The Prime Minister and Health Minister Peter Dutton have pointed out the lack of evidence to support Senator Eric Abetz’s recent inflammatory comments linking abortion and breast cancer.
But should his comments be seen as an aberration?
There are any number of other areas where the Government’s statements and actions are not informed by evidence.
The most glaring example is, of course, the black hole of climate change policy.
Leading health and medical experts have sent an open letter to the PM, urging him to include human-induced climate change and its serious health consequences on the agenda for this year’s G20 meeting.
The letter, published by The Medical Journal of Australia, states:
“The health of present and future generations is at risk from ongoing human-induced climate change.”
The authors are: Anthony J McMichael, Stephen R Leeder, Bruce K Armstrong, Antony Basten, Peter C Doherty, Robert M Douglas, Adele C Green, Gustav J V Nossal, David J C Shearman, Fiona J Stanley, Graham V Vimpani and Alex D Wodak.
Meanwhile, experts writing in the latest edition of The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health warn that Federal Budget cuts to primary health care and prevention are regressive and short-sighted.
In an accompanying media release, Public Health Association of Australia CEO Michael Moore said:
“Rather than a quick death, this is a budget that is so inequitable it will invariably mean those who are less well-off will be even worse off. Nowhere will this have more impact than on the poor.
“The Federal Budget was a ‘killer’ in multiple ways and will be for many years to come. And this is only considering the health cuts. Cuts in social welfare, Indigenous programs, education funding and the environment portfolio will have major ramifications for health outcomes into the future.”
When it comes to asylum seeker policy, both major parties “wilfully and deliberately” ignore the evidence of the harm caused by their policies, according to a “J’accuse” letter signed by almost 200 prominent doctors, lawyers, academics and refugee advocates.
You can read the letter here. If you wish to sign it, see here.
You wonder why the Science profession is under attack?
It’s these letters….
Scientists are crossing the line into political activism, instead of researching and advising.
So its no surprise that politicians, especially from the right, are responding with political counter attacks…reducing funding and ignoring the data, believing it to be biased.
To the scientists, I would say; Just shut up and do your research. Let others do the politics.
Scott, the J’Acccuse letter is signed not only by some who may be scientists they include
judges, professors of law, QC as well as doctors. All experts in various fields, unlike our current batch of politicians who seem to be experts only in ignoring facts.
Is it enough for scientists to find out what the facts are and then to sit idly by while
those in power do all they can to ignore those facts? I think that it is not.
It is the responsibility of an expert in a field to speak up. If experts do not speak up and make the facts known, then , when the shit hits the fan the ignoramuses in power always can fall back to the excuse “but we didn’t know” or “nobody told us”.
If the politicians do not like the facts presented to them they are mistaken in attributing the discrepancy between their world view and the real world as shown by those facts to an error in the data given to them. It is their world view that is wrong and needs adjusting. Unfortunately on all sides of politics we have people who are too invested in various delusions and would rather go on blindly believing fantasies than do what scientists routinely do, that is: change their beliefs based on the evidence given to them.
Oh, and on the abortion/breast cancer link..
Nulliparity, or not having children, is an established indicator of a higher risk of having breast cancer.
What Eric should have said is the decision to not have kids (either through abortion or the pill) could be regarded as a lifestyle decision that could lead to a slightly higher risk of breast cancer.
I’m sure there still would have been screams from the masses (a right wing male commenting on women’s issues..how dare he!), however, he would have been on firmer ground from a medical and scientific standpoint.