The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > RU486 - messy, unpredictable, unsafe > Comments

RU486 - messy, unpredictable, unsafe : Comments

By Renate Klein, published 23/12/2005

Renate Klein argues mifepristone is more dangerous and complex than suction abortion.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All
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.
Posted by Kaspa, Friday, 23 December 2005 9:44:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Kaspa, Friday, 23 December 2005 10:24:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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%.
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 23 December 2005 11:19:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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 !!
Posted by Steve Madden, Friday, 23 December 2005 11:43:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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
Posted by numbat, Friday, 23 December 2005 3:17:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
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.
Posted by Reason, Friday, 23 December 2005 5:00:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"RU486 is messy and unpredictable."

Messy and unpredictable? Sounds like a pro-abortionist.
Posted by FRIEDRICH, Saturday, 24 December 2005 9:26:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
kaspa,

"that is what feminism was supposed to be about in the first place."

I'm convinced kaspa. You have changed my mind. It's all very clear now.

kaspa I admire you. You are my hero. I like your big brain.
Posted by FRIEDRICH, Saturday, 24 December 2005 9:39:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Reason, I agree with you.

So long as the matter of when a embryo becomes a human being is unclear, and the subject of debate and religious belief, an individual's right to choose, with appropriate advice, remains paramount. Personally, I don't like abortion, nobody does, but when people are faced with that situation, I have no right to impose my view upon them, and if they choose RU486, then that's a matter for them.

I think it's scary that The Australian, ordinarily a respectable publication, allows people like Renate to scaremonger wantonly and mislead a tragically gullible populace with fudged statistics and half-arguments.

And as for you Friedrich, well, I just don't know what you're on about.
:)
Posted by Kaspa, Saturday, 24 December 2005 10:38:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been trying to research Renate Klein's background to determine her agenda with RU486. All I could find was that she is a biologist and academic on the more radical side of feminism.

Further exploration confirms what many others have stated; that RU486 carries similar risks to other gynaecological procedures but is not of any greater risk.

Below are extracts from Australian doctors, Professor of Obstetrics Caroline de Costa,Cairns Base Hospital Campus and from Dr Mukesh Haikerwal, the National President of the Australian Medical Association.

DR DE COSTA: "an obstetrician who has studied international evidence that she says shows it to be a safe and acceptable alternative to surgical abortion.

Further, Professor De Costa said Dr Klein's views were "very selective and impassioned". And that "prostaglandins were used "very frequently" in obstetrics without problems.

Caroline de Costa argues that the availability of mifepristone in Australia might largely overcome many of the inequities of access to abortion, and is critical for many women in rural areas and women in some ethnic groups whose access to surgical abortion is limited."

DR HAIKERWAL: The position of the AMA is that, where it’s legal, this drug should be made available as a substitute for current surgical abortions which are carried out…as an alternative. What this is is a safer method for some women. It has with it very many less side effects and problems than surgical abortion, because surgical abortions have problems not only of the procedure itself, but also of anaesthetic.

....the cases that’ve been reported around people dying from infections really are the same sort of complications you get from any sort of gynaecological procedure or obstetric procedure.

... always do these sorts of things under medical supervision where there is the option to go surgery to do a curette, you know, should the tablets not be successful in expelling the contents of the womb in the case of an early pregnancy.

...there is a very robust process called the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and that process needs to be used. And they will analyse this in a cold headed, scientific way."
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 24 December 2005 11:56:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"bleeding,nausea,vomiting and painful contractions." That's a bit of bad luck.
Posted by FRIEDRICH, Sunday, 25 December 2005 6:55:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'd just like to remind the god squad that this debate is not about the rights or wrongs about abortion (get over it most of us want it). It's about the use of Mifepristone as a alterative to surgical abortion. The evidence suggest that it is safe so lets make it available.
Posted by Kenny, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 8:04:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kenny,

At least you could spell God with a capital G.

Kenny the only time I get annoyed is when this sinister behaviour is in my face. I'm not trying to stop anyone from taking mifepristone. I think it should be made available. Take one a day for all I care.

My main beef is that abortion,whatever method,is not hidden in dark corners where it belongs.
Posted by FRIEDRICH, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 8:28:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, great post. On topic, in my view balanced (benefit/risk etc), an attempt to look at agenda's which might influence the author.

Freidrich, interesting point on the capital "G". Sometimes I use a capital "G" to show respect of anothers beliefs where the poster I'm communicating with appears to treat others with some respect and a lower case "g" when the poster clearly shows no respect for anybody elses beliefs. Judgement calls which I probably get wrong sometimes.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 8:46:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RObert,

You make some good points about the "G" and respect.

The bottom line is mifepristone should be made available. Every drug has side effects.

On a personal level I think this abortion business, suction or otherwise is sick. It is best kept in dark corners to at least hide the shame. Not that anyone appears to know what shame is these days.
Posted by FRIEDRICH, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 10:17:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For those who feel that people SHOULD feel "ashamed" of various actions, thoughts or omissions, I would recommend the book Your Erroneous Zones by Wayne Dyer. ISBN: 0-380-01669-9. Particularly Chapter 5, The Useless Emotions---Guilt and Worry. One section deals with Church-Related Guilt, "You've disobeyed one of God's rules and you should feel ashamed of yourself".

Dr Dyer suggests that there is the potential to do yourself lasting psychological harm by feeling guilty about something in your past. If you consider that it was not the right thing to do, then take the appropriate steps to avoid doing it again. [The following statement is my suggestion, not Dr Dyer's.] Relating this to abortion, if you find yourself with an unwanted pregnancy [where you were a willing participant], then try to take sensible precautions so as not to put yourself in this unfortunate situation again. And just bear in mind that none of us are perfect, you, me and no-one else.

But some religions seem to want to turn us all into "guilt machines". It's all part of the controlling mechanism. And what is often the result? We are all sexual beings, but we are supposed to feel ashamed of our sexual feelings, unless those feelings are tailored to fit the situations prescribed by the church as OK by God. So, no sex outside of marriage. No gay sex. Be ashamed of your body and its functions. [In some cases, be so ashamed of your body that you'll avoid or delay medical treatment concerning the "naughty bits" and maybe die as a result.] Be guilt-ridden and subservient to the church, because that's the ONLY way you'll ever get happiness and salvation.

Before I'm attacked as some kind of "if it feels good, do it" person, I'll just say this. I respect my body and the bodies and feelings and well-being of others. And part of my self-respect is expressed in actively avoiding allowing myself to become brainwashed and I bitterly resent state imposed brainwashing at the behest of those who act as though they have a direct phone line to God.
Posted by Rex, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 1:07:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Friedrich, I'm in agreement (based on my understanding of the consequences) that the drug should be available.

I'll have to disagree with you on the "Dark Corners" thing. It's certainly not an issue I want in my face all the time but I have not noticed any "Abortion Pride" stickers or Tee shirts around. Most of the publicity I have seen is advocacy (for and against). I suspect that we do need a lot more research into abortion to see if there are better ways of reducing the need for abortions (less unplanned pregnancies). We need to understand how best to help people deal with the issues around abortion and get a better understanding what if any post abortion emotional damage occurs.

I suspect that most state laws don't really cover the reality of the way abortions occur, what I have seen in various discussions seems to indicate the law only allows abortion where there is significant risk or hardship to the mother from a continuation of the pregnancy. I get nervous about laws that are honoured more in the breach than in compliance, they can be time bombs.

Not a fun topic but so many of the issues of society are not. Dark Corners tend to harbour nasties, get a light in there so we can see what we are doing.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 7:16:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex,

Have you changed the thread?

Are you taking the mickey?

Everyone who goes to Church is a homophobic? What has gay sex got to do with RU486?

Rex you won't see me throwing rocks at gays, being ashamed of sex so forth and so on.

However you keep reading those fascinating books. They are doing you the world of good.

Yabby,
Keep up your anti-Catholic stance. It is going well. You are a genius.
Posted by FRIEDRICH, Wednesday, 28 December 2005 5:36:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Friedrich,

I responded to your comment about shame:
"On a personal level I think this abortion business, suction or otherwise is sick. It is best kept in dark corners to at least hide the shame. Not that anyone appears to know what shame is these days."

If you type Dr Wayne Dyer into Google you will find that he is suitably qualified to discuss shame and related concepts from a psychological point of view. His book Your Erroneous Zones was written in 1976, ie well within living memory. It was also written in English, which is probably the first language for most of us on this Forum, so no chance of us misunderstanding what Dr Dyer really means, or being misled by some loaded translation.

Contrast that with the guidance book of choice for orthodox Christians.

This is not to say, of course, that everyone should take everything Dr Dyer says as necessarily 100% correct, but I believe that it's reasonable to suggest that at least some of his points are worth considering.

I'm not trying to change the main thrust of this thread, but the general opposition to abortion and the individual woman's right to personal choice on this matter comes from what we know colloquially as "Right-to-Lifers". These people are also opposed to voluntary euthanasia. Frequently also to gay sex and sex outside of marriage.

If you are personally tolerant in these respects, then congratulations. But if you are a regular churchgoer, then you will know full well that many of your church colleagues will not share your tolerant views.
Posted by Rex, Wednesday, 28 December 2005 7:11:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rex,

Good post.

I have a problem with abortion and the death penalty.

As for gays. To me it's a non-event. They harm no one as far as I'm concerned. They are entitled to happiness.

Sex outside of marriage is also a non-event. I am not a prude.

There are other religions that frown upon abortions apart from Catholicism.
Posted by FRIEDRICH, Wednesday, 28 December 2005 7:29:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy