about 30% of the population by the end of this century. The Italian figure is projected to be 37%. In Nigeria, instead, where the general population is expected to grow from 206 to 790 million, the over 65 will be 18.6% of the total. In other words, Nigeria like many countries of that region, will be a nation of mostly young people, in contrast to the “old” European countries.
In society experiencing such demographic contractions, the whole health and welfare system has to be reconsidered.
“Although good for the environment, population decline and associated shifts in age structure in many nations might have other profound and often negative consequences”, the article says. “In 23 countries, including Japan, Thailand, Spain, and Ukraine, populations are expected to decline by 50% or more. … These population shifts have economic and fiscal consequences that will be extremely challenging. With all other things being equal, the decline in the numbers of working- aged adults alone will reduce GDP rates”.
In the eighty years, India will have the largest working-age (over 15) population of the world, followed by Nigeria and China. Inevitably, some of those will emigrate to countries where there is more demand for labor forces.
On the other hand, countries going through a demographic decline will also lose economic and geopolitical power. This is why population forecasts are essential to plan and manage public policies, but they are also crucial for business and NGOs.
In order to estimate the need for services, for investments, for the allocation of resources, it is vital to know the characteristics of population in short-term and mid-term scenarios.
The Lancet study suggests four options to stop the “demographic winter”: increasing the fertility rate creating a supporting environment for mothers, restricting access to birth control and abortion, increasing labor force participation, promoting immigration.
A debate about which ones of these options are preferable is urgently needed.

Podcast: The failure to protect our nursing homes
https://lbry.tv/@angelo.bottone:9/Podcast-Failure-to-Protect-Nursing-Homes:d

Huge variation in abortion rates in different parts of Ireland https://ionainstitute.ie/huge-variation-in-abortion-rates-in-different-parts-of-ireland/