RU486 - Abortion Pill (1 Viewer)

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

To make my life a lil easier can u tell me where u get some of ure "research" from?
because some of what you have told me i cant even pin down..

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.

From my experience..that risk is medically acceptable.. given patient consent.. because 5% is managable.. i dun understand ure "farily acceptable"

it is more acceptable... as surgical abortion has a higher rate of life threatening complications

also i assume u mean the glucocorticoid effects.. cos otherwise i have no idea.. cos antiglucocorticoid would strengthen immune systems.. think cortisol release for immunosuppression..

i have not read any immune effects from the dosing?
Where did u get tat from????

Compared to Medical abortion... surgical is 99% effective.. and medical is 95% effective
(source: Mdconsult.com)

Another meta-analysis..
Cochrane Database reviews that there is not enough evidence to prove that surigical is far superior to medical abortions and one surgical procedure resulted in
"uterine perforation".
(source: Medical versus surgical methods for first trimester termination of pregnancy.
Say L - Cochrane Database Syst Rev - 01-JAN-2005(1): CD003037)

but the downside is surgical complications like anaesthesia, sepsis, long term sterility and higher rates of infection from instrumentation .

for the first 49 days.. id say medical over surgical because its less risky despite sightly less effective.

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.

You would no take this without medial supervision... and i didnt not endorse or imply that it shouldnt be taken with out medical supervision..

Indications for medical abortions is within 49 days..
You would have to be negligent to prescribe it after ..if u did.. and ud lose ure registration to practice pretty quickly..

if they took it witafter 49 days.. its ineffective as well.. so whats the point?

after 49 days... ud need a surgical..

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

no its not
u obviously have no idea wat spotting and heavier than usual menstrual bleeding is... its a nuisance rather than a complication.. spotting is lik max 5-10 ml of blood.. its not a reason.. ppl have this when they are on the pill.. also this is 9-16 days.. once off not the rest of their lives..

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.

Well if u read "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" through ud realise this was drawing conclusion from a vast sample space .. cos it has a significantly larger sample space (including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries)....

The conclusion was well supported and its a very valid technique to do an analysis
the conclusion is quite firm and there is no risk with current techniques for carcinogencity.

If u could even explain a pathological mechanism for abortions --> breast cancer id be more than interested too..

the you paper are using is actually from the US.. with 814 ppl... in 1994.. its not as big as the meta analysis.. and used unreliable methods.

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.

i recall some south koreans said that about stem cells 8 months ago..

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

Yes but again

L.L. deVeber and Ian Gentles their psychiatric diseases and abortion paper (i suspect this is the 'dutch' paper u refer too)

Singh et al (Psychological aftermath of abortion Singh - CMAJ - August 30, 2005; 173(5); 467)
critised it as there was poor statistical standards utilised.. and a large glut of evidence that showed that there "was a history of pre-abortion psychiatric admission (odds ratio 6.58, confidence interval 2.46–17.64)" [1] [2] as the largest predictor of post abortion depression.

1) Ostbye T, Wenghofer EF, Woodward CA, Gold G, Craighead J. Health services utilization after induced abortions in Ontario: a comparison between community clinics and hospitals. Am J Med Qual 2001;16(3):99–106.

2) Gissler M, Hemminki E, Lonnquist J. Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987–94: register linkage study. BMJ 1996;313(7070):1431–4.

with this do we stop performing it? no...as the evidence shows its not a significant risk

I suspect the anguish maybe from the 'lost' of pregnancy similar to other lost rather than from the procedure.. and would not make it statistically significant over other losses in life like death, trauma etc.

also the pre-psychiatric admission was a better predictor

if there is indictation that it is a RISK FACTOR this is different from a CAUSE.. ABORTIONS DO NOT CAUSE PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS

this is managable and would be important to elicit from a history when managing psychiatric patients.. if u want to stop depression get rid of all the variablility in life.. thats the reality of it..

Counselling before and after any abortion is important.. contrary to what u think most feel relieved and a few have long term problems..
but we question if its a chicken before egg problem.. but abortion is not on the agenda here.. its the drug RU 486..

On RU486
I personally support very strict guidelines for its administration.. and follow up checks...
more research
and
It is less traumatic than a surgical procedure and would lessen the load on the health system.

I do not support calls to make it OTC

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

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.

hmmmm what is the "alarming danger" that u refer to?

lik having legs spread with metal instruments and a vacuum hose in throught the cervix, vagina and uterus in terms of sepsis and infection is more dangerous .. in my opinion..

 

[katie_tully]

Pro lifers don't trust opinions of experts, because the majority of pro lifers are mindless twits. Self explanatory,

 

[musik_junky]

Pro lifers don't trust opinions of experts, because the majority of pro lifers are mindless twits. Self explanatory,

and some people think only their opinion is right

 

[katie_tully]

no, my opinion is more correct than yours because it is based on rational thinking, facts and not emotions and hysteria. says i.

 

[leetom]

Abbott may switch portfolios and the executive powers the minister commands may be bestowed onto another Cabinet member. But who? And will he/she wet, or just another Liberal Party anti-individual choice advocate?

 

[musik_junky]

no, my opinion is more correct than yours because it is based on rational thinking, facts and not emotions and hysteria. says i.

Fact:

By the time most abortions can be performed, the baby already has a beating heart and identifiable brain waves. The baby living in her mother is as distinct and unique a new person/human being as you are from me, and as deserving of protection under the law as we are.

The baby every mother carries as she faces a life and death decision has a beating heart at 18 days after fertilization and brain waves as early as six weeks after fertilization. Most abortions are not performed until nine weeks of the pregnancy. Even RU 486 chemical abortions can't be done until after six weeks.

 

[Generator]

musik_junky, this isn't the thread. If you want to rail against abortion (a practice that is already allowed), then please do so in another thread (preferrably one of those specifically created to discuss abortion).

 

[katie_tully]

Fact:

By the time most abortions can be performed, the baby already has a beating heart and identifiable brain waves. The baby living in her mother is as distinct and unique a new person/human being as you are from me, and as deserving of protection under the law as we are.

The baby every mother carries as she faces a life and death decision has a beating heart at 18 days after fertilization and brain waves as early as six weeks after fertilization. Most abortions are not performed until nine weeks of the pregnancy. Even RU 486 chemical abortions can't be done until after six weeks

Please spare me the Right to Life propaganda. You listed a heart beat and an indentifiable brain wave as a basis for your argument. So what. The child cannot survive out of the womb with its beating heart and "indentifiable" brain waves. The rest was a load of crap about the child being special and individual. Refer to previous comments about emotions and hysteria.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

Fact:

By the time most abortions can be performed, the baby already has a beating heart and identifiable brain waves. The baby living in her mother is as distinct and unique a new person/human being as you are from me, and as deserving of protection under the law as we are.

The baby every mother carries as she faces a life and death decision has a beating heart at 18 days after fertilization and brain waves as early as six weeks after fertilization. Most abortions are not performed until nine weeks of the pregnancy. Even RU 486 chemical abortions can't be done until after six weeks.

well thats the thing.. u arent right.. 18 days is not heart beat.. u cant see it till 4 weeks (28 days) or 6 weeks after last menstrual period... at 8 weeks there is 4 chambers

we dun hear it till 10 weeks..

identifiable brain waves in an alive human does not mean that they are alive ... they could be in a coma too..

in adults brain death is complete cessation..

there was a study in florida US last yr about the perception of pain.. and it was lik 8 weeks and still no preception of pain.. in the area of the brain associated with pain sensory..

there really is no scientific basis to abort/not abort.. because its a purely ethical debate.. id try to avoid it... but if it has to be done.. it needs to be accessible..

usually id go with the Anglican with their opinion..atm they dun have a stance but the buddhist community leader said it best.. "we do not try to force our opinions on others".. make it available.. let the patient get counselled on wat is appropiate.. then let tham make the choices

lots of pro-lifers think they know.. and think they know wats best..
but why do they need to mess someone elses life up so they can feel so bloody righteous?

 

[withoutaface]

To the people protesting on grounds of it being dangerous, why mother the women (hehe puns)? Why not let them know the risks of each method and allow them to choose?

 

[musik_junky]

I'd just like to clear up some misconceptions. Pro abortionists often speak as if RU486/PG abortions are safer. While it is true that earlier surgical abortions are safer than later surgical abortions, owing to the increasing size of the baby and the increasing complexity of the surgical procedure, it isn't clear that early chemical abortions are necessarily safer than later surgical abortions. Because the methods are so different, this is like comparing apples and oranges.
With surgical abortions, a woman faces the risks of cervical lacerations, uterine or bowel perforations, scarring, infection, and even permanent infertility. These risks, due to the surgical process itself, may be avoided in a chemical abortion (provided a woman is not in that 8%-23% for whom the method fails. But the woman undergoing a chemical abortion faces a whole new set of risks, ranging from hemorrhage to heart failure, typically not faced by the surgical patient. Variations in the severity and frequency of these complications make it difficult to identify one method as safer than another. Significant injury or worse is possible with either method.

 

[gerhard]

you are an idiot.

 

[musik_junky]

you are an idiot.

no

 

[Generator]

You seem to be suggesting that a medical/surgical process must be 100% effective and safe before it may be used in practice, junky. All that matters is that the level of risk is acceptable, and from what is on offer, those who are looking at the issue solely from a risk point of view seem to be of the opinion that the risk associated with RU 486 is acceptable (just as is the level of risk associated with surgical abortion).

Edit: Slight change.

Edit: Scratch most of the above - All that matters is whether the drug's risks are acceptable, yet in this instance the body that has the authority to make such a ruling is being denied given a political compromise reached with a socially-conservative Senator however many years ago. This debate should be about nothing more than whether the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 should be amended so that the proper authority, not a crusading minister, may be able to determine whether the level of risk is acceptable or not.

 

[*Minka*]

Legalise it.

 

[+Po1ntDeXt3r+]

While it is true that earlier surgical abortions are safer than later surgical abortions, owing to the increasing size of the baby and the increasing complexity of the surgical procedure, it isn't clear that early chemical abortions are necessarily safer than later surgical abortions. Because the methods are so different, this is like comparing apples and oranges.

no its not.. with a medical abortion vs surgical abortion we weight up the risks of stuff we can fix!? a perforation is not even remotely possible in medical abortion... and they require a long stay in hospital and another surgical operation..

the complication of medical abortions are treatable with a surgical abortion or other drugs lik local vasoconstrictors.

the higher frequency of incomplete abortions vs lower life threathening complication is the choice here.. it is comparable and ppl who may benefit are those that live very rurally..

With surgical abortions, a woman faces the risks of cervical lacerations, uterine or bowel perforations, scarring, infection, and even permanent infertility. These risks, due to the surgical process itself, may be avoided in a chemical abortion (provided a woman is not in that 8%-23% for whom the method fails.)

for chemical ... where the hell did 8-23% come from???? conservatively its 10%.. and usually we cite it as 5% or 1 in 20

But the woman undergoing a chemical abortion faces a whole new set of risks, ranging from hemorrhage to heart failure, typically not faced by the surgical patient. Variations in the severity and frequency of these complications make it difficult to identify one method as safer than another. Significant injury or worse is possible with either method.

large hemorrhages are faced higher by patients in surgical... why do u think we shit ourselves if there is a uterine perforation???? cos blood starts coming out.. bleeding is realli the basis for the word "haemorrhaging"..

HEART FAILURE IS NOT A DIRECT COMPLICATION OF RU486.. the lethal complication is sepsis (blood bacterial infection but there have been anecdotal evidence about 4 cases in the US .. but they were given against the labelling warning.).. no link estabilshed since July 2005.. so its just a risk factor atm.. not even a significant one.

dun confuse the situation with inaccurate facts

the probabilty of managable risk is what we are assessing.. they try to avoid killing ppl but make sure they live.. and due to the non-invasive nature of the procedure it eliminates the surgical risk.. which for a <7 week is quite helpful as the uterus is smaller.

 

[Wooz]

I watched an article on RU486 on the 7:30 report last night on how it is being used to stop the growth of brain tumors and how a woman who has a brain tumor cant get it because it hasnt been registered in australia, thus no dr would pescribe it to her.

Transcript: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1554500.htm

Theres also an organisation called australians against ru486: http://www.aaru486.com.au/

 

[Generator]

If you are going to take the time to debate this issue, then I suggest that you ignore the first post and take note of the following -

Doctors and activists lock horns over abortion drug

LYNN BELL: The hospital's staff argued that abortion is lawful in Australia, and this debate should not be about the rights and wrongs of that issue.

The National Senator Fiona Nash then put this question to the Hospital's Chief Executive, Dale Fisher.

FIONA NASH: If I could just come back to the terms of reference for the Bill, which is about who should have the responsibility for approval, and who is best able to determine whether this drug should be in the country.

In a situation that we have where termination is lawful, and this is about a method of termination, given just the disparity of views and understanding around this table, doesn't that make it even more obvious that it's the Therapeutic Goods Administration who should be determining the quality, safety and efficacy of this drug, rather than the minister of the day?

DALE FISHER: Senator Nash, thank you.

FIONA NASH: Thank you, I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

Religious standoff brewing within medical circles over us of RU486

FRANCENE NORTON: Dr Haikerwal says the Guild members are confusing people's medical needs with a wider debate.

MUKESH HAIKERWAL: I'm very dismayed that people have taken this point of view, because they are confusing the medical needs of people, the clinical situation of people, with a debate that is not one that we're having. It's not a debate about abortion. It's about the availability of medication that's available in the rest of the world that has not hitherto been looked at by our own Therapeutic Goods Administration.

It's important that that body, and that body in this country is the key body that does this sort of work, has the say as to whether this drug is safe and should be available.

---

Re. the first link - Though I guess that I shouldn't be surprised, I still cannot believe that Senators Joyce and Fielding would be willing to ask such pointless and misleading questions. To think that such people in effect hold the balance of power (if not in this instance)... It's quite scary.

---

Edit: The voice of choice

 

[Generator]

Abbott lashes out over RU486

Tony Abbott: Best forum for RU486 decision

I like it how the Health Minister just disregards the idea that the 'ban' was introduced as a result of a deal with the old conservative from Tasmania in order to see a more important piece of legislation pass. I'm sure that he's also well aware of the fact that few would have expected to see such a conservative crusader given the power to dictate health policy in the years to come. Also, the following is quite interesting -

Now, it seems, their parliamentary successors think politicians are unfit to make decisions on this topic. This week, the Senate will debate and vote on a private member's bill to make abortion drug approvals the exclusive responsibility of the Therapeutic Goods Administration. If carried, there will be no parliamentary authority over these decisions and no democratically elected person will have to answer for them.

It's a though he's suggesting that the TGA cannot be trusted, that it's not fit to act as it should. Excellent work, Tony.

In summary, Abbott's entire argument is based upon a hollow premise that a drug for a legal procedure cannot be assessed by the relevant (and more than capable) authority given that it requires 'ministerial discretion' in order to ensure that a degree of 'ministerial accountability' exists.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, please give thanks to our federal Health Minister.