This is ridiculous.

RU486 is routinely used all over the Western world, and has been for many years. Yes, there are occasional complications, in the same way there are complications when women undergo conventional abortions. All medical procedures, especially something as drastic as an RU486-induced abortion, can result in complications. But that does not mean we give up on the medical procedure.

I find it hilarious that in Australia RU486 is "banned". Like an illegal drug. Of course, the law will change, and this ultraconservative goverment will be dragged kicking and screaming into changing the law so it in lign with the rest of the modern world on RU486.

I think some of the anti-RU486 campaigners are just antiabortion conservatives in disguise, worried that this might be a way women can have an abortion safely, on their own, without all the stigma and rubbish this society (and these very campaigners) like to heap upon them.

Ultimately, when it is available, if a woman, having had the risks explained to her, chooses to use RU486, then that is her choice. Nobody else can make that decision for her. Nor should they be so presumptuous as to seek to do so.

Eventually we'll get there.

Further to my previous comments,

Ms Klein asks, whilst discussing the potential complications of RU486, "How is a woman to know whether she is simply going through the drawn-out stages of the abortion or her body is developing a life-threatening infection?" The answer is, go to a doctor.

She also writes that "Three lawsuits are in progress." To which I respond, so what. There are lots of lawsuits "in progress" "all over the world" "about all sorts of things".

As for "676 adverse effects", given the number of times the drug is used in the US, in a population of over 100 million, I am surprised the figure is so low. As for her FDA statistics saying only 10% of adverse effects are reported, well I would challenge that. But let's say we accept it momentarily, that makes 6,760 "adverse effects" that could be anything from a runny nose to a fleeting headache. Given the population of the US, and the use of RU486, that's still remarkably low. It's also very low in light of the drastic effect of this drug - a chemical-induced abortion. Anyone who expects that to happen without adverse effects in some cases is disconnected from reality. In addition, normal "suction abortions", of which she is so keenly fond, also routinely result in adverse effects, from the mild to the more serious.

Furthermore, many medicinal drugs can kill in certain circumstances, and there are people who suffer adverse reactions, and sometimes this is fatal. From panadal to cough medicine. But we don't ban everything. More importantly, taking a panadol for a headache is very different from taking a drug which causes an abortion, and so we would expect adverse side effects to be more dramatic when they do occur.

Some people die if they consume a trace of peanut. We don't ban peanuts.

I say given women the choice. After all, that is what feminism was supposed to be about in the first place.

Renate.

Your figures are meaningless. Septic Shock has long been know as a problem in obstetrics. The women who died had a bacterial infection this can occur in normal birth, ceasarian birth or surgical abortion. The percentage for RU-486 is lower than these other reasons. RU486 has been used in over 460,000 abortions in the US and problems reported are very very low.

On July 19, 2005, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a public health advisory regarding the deaths of four women in the United States after medical abortions with Mifeprex (mifepristone, formerly RU-486; Danco Laboratories, New York, New York) and intravaginal misoprostol. Two of these deaths occurred in 2003, one in 2004, and one in 2005. Two of these U.S. cases had clinical illness consistent with toxic shock and had evidence of endometrial infection with Clostridium sordellii, a gram-positive, toxin-forming anaerobic bacteria. In addition, a fatal case of C. sordellii toxic shock syndrome after medical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol was reported in 2001, in Canada. All three cases of C. sordellii infection were notable for lack of fever, and all had refractory hypotension, multiple effusions, hemoconcentration, and a profound leukocytosis. C. sordellii previously has been described as a cause of pregnancy-associated toxic shock syndrome.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16049422&itool=iconfft&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Even if we multiply your 676 adverse effects by 10 this only equates to a adverse affects percentage of 1.46% if we believe the FDA figures you quote it is 0.146%.

cont...

Septic shock in obstetrics is a major cause of mortality. Postpartum endometritis is often the first step of bacterial colonization inside the uterus which becomes the nidus of infection. Rapid spread into general circulation is favoured by hemodynamics patterns of pregnancy. Bacteremia would result in cardiovascular collapse and a myocardial depressant factor has been proposed to explain the fall in cardiac output. Later, endotoxin activates the substances of malignant intravascular inflammation and multiple systems organ failure may be observed in uncontrolled sepsis. Eight cases are reported hospitalized at Morelia's General Hospital, SSA, with septic shock and MSOF. Presumably because of aggressive acute resuscitation nobody succumbed during acute cardiac failure and hypotensive episode but two patients died later with multiple system organ failure. The mortality was 25%. Fluid, resuscitation, and vasoactive drugs are the most effective way to reduce mortality. Antibiotics, specific treatment of MSOF and taking away the nidus of infection are critical components of therapy.

What is your real agenda?

You state in an article in The Australian "No one is sure why these deaths occurred." Wrong !!

Pardon me but however it is done it is the killing, murder, butchery of a totally innocent, blameless, helpless human being, one that in a few short years would have dreams and goals.
The one that is killed has no input at all, he/she cannot appeal the monstrous, evil fatal verdict. numbat

It is very simple really…

If the person believes that abortions kill an actually human being, then they will decide their course of action from this premise.

If a person does not believe abortions kill an actual human being, they will decide their course of action from another premise.

The only debate – and really, only – is whether an abortion kills an actual human being. This has not definitively been decided. Again, it has not been definitively decided.

Therefore, after so many years (let us say a minimum of 30 to be fair) with no consensus, this leaves the current situation that the question is a personal one – like religion, sports or politics.

This then squarely places the decision in the hands of the one person who has any claim to a right to decide – the mother. Any attempt to intercede is against all that democracy stands for.

So, fear monger if you will. Persuade as you may – but do not interfere with an individuals choice.

And let the experts – the doctors – decide what the mother needs to hear for a decision to be made.