RU486 - Abortion Pill (1 Viewer)

[davin]

if they can wait on actually wanting a child, they can wait on other things if there are concerning side effects.
and to avoid the general..."you're a guy, thats different" thing.... never had sex in a situation where full precautions were taken or where i wouldn't do everything possible to support my gf of the time through the whole thing



i'd be interested in seeing a comparison of the side effects possible from the pill vs side effects possible from an abortion performed surgically. beyond just mortality rates

 

[gerhard]

This pill may be easy to use, but it is far from safe and uninvasive. The number of failed treatments is huge, not to mention the severe hormonal disturbance as well as the egg-beater being applied to the woman's biochemistry, RU-486 is a particularly nasty poison.

I understand people are supporting it on the grounds of making abortion more readily available to women who want it, and though I disagree I understand and accept your position. However, I do not accept support of this particularly harmful drug, as it is so harmful to such a large number of women. At least consider the implications of a particular drug before you support it "on principle".

Almost everyday new treatments and medecines are examined by australian doctors and scientists to test whether they should be made available. The idea that you or I have more information and could come up with a better judgement on whether this medicine is safe is ludicrous.

 

[ohne]

I don't think the private members bill on RU486 should be passed.

I think what disturbs me most about this debate is that it has been hijacked by people who believe in "pro choice" in relation to abortion rather than whether or not the drug is damaging. RU486 is NOT safer than surgical abortion according to recent research. Indeed several women have been killed as a result of taking this pill. If the government commits itself to the pro choice propaganda and women in Australia die as a result of taking the drug then they are ultimately responsible. Many countries throughout the world have banned RU486 because of its dangers including Canada.

While I personally oppose all abortion, the present status of abortion in Australia, only allowing surgical abortion is much safer for women. Abortions that are carried out without direct medical supervision such as through RU486 are dangerous. If something goes wrong then there is nothing immediately there to assist the woman unlike with surgical procedures. I think what has also been failed to be raised in this debate is that in around 1 in 10 cases of taking RU486, the woman will need to have a surgical procedure done anyway afterwards due to complications. While I find the idea of surgical abortions also abhorrent, RU486 will be even worse leading to sickness and bleeding for women drawn out over several days and babies being born in toilets.

A major argument for the legalisation of abortion was that it would see the end of dodgy backyard establishments that endanger the lives of women. It is now ironic that we are seeing a campaign for an abortion drug that will achieve exactly that result and also endanger the lives of women through abortion.

 

[Generator]

Nevertheless, while different characterisations of the potential risks of medical abortion have been presented, the basic facts about clinical outcomes (such as efficacy and possible side-effects) do not appear to be in dispute. Rather, the main area of dispute in the current debate over RU486 has tended to be about whether these ‘clinical facts’ in relation to this form of medical abortion can be said to constitute an acceptable risk to the health of women.

In other words, the current debate over RU486 in Australia is essentially over questions of risk management. This is a key point because the management of risk associated with medicines is an explicit function of the TGA.

RU486 for Australia?

As for the idea that the debate has been hijacked by pro-choice 'activists', I take it that you, ohne, somehow missed noticing the way in which anti-abortion campaigners have swamped the current enquiry (despite the fact that it isn't an enquiry into abortion).

 

[ohne]

Personally I think the enquiry should be based on the merits of the drug, although there are some issues that related to all abortions. For example research has shown that an abortion significantly increases the risk of breast cancer for women. Nevertheless, i don't think generic arguments against abortion can be applied given that surgical abortion is not under discussion.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Abortions that are carried out without direct medical supervision such as through RU486 are dangerous. If something goes wrong then there is nothing immediately there to assist the woman unlike with surgical procedures. I think what has also been failed to be raised in this debate is that in around 1 in 10 cases of taking RU486, the woman will need to have a surgical procedure done anyway afterwards due to complications.

Judging by the figures for the drug... risk is fairly acceptable and appropriate guidelines for medical intervention would be manageable

the figures are (US) 7.9% and (French) 4.5% for surgical intervention for 600mg RU486 (mifepristone)

from a US trial of 762 and French trial of 1605 women.. adjusted for ethnicity

US trial:
(1.6%) were medically indicated interventions during the study period, mostly for excessive bleeding;
(0.6%) interventions occurred at the patient's request;
(4.7%) had incomplete abortions at the end of the study protocol
(1.0%) had ongoing pregnancies at the end of the study protocol

mainly there is indication that 1 in 20 would be incomplete

u cant obviously use this in certain pregnancies.. ectopic or ppl with haemorrhagic conditions etc.

bleeding heavier was the main side effect.. based on the drugs pharmacodynamics this is consistant.. control with medication lead to an acceptable level of bleeding without surgical intervention

Cost of drug is about AUD$300 without govt subsidies.

While I find the idea of surgical abortions also abhorrent, RU486 will be even worse leading to sickness and bleeding for women drawn out over several days and babies being born in toilets.

well considering that they need to use this within 49 days of conception... being born is unlikely...

the bleeding and spotting would last about 9-16 days on average.. not too unacceptable by social standards... compared to spotting from the pill

there are some issues that related to all abortions. For example research has shown that an abortion significantly increases the risk of breast cancer for women.

I recall u are talking about 1991 and 1994 papers...

this was a meta-analysis study scrutinising over the claims made from the earlier study.. it was a comprehensive overview of all works..
one factor was recall bias of patients with breast cancer..

CONCLUSION Retrospective studies of induced abortion provide misleading results, probably because of differential reporting of abortion between cases and controls. Based on the combined results of prospective studies, women with a history of spontaneous or induced abortion are not at increased risk of breast cancer.

Women with a history of spontaneous or induced abortion are not at increased risk of breast cancer -- a meta-analysis
Andrieu N - Evidence-based Obstetrics & Gynecology. - June 2005; 7(2); 98-99

Also a pathological mechanism was quite weak... and in medicine.. usually if they are weak they arent completely accurate.

 

[katie_tully]

pros out weigh cons, etcetera etcetera. no method is completely without side effects, etcetera, etcetera. if you disagree then you're stupid.
i conclude my argument.

 

[musik_junky]

What most people are forgetting is that the thread starter asked,

"Should it be legal or illegal to sell this medication over the counter?"

I don't think it should be sold over the counter. This is just encouraging both men and women to ignore considering the consequences of their actions. We must remember that the biological purpose of sex is reproduction. So why kill a foetus which is probably alive? Some people argue that we can't be sure it is alive, but think about it - its not like some magical aura of life descends upon the baby just as it is leaving the mother's body. Any normal person would agree that the foetus must be alive while still in the mother's body.

 

[Generator]

What most people are forgetting is that the thread starter asked,

"Should it be legal or illegal to sell this medication over the counter?"

... and as I said, there is nothing to be gained (in a constructive sense) by such a trivial suggestion given that it will not be sold over the counter. Please, don't waste our time.

 

[katie_tully]

the biological purpose of sex for cats and dogs is reproduction. it ensures the survival of the species.

as humans, we have sex for a variety of other reasons - as do dolphins. PLEASURE. also, our species isn't in any danger of dying out any time soon, so the need for us to have sex merely for reproduction is ridiculous, as is the notion that sex should be restricted to couples who are ready in all senses for a child.

anyway. i'm for the drug. not necessarily over the counter, because there is a chance that the woman will not follow procedure. if prescribed by a doctor, the woman can be assessed for possible risks from side effects and other potential nasties.

 

[katie_tully]

So why kill a foetus which is probably alive? Some people argue that we can't be sure it is alive, but think about it - its not like some magical aura of life descends upon the baby just as it is leaving the mother's body. Any normal person would agree that the foetus must be alive while still in the mother's body.

I like how you try and blur the lines.
The feotus is dependant upon the mother for its survival. Thus, depending on how you look at it, the feotus is not an independant entity whose life is being taken. Its potential life is dependant on the health and well being of the mother. The whole pro life argument is based on the idea that the feotus has more rights than the mother - yet this is not the case.

 

[ogmzergrush]

I'm all for it, in addition they should be dispensed by machines in public toilets, for free. (PS: Big shout outs to all my pro lifer homies).

 

[katie_tully]

Perhaps a combined condom and RU486 machine, two for the price of one.

"Just in case..............."

 

[gerhard]

student unions should hand out free ru486 pills during o-week

 

[ohne]

Judging by the figures for the drug... risk is fairly acceptable and appropriate guidelines for medical intervention would be manageable

the figures are (US) 7.9% and (French) 4.5% for surgical intervention for 600mg RU486 (mifepristone)

from a US trial of 762 and French trial of 1605 women.. adjusted for ethnicity

US trial:
(1.6%) were medically indicated interventions during the study period, mostly for excessive bleeding;
(0.6%) interventions occurred at the patient's request;
(4.7%) had incomplete abortions at the end of the study protocol
(1.0%) had ongoing pregnancies at the end of the study protocol

mainly there is indication that 1 in 20 would be incomplete

u cant obviously use this in certain pregnancies.. ectopic or ppl with haemorrhagic conditions etc.

bleeding heavier was the main side effect.. based on the drugs pharmacodynamics this is consistant.. control with medication lead to an acceptable level of bleeding without surgical intervention

While personally I don't think this kind of risk is "fairly acceptable" you are failing to compare it to surgical abortions. Several deaths throughout the world have occured after women have taken the drug and the full reasons for this has not yet been established. You have also not raised the antiglucocorticoid affect of RU486. There is evidence that it has weakened women's immune system leading to death in some cases.

well considering that they need to use this within 49 days of conception... being born is unlikely...

If the drug can be taken without direct supervision from a doctor then this is likely to happen eventually. It is nieve to think that some women won't use it after 49 days.

the bleeding and spotting would last about 9-16 days on average.. not too unacceptable by social standards... compared to spotting from the pill

Again, this is another reason why RU486 is not preferable to surgical abortion.

I recall u are talking about 1991 and 1994 papers...

this was a meta-analysis study scrutinising over the claims made from the earlier study.. it was a comprehensive overview of all works..
one factor was recall bias of patients with breast cancer..

You are referring to the Danish study? I don't think this is any more credible than the original research. Nevertheless I grant that the jury is still out on this issue.

And then of course there is the mental health factor of abortion which is not exactly positive according to recent research...

 

[Generator]

If the drug can be taken without direct supervision from a doctor then this is likely to happen eventually. It is nieve to think that some women won't use it after 49 days.

Ah, do you really think that the drug (assuming that the 'ban' is removed and that the tribunal approves it for use) would be given to a woman to be administered in the home at her leisure?

 

[ohne]

Ah, do you really think that the drug (assuming that the 'ban' is removed and that the tribunal approves it for use) would be given to a woman to be administered in the home at her leisure?

I cannot speculate on this. Although doctors to not deal drugs, you would need to visit a pharmacist. So my guess would be that after a doctor had prescribed it, a woman would take it at home under directions from a doctor.

 

[Generator]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that doctors administer drugs -

Generally, in a medical abortion using RU486, the woman is given a specified dose of the drug by a qualified medical professional in a licensed facility.(7) In most cases, the woman returns home and, two days later, returns to the clinic to be administered a prostaglandin (usually misoprostol).(8) This causes the uterus to contract, thereby expelling the products of conception, usually within a few hours.(9) According to the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RANZCOG), the experience for the woman ‘may be much like a spontaneous miscarriage, with some pain and bleeding to be expected’.(10)

Source: RU486 for Australia? (again)

Now, I think that it would be fair to say that Australia would much the same as New Zealand given that we tend to be in favour of best practice and all.

 

[gerhard]

I dont understand why the pro-lifers dont trust our experts on this issue. Oh wait, yes I do, its because they're pro-lifers.

 

[ohne]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that doctors administer drugs -



Source: RU486 for Australia? (again)

Now, I think that it would be fair to say that Australia would much the same as New Zealand given that we tend to be in favour of best practice and all.

They are not under supervision for the bulk of the time. That is the alarming danger of this drug compared to surgical abortion where a woman is under supervision the entire time.