“The promotional coverage of RU 486 in the media has been designed to raise public expectations of the drug. Much of the press coverage - mainstream and feminist has treated it as the revolutionary reproductive drug of the century. Moreover, the promise of research and treatment with RU 486/PG has capitalized on a common enemy of women's rights and scientific research.”
Well nothing has changed since Renate first wrote those words in her publication: RU486 – Myths and Misconceptions (1991) was first published. The feminists here in Australia, including their propaganda machine, the ABC, has been busy trying to convince the general public that the power to control the importation of Mifepristone should be removed from the Minister for Health and returned to the Therapeutic Goods Administration. The Australian Democrat and Green Senators, plus a number of prominent women from the other major political parties have banded together in their push to allow the importation of what must be one of the deadliest drugs available, where the health of women is concerned. Over the past week the ABC has been on a propaganda spree as it has been spruiking the views of the feminists who have set about misleading the general public about the efficacy of the drugs involved. What Renate said in 1991 remains true in 2006, and the feminists are selling out the rights of women for the sake of what they term “choice” over reproduction.
Is this really an issue for the right to choose? Or is it nothing more than encouragement for women to become or to continue as consumers for new technologies and drugs? Women are seen as consumers for such things as: botox treatments, cellulite treatments, weight loss centres, as well as the modern technology of ultrasound. Some of these things are not bad, for example the ultrasound technology is proving very useful for detecting the possibility of cancer growth within the uterus. It is also useful for detecting a pregnancy and whether or not there is a multiple pregnancy. However, ultrasounds are being overused by the general public. Not every woman needs to have an ultrasound and unless it is strictly necessary then doctors should limit its use to those special cases. The same can be said for the rise in caesarean deliveries because this method of delivery is being used for the sake of convenience and it is not strictly necessary. Yet, the idea is being sold to women as though it is essential.
The point here is whether or not women are being adequately informed about the potential risks of the treatment. Take the example of a caesarean section: there is a very small chance that the mother’s life could be placed in danger because of the anaesthetic. A woman has to sign an informed consent form before proceeding with any of these procedures. This is also true about the possible use of the “medical” abortion method known as RU486. However, how can we be sure that it is informed consent? What if the pregnant woman who has been told that this is a safe way to have an abortion is not in fact told about the known risks to one’s health? What does informed consent in such circumstances actually mean? The associated risks involved are so great that informed consent in this case is absolutely meaningless.
Last week the ABC highlighted a case of a woman who claimed that she wanted to import Mifepristone because it was the only drug that could treat her cancer. My reaction to such a claim is “balderdash”. In an effort to have Mifepristone accepted by stealth, there is an attempt to hawk it as being a treatment for the following:
- Breast cancer;
- Meningioma;
- Glaucoma;
- Dilation of the cervix in labour (perish the thought);
- Prostate cancer.
However, there is little in the way of research statistics that in fact support the use of Mifepristone under most of these conditions. It might help in the case of breast cancer, but there are other effective drugs that are available for use. This means that someone claiming that it is the only thing that would work for her is speaking about something that has no record of safety and effectiveness.
In the past, women have been sold on similar lies about prospective treatments – for example oestrogen (HRT) therapy and DES. The long term use of HRT is in fact proving harmful to the health of women, and there is a rising concern about the increase of cancer amongst women who are on various forms of hormonal replacement therapy. Are women ever given the opportunity to question these forms of treatment? They are treatments that are being hawked to women who are going through menopause, but without the long term studies women are being constantly placed at risk of dying because they have been encouraged to participate in these new therapies.
So, in promoting the right to choose a method of abortion, the feminists are selling out their sisters that they profess to represent with their activism. However, they are not truly representing the women of Australia when they insist upon promoting the introduction of a therapy that will cause hundreds of women to die unnecessarily, because they have been allowed to bleed to death. Do we want to see an increase in the morbidity of fecund women?
No comments:
Post a Comment