Oh dear, Leslie, no comments yet. And this is some 8 hours after publication. I guess people aren't much interested in the subject. Never mind.

But while I'm here, of course politics DO belong in medicine. Of course they do - just like every other facet of Australian life that the Australian taxpayer has to dig deep into their pockets to pay for.

RU486, abortion, family law, single mothers, any of these socialised miseries that everybody pays for are political issues. It's not okay to simply say, "Ooooh, these are private matters and must remain personal". That's rubbish. That's femo-babble. All of these things are highly expensive and very costly to the community as a whole. They are political issues and rightly so.

You can't have it both ways. If taxpayers pay for them, then they ARE political issues. If people don't want them to be political, then make people pay for them like buying a new car or an air-conditioner.

I agree that politicians should get out of medicine. That would save the taxpayers $35.5 billion per annum.

However it's not going to happen is it.

Leslie you say: "It asserts that the vote is about the moral or legal legitimacy of abortion. Yet this could not be further from the truth.... RU486 is used in the treatment of life-threatening conditions like Cushings Syndrome, inoperable brain tumours, HIV-AIDS, ovarian and some breast cancers. Yet, by and large, Australians with such life-threatening conditions miss out or are forced to cope with intolerable delays."

Please don't pretend that you're only intested in RU486 for the above reasons. You are interested in RU486 so that women can have non-surgical abortions. Admit it and proceed to argue any proper reasons why. It's like my theories of law feminism lecturer at uni who said that women are denied access to contraception. Now I thought to myself - hey I can go down to the supermarket [not even the chemist!] and get condoms any time I like. When I challenged her on this she had the goodness to admit that yes, she meant that women were denied access to abortion.

If women came out and said "I should be allowed to kill another person because I have more rights than them" I would have more respect because then it could be dealt with properly rather than hiding behind evasive terminology. Goodness knows some men have been saying similar things in respect of women for thousands of years - eg saying a man has the right to beat his wife and kill her if she leaves him [they're still wrong though IMHO!].

Leslie Cannold argues that RU486 should be available to Australlians.
i would presume that Leslie's mother is Australian.
Have you Leslie thought that if RU486 was available when you were born there is a chance that you would not be born but aborted.
In the name of freedom they freed up divorce and suddenly marriages broke down and now nearly 50 percent of marraiges end in divorce.
Marriage is the backbone of moral society and we ourselves have let marraiges be aborted.
Do the same on abortion and it is inevitable that unborn babies will be aborted at the same rate that marriages are today, nearing 50 percent.
In the US I have heard that divorce is 57 percent and rising.

Any unwanted pregnancy should be aborted.
Ru486 is a means of performing an abortion which is preferable to Surgical abortion for many women, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy.
Of course there is another way of terminating a pregnancy as a young student couple in China found , They held hands and jumped from a 17th floor building. I guess the pro-life crackpots would feel warm and fuzzy about that.

This article from feminist, health activist, pro-choice Renate Klein is interesting. I like that she doesn’t hide her views and comes straight out and says women should have unfettered access to surgical abortions (I don’t agree with her but I like the honesty – having said that probably now I’ll find she works as a consultant for an abortion clinic or something so has a vested financial interest against RU486 being introduced but I shall remain hopeful).

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17506669%255E7583,00.html

Maracas, one would have thought China would be one of the easiest countries in the world in which to obtain an abortion, given that the State often forces women to have abortions under its “one-child” policy. Death is tragic and for you to suggest that people would feel “warm and fuzzy” about it is pretty rude and if you are going to call pro-lifers “crackpots” that says more about you than it does about the pro-lifers.

No one regulates whether men can use Viagra.

To take the analogy further, before the introduction of Viagra men with erectile problems had penile implants, now they use Viagra. Surgical abortion has been available for more than a century and now women can achieve the same result earlier and more easily with RU485.

Gentlemen, if you wish to keep RU485 from Australian women then in fairness Viagra should be removed from Australia also.

Well Billie technically to get Viagra a man must go to a doctor and get a prescription and the TGA regulates Viagra so I wouldn't say "no-one" regulates it but I understand your point and it has merit. Plus it made me smile.

RU486 should be the womans progative as to whether or not she takes it, not the Government's. Yes it's political, life is politics, everything in life is political. I am personally against abortion of any kind, but being male, it is a subject I will never have to deal with. GW your arguement re divorce is flawed mate, when divorce became easier to escape vionent marriages, of course people did, of both sexes. I believe if we want anything to change we must campaign for change. Personally I know that there are many couples unable to have children, who would dearly love to adopt a child, the children are not there to adopt because of abortion. The woman however is put in an intolerable situation, she aborts, she lives with the guilt untill the day she dies, she adopts, she lives with the guilt untill the day she dies. Perhaps it's time for us {men} to become more responsible in the prevention of unwanted pregnancy, either abstain, or use protection.

QUOTE SHONGA: RU486 should be the womans progative as to whether or not she takes it, not the Government's.

QUOTE SHONGA: I am personally against abortion of any kind

RESPONSE: Have you given any thought to why a woman might take RU486? It seems odd to be against aborting "of any kind" and in favour of women taking RU486 if they wish.

My own view is that abortion is a terrible course of action to take but its a women choice. In the same way that I think having children which you can't afford to raise is a terrible course of action to take but its a parents choice.

If we lived in an ideal world (and people were wise and capable) then they would avoid getting/making pregnant if they didn't want kids or they lacked the resources to nuture the kids effectively.

If you want to create babies but then refuse to nuture them (ie expell them from your body before they are ready, fail to feed or cloth them etc) then that is a tradgedy. However ultimately this is a moral burden that has to be carried primarily by the individual.

Terje, I will try to simplify my view for you, I am against abortion, personally, however it not being my choice to make, support the womens right to make her choice. Pardon me for saying so, but you seem to have a blinkered view of life in general, {not an insult, just an observation} people shouldn't have children, if they can't afford them ! I have personal experience in this situation, my wife was pregnant, we could afford to have a child, that is untill I was diagnosed with a chronic illness, which I have battled for the past 8 years. When concieved our child could be afforded, but surprise, surprise, life has a way of changing, sometimes for the worse mate, that's life. What would you have me do now that I cannot afford her, kill her, I think not. All I am saying mate, is that life is not up and down, black and white, there are always areas of grey.

This thread could be sub-titled "Religion does not belong in medicine".

Surveys have repeatedly shown that a large majority of Australians agree that women have the right to an abortion [within a number of reasonable guidelines]. We have not been misled by the survey questions, we can read, look, listen, reason and understand.

Most of us resent having "morality", as perceived by various religious minorities, forced down our throats by so-called political representatives who obviously don't know the meaning of the word "representative".

The political right wing in Australia has consistently comprised Conservatives forming alliances with religious fundamentalists.
The Democratic Labor Party of the 50's and 60's was an example of how such an alliance could thwart progressive agendas.
Family First appears to be shaping up as a likely ally to the Right to 'preserve family values'
High on their agenda is to place obstacles in the way of women wishing to make decisions about abortions.
The RU 486 abortion pill,Mifepristone, represents a preferable departure from Surgical abortion for many women and its use has been vetoed by moralistic political intervention to by-pass the TGA,the appropriate body whose function is to evaluate its use in Australia.
The anti-abortion lobby in this country must understand that abortion is a fact of life and legal in Australia. It should remain a matter between a woman and her doctor and RU 486 should be an available option.

And, maracas, The anti-life lobby in this country must understand that abortion is paid for by taxpayer's dollars. As a public expenditure it should not remain a private matter between a woman and her doctor. The ethics of the matter are that politics DO belong in public medicine and open debate about it in a democracy is both ethically healthy and wise. That too is a fact of life.

Maximus the cost of rearing a child is borne by the parents and society. If the child is reared by its parents society pays for basic health care in the form of mass immunisation for example and for the education system. If the child is impaired or sickly then society will pay more money to rear that child.

It's an unfortunate fact of life that children are a wealth hazard not only for their parents but also for society. Its no wonder that the Australian economy is running in surplus because the avaerage age of Australians is 38 and a high proportion of the population, having ot beyond childrearing age, are at the wealthiest stage of their life cycle.

I am not saying don't have kids because they cost money to rear, but I am saying that your arguement is flawed. Arguing that society should not pay for terminations beause they are not ethical.

If society choses not to fund termination through Medicare then Australian women should be able to access the cheapest, most effective, least invasive therapy available, RU486. And if its not funded by taxpayers then you don't have to concern yourself with what someone else is doing.

Maximus, if you were being honest you would admit you couldn't give a rats ass about the cost of abortions but you are really driven by your single minded pro-life moralistic bias.
Perhaps it has slipped your notice that the use of RU 486 would not incur public expense of hospitalisation and surgery but merely a couple of doctors appointments for which the patient personally pays.

Billie, maracas, calm down. You're all gas and gaiters.

I said nothing about the pros and cons of abortion or RU486 in my last post. Check it out again. The point was, simply that IF the public purse pays for medical procedures - any medical procedure for that matter - then they DO become political issues and the public has an ethical right and responsibility to debate the issue.

If the medical procedure was done as a PRIVATE matter between a patient and a doctor paid for by the patient, then the public has NO right to interfere.

BUT WHERE THAT PROCEDURE IS PUBLICLY FUNDED, then everybody gets to have a say. Get it? That's what Cannold's article is supposed to be about - "Note to the PM: Politics doesn’t belong in medicine" - see? And I'm saying "Note to the PM: Politics DOES belong in medicine."

I couldn't care less if all the women in the world drugged themselves stupid on RU486 and never had another baby, ever, or did themselves great harm for that matter, but if I'm paying for it, or subsidising it, I want my say and I do this through my parliamentary representative, hence the issue is political.

Struth, why do I get the feeling that I'm talking to hysterical and illogical women, who DO NOT READ THE TEXT CAREFULLY, but jump to emotional and presumptive conclusions.

At the moment politicians have over ridden the Therapuetic Good Act and said that RU5486 can't be imported into Australia. So that irrespective of the cost of the medication or who is paying for it, women can't get it in Australia. How ever the taxpayer continues to fund surgical terminations at 10 times the cost per termination. It's not even as though surgical abortion is a better alternative than medical termination.

This is an instance where politics has intruded into the doctors' surgeries or pharmacies of Australia.

Some more articles pertinent to this interesting issue:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17562237%255E2702,00.html
http://www.dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story/0,20281,17578435-5001022,00.html

Scares one right off one’s Viagra that ;-)

Maximus is correct girls & boys, he hasn’t been saying he is against RU486 he has been saying that because taxpayers’ money pays for medical procedures then they are a political issue which the public and politicians have a right to debate. Maracas the patient can still get a partial Medicare refund for a private doctor’s appointment.

Billie both surgical termination and drug-induced termination are medical terminations. If drug-induced is not safer for women than surgical is it a good idea even though it might be cheaper? (Now I do understand the pro-choice viewpoint “having a baby to term is more dangerous for the woman than an abortion” and the pro-life viewpoint “neither option is safe for the baby”.)

What about men (or anyone) surreptitiously giving the drug to women to force an abortion (to avoid child support or other reasons). Gives a new edge to drink spiking! In Qld laws were introduced to make deliberately killing an unborn baby against the mother’s wishes (eg. by kicking her in the stomach) a more serious crime. What will the crime of giving RU486 to a pregnant woman without her knowledge be?

Are a woman’s rights more important than an unborn baby’s rights? Society has done a reasonable job in the last 100 years to getting to a point where men’s rights are not more important than women’s rights…. A sonographer (working in the UK) told me that she can’t tell parents the sex of unborn babies until 24 weeks (when abortion becomes illegal) because of “sex-selection” abortions. That seemed illogical to me because if a woman wanted an abortion for any reason at all except sex selection up to 24 weeks it was legal so why not allow it for sex selection (since the unborn baby’s life didn’t seem to be a factor)? However, apparently often (but of course not always) it is a man forcing a woman to abort an unborn female child because the man wants a male child.

Despite pedantic obfuscation the issue of availability of RU 486 will most likely be determined by the TGA although the anti-abortion lobbyists are trying to revive the abortion debate in the Senate inquiry.
Howard talks of a conscience vote next year and I have no doubt that there has been moves by the lobbyists to put as many obstacles in the way of womens Choices. Hopefully ordinary common sense will prevail ignoring such absurd hypothetical as 'drink spiking' and concerns about visits to the doctor costing a partial rebate.
Perhaps the debate might revive interest in Vasectomies.

Oooh can’t argue with someone who has “ordinary common sense” on his or her side ;-)

Maracas, Maximus and I are factually correct in saying that the taxpayer pays and will pay for abortions (either surgical abortion or the proposed drug induced abortion) through Medicare rebates.

Why is my question an “absurd” hypothetical? The situation described above (where a man deliberately kicked his de-facto in the stomach to kill the unborn baby to avoid paying child support) actually happened in Qld some years ago, that’s why the law was changed. Take a quick squiz through the comments on OLO - there are certainly some strong views regarding payment of child support.

I’m particularly against men forcing women to have abortions – and especially by literally kicking them in the stomach or spiking their drinks - doesn’t sound like much of a woman’s “choice” there!

I do partly agree with the, “Perhaps the debate might revive interest in Vasectomies”, I would be pleased if the debate led to better awareness and use of contraception generally by both men and women.

I agree with Leslie, keep the politics out of women’s health issues. Yes the public pay for medical procedures through their taxes but women contribute via their taxes too and should not be denied RU486 if abortion is legal – which it is. Not everything that the taxpayers funded is necessarily ‘political’ in the same sense. There are thousands of other medications and surgical procedures that the taxpayers fund (and that Maximus is the norm), however, you don’t see politicians jumping up and down because men have vasectomies and Pro-Life groups want the procedures banned.

Women will continue to have abortions even if surgical abortions remain their only option so the Anti-Abortion politicians are not stopping abortions from taking place they are only denying women a viable alternative to surgical abortion which is less intrusive and may be preferred by some women. To add to that overturning the ban and allowing the use of the drug instead would also save the taxpayers money because this alternative also costs less than surgical procedures and can also be done sooner rather than later.

The issues about the drugs other uses are legitimate ones and Maximus must be fooling himself into thinking these are not important issues for women as well and using terms like just “femmo-babble” thinking that dismisses the validity of that argument is just plain ignorant as well as offensive. Just because someone is Pro-Choice it does not negate the arguments about the other uses for the drug and the fact is that it would also benefit people with a wide range of serious and debilitating medical conditions. It’s also interesting to note that it may also be viable in the treatment of prostate cancer – I suppose that would make all the difference? If it would help men Maximus would you like to see it imported and would that make all the difference to you? Naturally, the medication would not give men an abortion, unless of course they happened to be pregnant at the time.