Bargain Abortions are a Threat to Women
If abortion can be done earlier, it can be done with fewer complications for women. So goes the familiar rationale for Mifeprex (mifepristone), the so-called abortion pill, developed in France by the designation ‘RU-486.’ Yet such early medical abortions are not easy. The pill must be followed up by a prostaglandin (misoprostol) which causes the uterus to contract. The combo of the two drugs causes an abortion in most cases, but may lead to persistent bleeding (over 30 days) in 8% of cases, and requires surgical intervention in 8%.
Of course, abortion is not even legal in some countries, and Mifeprex is expensive. What if pregnant women could just take misoprostol (the prostaglandin) alone? It is is cheap, readily available, and it can often cause an abortion all by itself.
A recent article in the medical journal The Lancet attempts to study this question (Vol. 369, No. 9577, June 9, 2007). Looking at data from five different countries, misoprostol was effective as the sole agent most of the time. All women were carefully followed by OB-GYN doctors, with follow-up surgical procedures performed where necessary. One Web-based article on the technique states: “In approximately 10% to 35% of cases, aspiration intervention is required.”
So is this a boon for the reproductive rights of poor women? How will this translate into developing countries where medical follow-up is almost nonexistent? Under the guise of ‘easy’ and ‘cheap’ abortions, the many complications from this short-cut technique may never be known. It seems that many women who will die of infection after incomplete induced abortion.
Oh, and by the way, a lot of unborn babies will die as well.
Misoprostol Abortion: Article
Katee Temple wrote,
I agree that RU-486 abortions in third world countries could be very dangerous, as the women will likely not be under the care of a gynecologist during the abortion. If in first world countries, up to one third of women required surgical intervention, then it seems that in third world countries it is possible that up to one third of women could potentially die due to incomplete abortions and infection. Even if we choose to disregard the ethical question of an abortion in regard to the fetus (which I do not agree with), it seems that RU-486 would be unethical to distribute in a third world country.
Link | October 11th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
Katie Condit wrote,
In agreement with the previous comment by Katee, I would say that allowing misoprostol to be an acceptable option as a method for abortion needlessly endangers the life of the mother. Even if we put aside the central issue of whether or not abortion is wrong, both pro-life and pro-choice advocates cannot overlook the fact that harm to the mother may occur through its use.
It is evident that pro-life advocates could not condone the use of a drug that puts an end to the unborn child and potentially the mother as well. I would contend that the pro-choice advocates could be against misoprostol as well. Pro-choice supporters often use the argument that if we outlaw abortion, dangerous back alley abortions will surge, and women will die as a result. Is the use of misoprostol any different than back alley abortions? I would contend that it is not so different, particularly in third world countries where the means of aborting may be driven by the cheapest and “easiest” method available. These women often cannot afford proper medical care, and if they experience complilcations with misoprostol, death may be inevitable.
Link | October 12th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
walkerma wrote,
The ‘web-based article’ is not a research article but simply a ‘review’ derived from various sources. No reference is provided for the the 10-35% statement so how can it be verified.
Either way if you follow the argument that misopristol should not be used in a third world setting due to the remote possibility that aspiration is required then all life-saving medications delivered to the third world should be banned. The lack of follow-up evaluation is a general problem for all medications in the the third world. If misopristol is withheld for this reason then we should also withhold anti-biotics and anti-hiv drugs.
Link | October 18th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
D Sullivan wrote,
In response to the previous comment (which is well-stated), the Lancet article (in a peer-reviewed medical journal) demonstrates a high rate of follow-up aspiration as well, but the patients in the study all had good access to ongoing medical care.
My point is that agenda-driven attempts to make medical abortion more readily available may have unintended consequences (aside from my own moral disagreement with the procedure). Antibiotics and AIDS drugs do not have anywhere near such a high complication rate.
Link | October 19th, 2007 at 10:35 am