Experts shed doubt on Shvarts’ claims
Experts shed doubt on Shvarts’ claims
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
For almost a week now, students on campus and commentators across the country have picked apart the supposed senior art project of Aliza Shvarts ’08 — whether it’s art, whether it’s immoral, whether the University erred in barring her display from going up as scheduled Tuesday. But some observers in the medical world have been asking a different question: Are repeated artificial inseminations followed by self-induced herbally stimulated miscarriages, as Shvarts claims she performed, even medically feasible?
Three medical experts interviewed by the News are skeptical.
“The most likely scenario,” said Dr. Edward Funai, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology and chief of obstetrics at Yale-New Haven Hospital, “is that all Shvarts was seeing every month was her own menstrual blood. Half of the Yale community sees art of similar quality when taking care of their monthly hygiene.”
Yale has also expressed doubt, although of a different kind, about Shvarts’ purported project since last week, when it issued a statement calling Shvarts’ project a piece of “creative fiction” — nothing more than part of an elaborate piece of “performance art” meant to highlight the ambiguity of the relationship between art and the human body.
University spokeswoman Helaine Klasky said Thursday that Shvarts had confirmed to Yale College Dean Peter Salovey and two other senior officials that she had neither impregnated herself nor performed any self-induced miscarriages as part of the project.
But in her public comments last week, Shvarts labeled the University’s assessment of her project “ultimately inaccurate.” She has not spoken to the press about the subject since she published a column in Friday’s News explaining in detail the chronology of her supposed project.
But Harvey Kliman, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Yale School of Medicine, remains unconvinced. What signaled to him that Shvarts was likely “never pregnant” is the absence of any scientific evidence that herbal abortifacients are capable of terminating a pregnancy.
“I doubt she could take anything herbal that would stop a pregnancy,” he said. “There’s nothing in nature that can do that.”
Shvarts told the News last week that she does not know whether she was ever pregnant over the course of her nine-month project since she never took a pregnancy test. Shvarts said she was unconcerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor at any point during the nine months, she said.
Of the herbal abortifacients currently available over the counter, none contains ingredients potent enough to abort a embryo, Funai said. Some could promote the miscarriage of an embryo “in theory,” he said, but would have to be ingested in extremely large amounts to do so. At such high dosages, Funai said, these herbal drugs would produce dramatic side effects, including nausea, headaches, anemia and possibly even death.
Shvarts has not said whether she experienced any such symptoms resulting from the abortifacients she said she ingested. In an interview with the News last week, Shvarts played footage from tapes she claimed showed her inducing miscarriages. The tapes depicted an occasionally naked Shvarts in a shower stall bleeding into a cup, moaning, sometimes doubling over, in pain. She declined to comment on the type of abortifacient she allegedly ingested.
“There’s a reason that there’s still a problem of access to safe and effective methods of abortion,” said Hugh Taylor, associate chief for research in Reproductive Endocrinology & Infertility at the medical school. “If it were that easy to perform a simply herbal home remedy, that wouldn’t be the case.”
But while the likelihood that Shvarts’ ingestion of abortifacient herbs induced miscarriages is slim, medical experts interviewed said, the method of self-insemination she alleges she used is medically sound — at least on a mechanical level.
Funai said Shvarts could have become pregnant with the home-based method Shvarts said she used to self-inseminate.
Given the right timing, in theory, all it would take for a woman of Shvarts’ age to get pregnant would be placing a small amount of semen just beyond the opening of the vagina, he explained.
But Taylor said that, if she did in fact conceive over the nine-month period, “the odds are it was not more than twice.”
Shvarts told the News last Thursday that she used a needleless syringe to insert semen into herself within 30 minutes of its collection. Her sperm donors were not compensated for their services, Shvarts said, but she required them to periodically take tests for sexually transmitted diseases.
Despite the precautions Shvarts said she took in testing her donors and ensuring the sperm was fresh, Taylor said her method was still risky. Some infectious diseases such as HIV can only be detected in semen after six months, which means that sperm samples must be quarantined for at least a six-month period before they can be deemed safe for use, he said.
The central ambiguity of her project, Shvarts wrote in her column last Friday, was the nature of the blood she experienced on the 28th day of her cycle.
“The part most meaningful in [the project’s] political agenda … is the impossibility of accurately identifying the resulting blood,” she wrote. “Because the miscarriages coincide with the expected date of menstruation (the 28th day of my cycle), it remains ambiguous whether there was ever a fertilized ovum or not.”
Funai agreed that is impossible to distinguish between menstrual blood and the blood that results from an abortion by observation alone, unless the abortion is performed more than two weeks after the expected menstruation date.
But Taylor said that blood from self-induced miscarriages is usually noticeably heavier and may contain more tissue than menstrual blood.
Over the clamor of outrage that sounded as Shvarts’ project set blogs and comment boards ablaze last week, some readers did express concern for Shvarts’ health.
“The sheer physical danger that she puts herself in by repeatedly inducing miscarriage, not to mention the possibility of STD infection (and yes I know that they got tested, but she was absolutely playing with fire) boggles the mind,” one commenter wrote in a comment on the News’ Web site last week. “You might as well repeatedly induce tumor growth and receive chemotherapy (the analogy carries over into all other ways that I find this insulting).”
Nonetheless, if Shvarts did indeed do what she alleged, she may not experience any short-term medical consequences, the experts said.
Funai said no medical literature on the effects of repeated self-induced miscarriages exists — “for obvious reasons” — but the process of miscarriage itself is natural and safe. Still, that Shvarts may have somehow tampered with her reproductive infrastructure is not completely out of the question, he said.
“For someone who may desire children in the future, it wasn’t the smartest thing to attempt,” Funai said. “It may not guarantee infertility, but it certainly can’t be good for you.”
—Divya Subrahmanyam contributed reporting.


Comments
None 4 years ago
Many Chinese herbal materia medica in the Qi classification and pretty much all in the Blood invigorating classification are contraindicated for pregnancy. However, they are often used to induce labor. There are many acupuncture points that are also used to induce labor, and, if applied inappropriately, can also induce miscarriage.
All that aside, Schvats seemed to accomplish was obtain her proverbial 15 minutes in the royal panopticon. She and perhaps Lindman are sitting in the proverbial tower orgasming over the folly that has erupted that Schvats has created. The actual "art" is the folly that has erupted over the alleged controversy. With every day that this stays in the news, adds to her notoriety.
Pesonally, it would seem as if Schvats has not gotten over the reaction, or lack thereof, she received from her mother regarding the initial onset of her menses (the Ming Period), and this alleged project was just an extension of that temper tantrum.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
So, lying is a new art medium according to the Yale art department. How much has she spent on her education?
In a few years, she'll be receiving NEA grants for such lying - oops! I mean performance art - from your hard earned tax dollars!
None 4 years, 1 month ago
Art? No - Disgusting!
None 4 years, 1 month ago
finally! some science....some reason. there's been way too much gut-reaction, over-the-top hype surrounding this whole thing. we needed something like this.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
Leave it to the Art major to come up with a scientifically impossible lie.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
I'm confused. Is the artist a liar? Is her project a phony scam? More importantly, do I care?
None 4 years, 1 month ago
You kids have a lot to learn about reporting if it took you a week to get to this point. If the medical sources had been called on the first day, you would have seen how thin this story is. Where was your skepticism? It really makes me fear for the future of journalism that everyone who reported this story so far has been so gullible.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
Well, looks like Chase and the Women's Center have egg on their faces. Again. Who knew that writing an op-ed accusing the university of lying without any evidence whatsoever to back up that claim might not be a good idea?
None 4 years, 1 month ago
so, essentially, yale has no concrete medical grounds on which it can deny Shvarts her exhibition. She is healthy now, probably did not induce any miscarriages, and therefore, in the invent that she was ever pregnant, experienced only safe miscarriages.
great job yale. you have totally screwed one of your students without any reason for doing so.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
There really is no pleasing you, is there? If Shvarts were telling the truth, you'd accuse the University of lying and screwing over one of their students. If Shvarts is lying, you accuse the University of screwing over a student "without any reason for doing so." Never mind that Shvarts screwed over the University, her adviser and the DUS, and her classmates so she could make a name for herself with all the controversy, and that one of her friends publicly called the Dean of Yale College a liar and demanded his resignation... which, by the way, is LIBEL if it turns out Chase knew that Shvarts was (probably) lying about the project. Damn that Yale University, always trying to tell the truth to the press... how I hate them!
Look, it's all quite simple really... the University believes it's fake, but they can't be sure. They need Shvarts to officially make them sure, otherwise they'll be legally liable if something bad happens (like if, say, someone gets infected with her blood or in case some younger student suddenly thinks it's okay to artificially inseminate and use abortifacients for an academic project and then somehow hurts themselves in the process). Of course, the University would also like to avoid all the ridiculously bad press they're getting over this, but that just means that their conclusion's overdetermined. The public safety and liability issues alone justify not hanging the work unless Shvarts publicly admits it's a hoax, any other reasons are just icing on the cake. Sucks for Shvarts that she picked a project that put her in this spot, but that was her call. As for freedom of artistic expression... well that ends when your work potentially poses a direct (BIOHAZARD) and indirect (copycat) danger to other students. Did you even read the article? The doctors make it pretty clear that even if Shvarts is fine now, there's no way doing something like that is healthy.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
1,
Your comment makes no sense. Chase's claim was that Salovey is being a hypocrite by denying Aliza her exhibit while supposedly holding the academic value of challenging the legitimacy of the prevailing consensus.
If anything this article STRENGTHENS the anti-university case here: There was absolutely no reason to freak out but Yale panicked, freaked out and threw one of their students under the bus.
The administration should be ashamed.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
Globally there are 160 million IUD users, New Haven.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
It's kind of ridiculous that they didn't run this last Thursday.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
interviews with medical experts should have been included in the initial article. the ydn has proved once again that it is more interested in drawing attention to itself than practicing sound journalism.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
"Experts Shed Doubt"? A mixed metaphor. Did you mean "Cast Doubt"? "Shed Light"?
None 4 years, 1 month ago
Then what about all these reports of herbal abortifacients in ancient texts? Oh well, I guess those darned pagans are only lying.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
Voice of reason! What type of reason is that?
She claims to have experienced very unsafe, very risky health. As the doctor described, if she took the drugs in the right dosage to induce a miscarriage, it really could have ended in her death.
She claims she took the drugs in a way consistent with that end result, so yes, the university made the proper decision.
If it later comes out that Shvarts was lying, then the university hasn't made a mistake: it's been lied to, and acted as best it could on the information it had available.
I'm sorry you think you are being reasonable. The reasonable outlook is that the university should not support a student doing something potentially fatal-regardless of if it involves reproductive rights or playing russian roulette.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
Gee, this should have been the article researched and written on day one--a little more information for the uniformed public might have helped manage the hysteria a bit.
We can now focus on the message I see in the project which is highlighting the ambiguity of menstruation. It is an interesting one mainly because your perceptions of it are entirely driven by your point of view at the time you experience the menstruation. It is a simple biological event, but imbued with significance based on your response. Your reaction to it changes dramatically as you cycle through the desire or antipathy of being pregnant over the course of a lifetime. Then there is the ultimate betrayal when the final bleeding announcing the death knell of cancer. I'll never forget being in the health plan being scrapped out after my first much desired pregnancy died in utero. There I was in the deepest grief, surrounded by college women deeply grateful they were terminating. A painful juxtaposition.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
4,
Maybe you support Aliza Shvartz's apparent contention that lying to the press and to the public about your piece constitutes "art," but the university doesn't have to agree. More to the point, you are COMPLETELY wrong about what Chase's argument was.
Chase was arguing that Shvartz's project was real, and that the university lied about it because they were embarrassed they had approved it. Now it turns out that there is very little chance the project was real, and in fact it was Shvartz that was lying the whole time. So yes, Chase does have egg on her face.
The university has a responsibility to stand by students' work if it has been approved. But if a student lies about her work for the sake of ginning up some manufactured controversy, the university is perfectly within its rights to say, either you tell the truth about this or we're not going to give you a platform for your work. In fact, academic integrity DEMANDS that they do so.
Yale has done an excellent job responding to this. They have made me proud to go to this school.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
To quote Chase directly: "Thousands of people denounced the project, Aliza Shvarts and Yale University as evil. Yale’s publicists, who are paid to care about what those people think, made a decision after meeting with Aliza Shvarts last Thursday. They decided to lie. On Thursday afternoon, in their first press release, they called Aliza Shvarts’ project a “creative fiction,” claimed that she had never artificially inseminated herself" and (paraphrasing) "Dean Salovey helped concoct the lie that the publicists told". Regardless of the fact that this was not the primary reason Chase was calling for Salovey's resignation, it would still constitute libel if Salovey could show that Chase knew (I hear she's close friends with Aliza, so odds are good she did know) Aliza was actually lying (if indeed she was), and that he suffered harm as a result of this lie. Whatever else you want to say about hypocrisy or the rest, Chase called the publicists and Salovey liars in the public forum in no uncertain terms. If she in fact knew that they were not lying, she's committed a pretty grave offense.
And there still definitely is a reason for the University to make Aliza sign a statement promising it's not real: they need to protect themselves from liability in case it is (they just had her word to go off of, and as we all know, she revels in "ambiguity"). Furthermore, they wanted other people to know it was fake so University students wouldn't be encouraged to endanger themselves for senior projects in future.
Salovey would allow Shvarts to challenge whatever she wants (if she wants to write a piece about how abortion is great, I'm sure he'd let her, didn't Xiaochen Su say something to that effect months ago?). What he won't do is allow her to pretend that the University condones taking idiotic risks with your health/life. It doesn't, it shouldn't, and allowing people to pretend that it does is the same as allowing it in the first place.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
hieronymus, could you not find anything else to criticize in this article? is that why you must try to belittle the headline, of all things?
None 4 years, 1 month ago
I agree, the university should not have signed off on the project in the 1st place.--she is the student.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
9, are you seriously disputing scientific conclusions about the effectiveness of herbal abortifacients by claiming that science is biased against pagans? Maybe the ancient pagan drugs can't be bought over the counter in America... or maybe they were wrong, why is that so surprising? It's not like they had rigorous testing, measurement, and verification methods back then. But no, science is just bigoted.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
The quote from Funai is one of the best I've ever seen anywhere.
None 4 years, 1 month ago
Seriously, YDN. Did you just make up "shed doubt" for the occasion?
Or login with:
OpenID