The New England Journal of Medicine on Thursday published three perspective pieces responding to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling on Wednesday to reinstate a federal law banning so-called “partial-birth” abortion, overturning the rulings of three appeals courts. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined Justice Anthony Kennedy in the majority opinion and Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the dissent. President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S 3) into law in November 2003. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the National Abortion Federation, and the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of four abortion providers filed lawsuits alleging that the law is unconstitutional because of the absence of an exception for procedures preformed to protect the health of the pregnant woman. In place of a health exception, the law includes a long “findings” section with medical evidence presented during congressional hearings that, according to supporters of the law, indicates the procedures banned by the law are never medically necessary. The law says a physician who performs the banned procedures could face criminal prosecution, fines and up to two years in jail. The law allows an exception for cases in which the life of the woman is in danger, but it does not permit doctors to use the procedure because they believe using another method would increase risks to the woman’s health (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 4/19). Summaries appear below.
“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, on Tuesday at a campaign stop at New England College in Henniker, N.H., answered questions from voters about his position on so-called “partial-birth” abortion, the Long Island Newsday reports (Gordon, Long Island Newsday, 4/24). Giuliani told several hundred people attending the event that he does not think there is an “inconsistency” between his support of abortion rights and his support of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week to uphold a federal law (S 3) banning partial-birth abortion, the AP/MSNBC reports. “I think you can be personally opposed to it, hate abortion, respect somebody else’s conscience who might make a different decision, and also believe that particular form of abortion is wrong,” he said. Giuliani acknowledged that he had supported former President Clinton’s two vetoes of a partial-birth abortion ban because he felt the law did not make an exception to protect the life of the pregnant woman (Sidoti, AP/MSNBC, 4/25).
Sen. Biden’s Response to Supreme Court Ruling
In related news, Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), who is running for the Democratic presidential nomination, in recent statement released to the Wilmington News Journal said that the Supreme Court’s partial-birth abortion ruling “contains troubling reasoning that could lay a powerful foundation to dismantle basic legal precedent.” Biden is the only Democratic presidential candidate to have voted for the ban in the Senate in 2003. In the statement, he said he is a long-standing supporter of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that effectively barred state abortion bans, adding, “The Supreme Court’s rationale reflects a decided turn to the right under the new leadership of the Chief Justice [John] Roberts and Justice [Samuel] Alito, both of whom I objected to during their nominations.” Although the ruling prompted most Democratic presidential candidates to “immediately raise alarms and energize supporters on core party issues,” Biden released his statement privately the day after ruling, the News Journal reports. Larry Rasky, campaign communications director for Biden’s campaign, said there was no specific reason for the private release, adding that the statement was still widely publicized because wire services received it upon request. “It’s not the kind of thing that you have to weigh into the day that it happens,” Rasky said, “I think he spoke when he felt he had something to say” (Gaudiano, Wilmington News Journal, 4/23).
“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday heard oral arguments in a challenge of a lower court ruling in favor of a Wisconsin antiabortion group’s constitutional challenge to the McCain-Feingold federal campaign finance law, the New York Times reports (Greenhouse, New York Times, 4/26). Wisconsin Right to Life in its lawsuit challenging McCain-Feingold was seeking permission to run television and radio advertisements within 30 days of a 2004 primary that mentioned Sen. Russell Feingold’s (D-Wis.) name and focused on his opposition to several of President Bush’s judicial nominees. The group claims that the campaign finance law’s provisions that prohibit the use of interest groups’ “issue ads” during the weeks preceding an election are unconstitutional. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in August 2004 unanimously rejected WRTL’s challenge to the provisions in the law. WRTL appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in January 2006 said that when it had upheld the law’s provision concerning “electioneering communications” against a “facial challenge” in 2003, it did “not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges.” The justices ordered the district court “to consider the merits of WRTL’s” challenge. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in December 2006 overturned provisions of the law that restrict issue ads during the weeks before federal elections (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 1/22). The Federal Election Commission and a group of lawmakers led by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) are arguing for the provisions to be upheld, the AP/Forbes reports (Frommer, AP/Forbes, 4/25). The justices are scheduled to issue a ruling before the end of June, the Miami Herald reports (Doyle, Miami Herald, 4/26).
Hearing Comments
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy have said the law should be struck down on free-speech grounds. According to the Los Angeles Times, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito also are “likely” to overturn the provisions, but Roberts said he is not convinced the law should be struck down entirely. He asked how advocacy groups could be exempted from the law so they could sponsor ads that focus on issues, not candidates (Savage, Los Angeles Times, 4/26). The District of Columbia circuit court panel ruled that WRTL ads were not campaign ads but general issue ads and that the government did not demonstrate a compelling enough argument to impose restrictions on groups’ free-speech rights. The decision also said that the portion of the McCain-Feingold law banning issue ads paid for by corporate or union money is unconstitutional because it imposes campaign finance restrictions on groups that are using ads to advance legislative policy (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 1/22). James Bopp, an attorney who represents WRTL, said that at a minimum the Supreme Court should permit ads that focus on issues that were pending before Congress (Los Angeles Times, 4/26).
Outlook
According to the New York Times, some election law experts believe the fate of the statute depends on how broad an exception the court “carves out” through its decision on this or future “as-applied” challenges to the law. Justice Stephen Bryer told Bopp that if “we agree with you in this case, good-bye McCain-Feingold” (New York Times, 4/26). Nathaniel Persily, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said that the campaign finance law, along with so-called “partial-birth” abortion laws, were the two precedents “most likely to be reversed” by the Supreme Court “in the short term” (Richey, Christian Science Monitor, 4/25).
“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
Beth Jordan, MD, medical director of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP) and Wayne Shields, ARHP president and CEO, released the following statement in response to the US Supreme Court decision in Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood.
“ARHP members, board, and staff are deeply concerned about the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold a dangerously misguided ban on abortions while also eliminating any health exception protections for vulnerable women. This action hinders evidence-based clinical practice, and disregards the health and safety of US women. This is a dangerous precedent for all Americans who believe that the government must not interfere with private medical decisions. Today’s ruling tells women that politicians, not health care providers, will make medical decisions for them.
The health exception has been the cornerstone of abortion law in the United States since 1973. By ignoring 30 years of established law, this new Supreme Court puts women’s lives in jeopardy and disregards best practices for health care providers.
The Supreme Court has set a disturbing precedent, which paves the way for more bans and legislation that will continue to chip away at access to safe abortion and further marginalize women’s health. Through this ruling, the Supreme Court has lowered the standard of care for women.”
The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP) is the leading source for trusted medical education and information on reproductive and sexual health. ARHP educates health care providers, informs consumers, and helps shape public policy. ARHP is a non-profit membership association composed of highly qualified and committed experts in reproductive health. ARHP members are health professionals in clinical practice, education, research, and advocacy and they include physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, nurse midwives, researchers, educators, pharmacists, and other professionals in reproductive health. To learn more, visit: www.arhp.org.
A seven-member panel of the Kansas Commission on Judicial Qualifications has dismissed an ethics complaint filed by abortion opponents against Sedgwick County, Kansas, District Judge Paul Clark for not disclosing campaign contributions he received from a law firm representing physician George Tiller before ruling in a case involving the doctor, the AP/Wichita Eagle reports (Hanna, AP/Wichita Eagle, 4/23). Former state Attorney General Phill Kline (R) last year filed 30 misdemeanor charges against Tiller — who owns the Wichita, Kan.-based abortion clinic Women’s Health Care Services — for allegedly performing 15 illegal late-term abortions in 2003 on patients ages 10 to 22 without properly reporting the details to the state. Kline hired attorney Don McKinney to be special prosecutor in the case. Clark in January dismissed the charges on a jurisdictional issue at the request of Sedgwick County District Attorney Nola Foulston (D), and McKinney filed an appeal to the state Supreme Court. The Kansas Supreme Court in February upheld Clark’s ruling. State Sen. Tim Huelskamp (R) and members of the antiabortion group Operation Rescue West last month filed the ethics complaint, alleging Clark did not disclose campaign contributions from the law firm representing Tiller and he inappropriately discussed the case with Foulston (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 3/28). Clark told the panel that he never looked at his campaign finance report and did not know who contributed to his campaign. According to the AP/Eagle, the panel concluded that the complaint “contained no facts evidencing judicial misconduct” by Clark. Huelskamp questioned whether the panel had thoroughly investigated the case. “Without any knowledge of the campaign contributions, Judge Clark had no information to disclose,” the panel said in a letter sent to Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue West, adding, “The matter is now closed.” Newman sent a reply to panel Chair Nancy Anstaett, asking how the investigation was conducted. Dan Monnat, an attorney for Tiller, said the decision is “further proof of Judge Clark’s integrity.” Clark was unavailable for comment, the AP/Eagle reports.
Morrison To Announce Whether He Will Reinstate Charges Against Tiller
In related news, a spokesperson for state Attorney General Paul Morrison (D), who defeated Kline in the November 2006 election, said Morrison is “finishing up” an investigation to determine whether to reinstate the charges against Tiller, the AP/Eagle reports. The spokesperson added that an announcement will be made soon (AP/Wichita Eagle, 4/23). Three Republican state House members last month sent a letter to Morrison calling for him to reinstate the charges, and the Kansas House Federal and State Affairs Committee last month voted 12-8 to approve a resolution that would force Morrison to reinstate the charges. Morrison declined an invitation to testify before the House committee but sent members a letter that said, “I can assure you that if I find evidence that a crime has been committed, I will file new charges against Dr. Tiller.” He added, “Any further charges will be based on my professional judgment, not legislative action or political calculations” (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 3/28). Operation Rescue West and Kansans for Life, the largest antiabortion group in the state, are backing the resolution. According to the AP/Eagle, Operation Rescue West last week began broadcasting radio advertisements that call on House Speaker Melvin Neufeld (R) to schedule a debate on the resolution. Neufeld said the House is “still trying to work out the best method of attack on” the resolution (AP/Wichita Eagle, 4/23).
“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . © 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.
Physicians are an essential component of correctional institutions and have a responsibility to advocate for effective and humane treatment for inmates. This is the view expressed in a commentary published in the January 11 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine by Scott A. Allen, MD, and Josiah D. Rich, MD, MPH, physicians at the Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at The Miriam Hospital and Brown Medical School.
Citing the steady increase of incarcerated individuals in the United States that has resulted in record high inmate numbers, the authors point to the inadequate treatment of mental illness and addiction in the community as a source of the increase - especially among women.
“The natural history of untreated addiction and mental illness often results in illegal activity, and persistently inadequate treatment perpetuates a cycle of crime and incarceration,” says Rich. “The correctional system should view incarceration as an opportunity to link inmates with effective therapy such as mental health services, high-quality drug treatment, and support services for reentry into society upon release, if we ever expect to decrease recidivism rates.”
The authors note that punishment is often favored over rehabilitation in many prisons, which may cause harm to a prisoner’s physical and mental health. In addition, in situations where effective therapeutic services are available, they are often underused.
Statistics show that although 57 percent of inmates in state prisons reported using drugs during the month before committing their offense, only 20 percent participated in substance abuse programs while in prison. Federal prisons echo this trend with reports stating that of the 63 percent of inmates being held for drug offenses, only 15 percent participated in prison-based drug treatment programs.
The authors also support programs for non-violent offenders that would place them in residential treatment programs and group homes instead of in prison. California took initiative with this concept when it passed The Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act, known as Proposition 36, in 2000. Proposition 36 changed California state law to allow first- and second-time nonviolent, simple drug possession offenders the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment instead of incarceration.
“We feel strongly that alternatives to mass incarceration for non-violent offenders, such as residential treatment programs, need to be explored,” says Allen. “Here, the basic requirements such as nutrition, shelter, and medical care would be provided, but in a more efficient, nonpunitive therapeutic setting. In addition, community-based alternatives would save taxpayers millions of dollars in incarceration costs annually.”
Initial reports analyzing the effectiveness of California’s Proposition 36 estimate that over 150,000 people benefited from the treatment and that it saved taxpayers about $1.3 billion. Given that the annual cost of housing an inmate is approximately $36,000, while the average cost of a 50-day residential treatment program is $3840 - the savings is evident.
Rich and Allen encourage physicians to campaign for sentencing laws, policies and procedures that directly affect the health and well-being of their patients and to encourage more humane and effective treatment alternatives for addiction and mental illness.
—————————-
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
—————————-
The Center for Prisoner Health and Human Rights at the Miriam Hospital Immunology Center (http://www.prisonerhealth.org/) was established in 2005.
The Miriam Hospital, established in 1926 in Providence, RI, is a not-for-profit hospital affiliated with Brown Medical School. Nationally recognized as a top hospital in cardiovascular care, The Miriam Hospital (http://www.miriamhospital.org/) offers particular expertise in cardiac catheterization, angioplasty and women’s cardiac care. One of 20 designated Center for AIDS Research (CFAR) sites, The Miriam is a leader in the treatment, research and prevention of HIV/AIDS, attracting $17 million of the world’s HIV/AIDS research dollars. The Miriam Hospital has been awarded Magnet Recognition for Excellence in Nursing Services three times and is committed to excellence in patient care, research and medical education. The Miriam is a founding member of the Lifespan health system.
Contact: Megan Martin
Lifespan
Addiction experts at MUSC say the link between oral cancer and heavy drinking makes dentists ideal sources of alcohol intervention.
The study that appeared in the December 2006 issue of the Journal of the American Dental Association (JADA) also finds that most patients don’t mind discussing alcohol use with their dentist.
The results were somewhat surprising, said Peter M. Miller, Ph.D., professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at MUSC.
“We thought alcohol was a sensitive topic,” Miller said. “We thought people might feel it’s okay if their doctor talked to them about [alcohol use], but not their dentist.”
MUSC researchers collected information from 408 adults. All were treated at an emergency walk-in dental clinic during a four-month period in 2005. Patients were asked questions about their drinking habits and their thoughts about having their dentist discuss alcohol use with them.
About 80 percent of people in the study said that dentists should feel free to ask patients about their drinking habits. About 25 percent said they would be embarrassed if their dentist asked such a question. However, 90 percent said they would give an honest answer.
More than 90 percent of the people in the study also agreed that if drinking were affecting their oral health, their dentist should advise them to reduce the amount they drink, or to quit.
The National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAA) estimates that nearly 50 percent of cases of Oropharyngeal Cancer (OPC) are associated with heavy drinking.
Miller said most people are not aware that heavy drinking is linked with oral cancer risk and, therefore, might wonder why a dentist would ask about drinking habits.
About 25 percent of the people in the study were drinking alcohol at levels that could be considered harmful, researchers said. These people were just as open to talking with their dentist about their drinking habits as people who drank less or no alcohol, the study found.
“We thought perhaps the heaviest drinkers might feel defensive or embarrassed” if their dentist asked them about alcohol, Miller said. “But we didn’t find that.The results allow us to tell dentists that people don’t have a problem with this.”
Miller said that the results of this study show that dentists should be trained in how to talk with patients about alcohol use. “We wouldn’t expect the dentist to do counseling - just provide information,” he said.
“If someone looks like they have a problem, it’s a matter of referral to either an alcoholism or addiction treatment center, or a psychiatrist or psychologist.”
The study was funded by the National Institute on Dental and Craniofacial Research (NIDCR) as part of an ongoing collaborative research effort between MUSC’s Center for Drug and Alcohol Programs (CDAP) and the Center for Oral Health Research in the College of Dental Medicine.
About The Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC)
Founded in 1824 in Charleston, The Medical University of South Carolina is the oldest medical school in the south. Today, MUSC continues the tradition of excellence in education, research, and patient care. MUSC is home to over 3,000 students and residents, as well as nearly 10,000 employees, including 1,300 faculty members. As the largest non-federal employer in Charleston, the University and its affiliates have collective budgets in excess of $1.3 billion per year. MUSC operates a 600 bed medical center, which includes a nationally recognized Children’s Hospital and a leading Institute of Psychiatry.
For more information on academic information or clinical services visit http://www.musc.edu or http://www.muschealth.com.
A team of US and Dutch scientists have found that men with high blood pressure who drink moderate amounts of alcohol are less likely to suffer fatal or non-fatal heart attacks. They also suggest the risk of heart attack or stroke is no different for hypertensive men who drink moderately to those who do not drink at all.
The long-term study is published in the latest issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, due out today.
The research team comes from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (a Harvard teaching hospital) and the Dutch TNO Quality of Life research institute and Wageningen University .
According to the lead scientist, Joline Beulens, a PhD fellow at TNO Quality of Life and Wageningen University, “because excess alcohol intake clearly increases blood pressure, many men with hypertension are counseled not to drink, but our results suggest that may not be necessary if men drink safely and responsibly”.
The researchers believe this is the first study to look at the link between high blood pressure and moderate alcohol consumption in men in relation to heart problems.
They looked at the records of 11,711 males from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study that started in 1986 where questionnaires were completed every four years. The men wrote down how often they drank beer, red and white wine, and other alcohol. This was correlated to case-data on non-fatal and fatal heart attacks and strokes between 1986 and 2002. During the 16 year period 653 cases of heart attacks and strokes took place, of which 279 were fatal.
The researchers also took into account a number of factors such as diet, exercise, and body weight. Since the study only included male healthcare professionals, the researchers cannot be certain that the results would be the same for everyone else.
65 million people in the US have high blood pressure, which doubles the risk of getting cardiovascular disease (CVD) and dying from it. Earlier research studies have suggested that one or two drinks a day is likely to reduce the risk, but if you drink more than that, the chances of getting high blood pressure go up.
Some studies have found a link between moderate drinking by hypertensives and reduced risk of death from CVD, but none has explored the link with non-fatal heart attacks or strokes in the longer term.
It is thought that moderate alcohol drinking could be acting to reduce risk of CVD by increasing the level of “good” HDL cholesterol and also by making the blood thinner.
“Alcohol Consumption and Risk for Coronary Heart Disease Among Men With Hypertension.”
Joline W.J. Beulens, Eric B. Rimm, Alberto Ascherio, Donna Spiegelman, Henk F.J. Hendriks, Kenneth J. Mukamal.
Annals of Internal Medicine, 2007; 146:10-19.
Click here for the American Heart Association.
Written by: Catharine Paddock
Writer: Medical News Today
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today
A new report from the Health Protection Agency shows that the number of people newly diagnosed with hepatitis C has increased; from 2,116 in 1996, to 7,580 in 2005. New figures also show that testing for hepatitis C has increased overall, for example, in GP surgeries’, testing has increased by almost 60 per cent between 2002 and 2005.
The latest estimates on the number of adults infected with hepatitis C showed there were around 231,000 in 2003. Many of these infected people do not realise they have the virus as it can take years or even decades for symptoms to appear. Early treatment, however, is effective at clearing the virus in the majority of people. It is therefore important that individuals at risk are tested by their GP or other health services.
Dr Helen Harris, a Hepatitis C expert from the Agency said “This is the second annual report on Hepatitis C from the Health Protection Agency, summarising current knowledge of the infection and the action being taken to tackle it. Hepatitis C is very under-diagnosed simply because people are unaware that they are carrying it. By increasing awareness of the infection, more people will be tested, will receive earlier and more effective treatment, and they can avoid passing it on to others.”
“We estimate that almost 6 in 10 people with hepatitis C injected drugs at some point in their past. If someone has ever shared equipment for injecting drugs - even if it was a long time ago, and even if they only did it once or twice - they could be at risk from hepatitis C. A simple blood test can establish whether someone has ever been infected with the virus”
Professor Pete Borriello, Director of the Agency’s Centre for Infections said,”Testing for hepatitis C has increased significantly, however there is still much work to be done as a significant number of individuals remain undiagnosed. If you don’t know you’ve got it, you can’t do anything about it. Health services should consider this as they formulate strategies to increase testing.”
The report highlights the Department of Health’s hepatitis C awareness campaign, FaCe It, which has now reached over 16 million people. The exhibition campaign visits cities across England and features large photographic portraits of people living with Hepatitis C.
Hepatitis C in England - An Update 2006 is published by the Health Protection Agency and contributors. To see a full copy of the report, click here.
Contributions to the report were received from a number of people from the Health Protection Agency as well as The Department of Health, The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse and The Trent Hepatitis C Cohort Study Group.Anyone who thinks they might be at risk of infection should contact their doctor or nurse or call the Hepatitis C Information Line on 0800 451 451 or visit http://www.hepc.nhs.uk
Between 70-80% of adults with hepatitis C become chronically infected. The preliminary estimates for 2003 suggest that 0.53% of the 15-59 year age group in England and Wales were chronically infected. Although prevalence estimates in older individuals are less secure, as the major risk factor for hepatitis C is injecting drug use, we expect the prevalence in older individuals to be lower than in the 15-59 year old population. Similarly, the prevalence in children under 15 years is expected to be very low.
Sentinel surveillance suggests that testing in GP surgeries has increased by almost 60% because 8584 individuals were tested in nine sentinel laboratories in 2005 compared to 5382 individuals being tested in the same laboratories in 2002.
Laboratory confirmed diagnoses for hepatitis C rose from 6341 in 2003 to 7580 in 2005. This indicates that the rate of diagnoses has risen and therefore that more diagnostic testing is taking place.
Hepatitis means swelling or inflammation of the liver. The most common causes of hepatitis are viral infections. Hepatitis C infection (also known as Hep C or HCV) is one such virus that can cause long-lasting infection and can lead to liver disease. The UK is the only major developed nation showing an upward trend in the number of deaths from liver disease.
Health Protection Agency (UK)
A study performed by the Research Laboratories of the Catholic University of Campobasso (Italy) confirms the beneficial effects that moderate consumption of alcohol has on our health. But this time it is not just cardiovascular disease that gets advantage from this: drinking in moderation reduces all-cause mortality.
The research, published on the American journal Archives of Internal Medicine, assembled 34 scientific studies conducted during the last years worldwide using the statistic procedure of meta-analysis, that allows us to match different studies to achieve general results. In this way it has been possible to examine data concerning over a million of people, for which alcohol drinking habits were associated with all-cause mortality.
The conclusions researchers from the Catholic University of Campobasso came to clearly show that drinking in moderation (a couple of wine or beer glasses a day) has beneficial effects on health. But that is not all: while the greatest part of the studies conducted on this issue have looked at cardiovascular disease, a term that includes clinical events of various severity, the study published on the Archives of Internal Medicine shows a positive effect of alcohol on an unquestionably hard parameter as overall mortality.
“Alcohol as a life insurance” Not exactly. The key word is moderation. The Italian research also confirms that excessive consumption of alcohol is absolutely harmful, and the risk of death for those who drink in excess does not decrease at all. On the contrary: the risk definitely increases.
“Our data” says Augusto Di Castelnuovo, lead author of the study “show that consumption of little amounts of alcohol leads to a reduction of mortality up to 18%. But after a certain number of glasses things radically change: who drinks too much not only loses this advantage, but increases his own risk of death in relation to the amount of alcohol consumed”.
The study shows very important differences between men and women. Whereas men report a beneficial effect after consuming 2-4 doses maximum (a dose refers to one glass of wine or beer), women should be aware: for them, the protection guaranteed from alcohol consumption disappears just after two glasses a day.
“It might be” says Licia Iacoviello, Head of the Laboratory of Genetic and Environmental Epidemiology, where the research has been performed “a fact linked to the metabolism. We know that women metabolize alcohol in a different way and the blood concentration reaches higher levels. Therefore, consuming more than two doses might lead to several harmful effects, such as liver diseases or increased risk of certain forms of tumour.”
The meta-analysis conducted by the Catholic University found that the protection given by a moderate consumption of alcohol for American men is lower than the one observed for Europeans. For women, instead, the situation is substantially the same both in USA and Europe. An explanation might be found in the different ways in consuming alcohol. Europeans are more inclined to drink wine rather than other beverages and use to do it while having meals. Two habits different from Americans’. In relation to women, the way they consume alcohol is roughly the same in both continents, thus they respond identically. However, the debate is still open and more research is needed.
Another significant data emerging from the study is related to the so called “confounding factors”. During the past years, it has been thought that the protecting effect of alcohol might be ascribed to other factors. It might be, in fact, that people enjoying alcohol drinks in moderation are more concerned about their own health: it may turn out that they are more likely to do sport or to consume healthier food.
In other words it might be that they have a better lifestyle and this could be the cause, not necessarily alcohol, that keeps them in good health.
“We’ve carefully examined this aspect” Di Castelnuovo continues. “Our data suggest that, even considering all main confounding factors (as dietary habits, physical activity or the health of people studied), a moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages keeps on showing a real positive effect.”
“The core of this study is not just about alcohol” says Giovanni de Gaetano, director of the Research Laboratories at the Catholic University “it is also the way we drink that makes the difference: little amounts, preferably during meals, this appears to be the right way. This is another feature of the Mediterranean diet, where alcohol, wine above all, is the ideal partner of a dinner or lunch, but that’s all: the rest of the day must be absolutely alcohol-free. The message carried by scientific studies like ours is simple: alcohol can be a respectful guest on our table, but it is good just when it goes with a healthy lifestyle, where moderation leads us toward a consumption inspired by quality not by quantity”.
—————————-
Article adapted by Medical News Today from original press release.
—————————-
Contact: Antonio Mascioli
Catholic University