 | ||
|
| |    False Alarm: How One Newspaper 'Spun' the Diaper Story by Robert Needlman, M.D., F.A.A.P. reviewed by Laura Jana, M.D., F.A.A.P. If you read the front page of many newspapers nationwide last week, you might very well conclude that disposable diapers pose a clear health threat to male babies. The article in the San Francisco Examiner (Wednesday, 9-27-00) was no exception. I've argued that the recent study showing higher scrotal temperatures in infants wearing plastic-covered diapers is suggestive of a possible medical problem, but by no means conclusive. A detailed commentary that was published alongside the research report agreed. How did the Examiner spin such a different tale? The Anatomy of Spin A step-by-step analysis of the news story shows the following inaccuracies. Each point is just a little bit off the truth, but taken together they add up to a very different view of the issue. Item 1: The headline. Large bold letters on the front page, left margin, declare: "Study links plastic diapers to infertility." Well, no. The study linked the plastic-coated disposable diapers to higher scrotal temperatures. The scientists then speculated that this "may have a role in subsequent "infertility"(emphasis mine). Item 2: The bold print. This declared, "Scientists say overheating stops normal development of the testicles." No, again. The scientific paper actually says it is possible that higher temperatures caused by plastic diapers might interfere with (not "stop") testicle development. Leaving out the "mights," "mays," and "coulds" conveys a degree of certainty that the researchers never implied. Item 3: Exaggerating the facts. The newspaper stated, "Diapers lined with plastic raise the temperature of the scrotum far above body temperature." Not so. In the scientific report, it clearly states that the average scrotal temperature was 36.4 degrees Celsius (97.52 degrees Fahrenheit) in plastic-diapered newborns, while the average rectal (body) temperature was 37.0 degrees Celsius (98.6 degrees Fahrenheit). Note that the scrotal temperature actually is lower than the rectal - not higher as the newspaper claimed. Similar differences were reported for the older babies in the study. While scrotal temperatures were higher with plastic diapers than with cloth, they were by no means "far above body temperature." Item 4: Ignoring uncertainty. The newspaper states, "Boys whose testicles descend too late in adolescence often are infertile because they have been kept warm for too long." What the researchers actually said was, "However, part of the deleterious effect of [undescended testicles] is believed to be due to increased testicular temperature." Okay, that's a mouthful, but what exactly is the difference between these two statements? The reporter makes it sound certain that higher temperatures cause infertility, while the researchers acknowledge that this isn't a proven fact. (Another possible explanation, for example, is that testes that are abnormal to begin with, and therefore less fertile, also tend to stay up in the abdomen.) Also, remember that testes that remain completely inside the body until adolescence stay warmer for much longer than most boys ever wear diapers. Crying Wolf Clearly, it makes a better story if plastic diapers cause infertility. What parent wouldn't pay attention to that? The real story--that some careful researchers have raised the possibility that there might be a risk--is much less compelling. Also, the details of the study - just how hot were those testicles? - are really pretty dull unless you're a researcher yourself. So, I have some sympathy for the newspaper. On the other hand, I'm concerned that journalism that cries wolf for sensationalistic effect may end up doing more harm than good. Some parents become overly cynical and simply refuse to believe anything reported in the press. (I can hear my friends now: "One week butter is bad for you; the next week it's good for you. Pass the croissants!") Other parents become overly anxious. There are enough solid reasons for parent to worry, without adding any speculative ones.
| |  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| About Us |
Contact Us |
Our Partners Privacy Policy | Ethics | Advertising Policy | Terms of Service © Copyright 2004 The Dr. Spock Company. All Rights Reserved. THIS SITE DOES NOT PROVIDE MEDICAL ADVICE. The information drSpock.com
provides is for educational purposes only and is not a substitute for
professional medical advice. Always seek the advice of your health care
professional if you have a specific health concern. Mention or advertisement
of any product, service, or brand does not constitute endorsement, guarantee,
or recommendation by The Dr. Spock Company. Please read our full
Terms of Service. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
