Sterility rate questioned

Press, Volume CXVI, Issue 34104, 17 March 1976, Page 20

Sterility rate questioned

The discussion between two Christchurch doctors on the rate of sterility after abortions has been taken another step with a criticism of references said to support the high sterility rate.

Last year a Christchurch gynaecologist and president of the Christchurch Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, Mr Keith Drayton, claimed that the incidence of sterility which followed abortions had been stated as 5 per cent.

Another Christchurch doctor, Dr J. R. E. Dobson, questioned this claim, and challenged Mr Drayton to supply references to prove his point. Mr Drayton supplied references, and Dr Dobson has now completed his study of them. His conclusions about the references are now printed. Two articles, one by Lunow et al and another by Jurokowski and Sukarov, had no mention at all of sterility as a complication. Dr Dobson said. A 1973 article by Pantelakis. had reference to other studies which claimed subsequent development of infertility in many women after induced abortions. However, this particular study claimed only to show that the stillbirth rate and the prematurity rate were doubled in women with previous abortions of any kind. Dr Dobson summarised a 1957 article by Kolstad as describing a follow-up study with involuntary sterility reported in 3.4 per cent of 119 women. The author also quoted a number of other articles giving sterility rates after abortion of 5.4 per cent (in Russia), 1 per cent (two studies), 5.1 per cent, 3.5 per cent, and nil. These compared, Dr Dobson said, with a study quoting seven per cent sterility after the birth of the first child, (given in the same article). A fifth reference to an article by Klinger was said by Dr Dobson to quote no

.rates of sterility after abortion. It did describe how some studies had not shown any significant difference between women who had aborted many times and women who had "had no abortions. Other studies had claimed repeated abortions could cause secondary sterility but there were no rates given. Dr Dobson said that he had (been unable to obtain two I other references given by Mr I Drayton, even from the New 'Zealand Library Service. Mr I Drayton, he said, had been I unable to assist in finding the documents, and could not supply page numbers to locate the evidence supporting his claim.

Mr Drayton replied by saying that Dr Dobson could not find references to sterility in some of the articles because they were not there. He said a sterility rate was inferred from the rate of sepsis, and it was impossible to assess the rate of sterility accurately. He said the figure of 5 per cent which he quoted was a conservative one.

Mr Drayton quoted Professor H. McLaren, of England, as saying that “a 5 per cent sterility rate following abortion seems on the low side.” Evidence given in Christchurch before the Royal Commission on Abortion by another consultant obstetrician had supported his view that the complication rate after induced abortions was surprisingly high. Having supplied Dr Dobson with references and independent opinion and supporting evidence, Mr Drayton said he did not intend to enter into any further debate.