The drug that has saved the sex lives of a generation of ageing lotharios is not quite as safe as we think.
Viagra has a mortality rate of about 5 deaths per 100,000 prescriptions.
Is the sex-life of a 50 something as important as their actual life? Shouldn’t the Nanny State intervene? How can we continue to allow men to put themselves at such risk? Why has our Health Minister not moved to ban the importation of this death-drug?
But it’s a safe drug, licensed by the TGA – 5 in 100 000 is an acceptable risk for a drug with such clear benefits, right?
Wrong!
See, there’s a double standard in play:
In the US, the number of deaths related to Mifepristone (RU-486) is approximately 1 in 100,000; while at the same time 12 in 100,000 women die in child-birth.
Four of the deaths linked to Mifepristone happened in the one state, and it has been labelled a medical mystery.
The number of women dying in labour here in Australia is a bit lower: 8.2 deaths per 100,000. This suggests the possibility that the number of deaths related to medical abortion may be lower here also.
By the standards that apply to Viagra, Mifepristone is a safe drug – but there is a difference. The TGA decides whether Viagra gets the nod, and the Health Minister makes the decision on Mifepristone.
There are 226 current Members of Parliament and only six have medical degrees.
Australian women are now counting on a group of highly unqualified people to decide whether or not a particular drug is safe for them to use.
The concept of relevance, or of the quality of medical opinion, is gone. Nowadays, all medical opinions are considered equal.
Medicine by numbers.
The Health Minister points to the lack of adequate care available to women in regional areas to justify his not allowing them the choice of a non-surgical abortion.
Rather than using this admission to score political points, shouldn’t this be treated as an admission that the Howard Government has failed regional Australia ‘ again?
The Federal Member for Moore pointed out that “One third of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Are you going to ban pregnancy in country towns?”
As well, while it is true that rural women often do not have easy access to surgical abortion providers, a GP is sufficiently capable of supervising a woman taking Mifepristone.
Furthermore, the risks he’s talking about ‘ infection, bleeding, death ‘ have nothing to do with Mifepristone. It’s not the drug that causes them; it’s ending a pregnancy.
Pregnancies end every day. They all end, eventually, and this brings with it certain risks. Whether it’s a term delivery or a miscarriage at 6 weeks there are risks involved.
There are many country people whose activities can lead to massive bleeding or infections ‘ victims of car-crashes, or people injured by farming machinery, for example.
In 2000-01, the fatality rate for people employed in the farming sector was 13.7 per 100,000. I am not sure that banning Mifepristone stopped any of them from bleeding to death.
If politicians must concern themselves with the safety of certain drugs, then they should at least be consistent.
But none of this matters, really. The people trying to deny women their autonomy are not doing it out of some paternalistic notion of care. If the drug’s safety was the main concern then politicians would be more than happy about leaving this decision to the people whose job it is to assess the safety of drugs.
Abortions will become more private, they will be able to be performed at a much earlier stage of the pregnancy and regional women will be able to get access to termination services without a costly, inconvenient and not-very-private trip to the city.
Our Health Minister thinks that cold showers are an effective way of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy. This is not the sort of man who I want making decisions about my health.
That all parties are allowing their MPs a conscience vote shows that this is not about safety. This is about the morality of abortion.
Which is fair enough, but if it’s OK to give politicians a conscience vote, then why can’t Australian women have the same?
If it’s OK for Senator Backflip to consider philosophical problems, then why should Parliament be able to stop me from doing the same? Did I miss something? Did Plato finally get his way?
The Federal Government needs to leave science to the experts, and leave belief-based thinking to individuals.
*apologies to Barney Frank
Update: Post edited to correct poor fact-checking…
Told!
Welcome, Anna.
ban them both
Excellent post – it needs to be sent to the inboxes of every Federal politician right now – Christopher Pearson argued recently that there had been 9 deaths from the drug, so it should be banned, but I think 4 million women have used it safely.
The attempts to argue that regional women should be denied it are a furphy as well – the drug carries a lesser risk of complications than an intended early pregnancy that miscarries. So if you’re going to argue you can’t use RU486 unless you live near emergency services, then women shouldn’t be allowed to get pregnant if they live in remote and regional Australia (the paucity of birthing services in the same areas are another argument for another day).
Obviously this is about abortion and not safety. I mean, this post makes out this truth forcefully. But it’s no revelation.
So we are back in a very old debate. One that we had presumed had been won. Abortion is still widely illegal, we now realise.
Anyway, given that abortion is becoming a majorly contested issue again, I hope we can come up with something better than the old chestnut that it is about the right of a woman to choose what happens to her body. This doesn’t wash. It is finessing and evasive. If somebody believes that the foetus is a human being with all legal and human rights, then the plea that the mother’s body is paramount is a non-starter. The foetus’ body will get a look in. The argument must be somewhere around that the foetus is in lesser degree human. Has less rights. Less claim to consideration.
Certainly they way I see it.
“(The foetus) Has less rights. Less claim to consideration.”
Not true.
Those opposing abortion are giving the foetus more rights. The right to be kept alive by an unwilling person. No fully grown adult gets that right.
“…something better than the old chestnut that it is about the right of a woman to choose what happens to her body.”
If you wish to argue that pregnant women have less of a right to control their body than everyone else, go ahead. But don’t pretend that we are the extremists.
“Viagra … available through the PBS”
Government rejects Viagra listing on PBS
I hope the rest of your ‘facts’ are better researched.
Above link is:
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2002-kp-kp02005.htm
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/health-mediarel-yr2002-kp-kp02005.htm
Um, Ron: link.
” Specific accepted war-caused or service-related disabilities for males ”
Viagra is NOT available to the general male population via the PBS.
wwb, Too often government’s power to legislate ad-infinitum is just assumed. With regards to abortion, the argument is often broken down into emotive terms, ie the foetus or the mother. But what about the argument where government’s ability to legislate or coerce starts and ends? How can this be compared against the sovereignty of an individual to have the power, and responsibility of their own actions?
OK, Ron, I was not specific enough on that point.
But given the post is not really about the PBS, would you like to address any of the main points?
Anna,
I’m one of the odd lefties who does not believe in abortion however I fully support women having the choice. I prefer not to debate it because it usually ends up in a very unpleasant situation.
I do believe RU-486 should be available on the PBS and so should Viagra.
The reason I joined in and needed to make the point about Viagra is that both a urological surgeon and an oncologist recommended I take Viagra as part of my treatment for cancer. Due to its cost I was not able to do so and this has been a sore point with me ever since. It’s use is not just limited to ‘aging “Lotharios’.
It really pisses me off that people like Senator Kay Patterson (who rejected Viagra on the PBS) and Abbott (for his stance on RU-486) can make the decision on these matters against lots of medical advice supporting the placement of both these items on the PBS.
OK Ron, this death-drug is licensed by the TGA and available through the PBS to save the sex lives of a generation of ageing soldiers. ‘Stop digging’ is often wise advice when you find yourself in a hole.
My comment was written before Ron’s above explanation. Apologies Ron.
No – I’m with Ron on that one.
I don’t agree with any attempts by the Government to make medicine political and go against the advice of either the TGA or the PBAC.
And you don’t have to support abortion. That’s what pro-choice is – not wanting to impose your view on anyone else.
Great post Anna. Hard hitting and full of the kind of commonsense that is so frustratingly and largely ignored. But please keep at it.
Let me see, the female author has compared the Howard government’s very partial and case-specific OK of Viagra with the barring of the abortion drug, Mifepristone.
This says much about contemporary feminism. Viagra produces erections. Mifepristone terminates pregnancies. The outcome of the first (one hopes) is the sexual satisfaction of two people. The outcome of the second (one hopes) is a healthy new human being.
The drawing of an apparent moral equivalency between these two outsomes is both horrifying and breathtaking. Conception as no more important than erection. And so a contemporay feminist is defining her argument by the relative ease by which life can be terminated.
I am only going to make this one comment on this appalling and peculiarly horrible viewpoint. Basically, I will not enter in to any discourse with someone who has defined herself to me as an amoral monster.
MarkL
Canberra
Very judgemental, MarkL.
Anna, nice to have you on board and great first post!
“Those opposing abortion are giving the foetus more rights. The right to be kept alive by an unwilling person. No fully grown adult gets that right.”
My view on abortion has been that if it is established that the foetus is not a human being, then abortion is just dealing with tissue within the pregnant woman and she has every right to deal with it as she sees fit.
On the other hand if the foetus is a human being, then killing it is murder.
I have always felt that the humanity or otherwise of a foetus has never been satisfactorily resolved or even fully bebated, due to the highly emotive nature of the debate.
Apparently now even that is irrelevant. Even if a foetus is human, it doesn’t matter because it is “parasitical” on its mother and murdering it is then OK.
It seems to me that the same argument can be applied to all children up to self-supporting age, unless you can find a “willing” adopting parent. Too bad if the child is disabled or “unattractive”. But in that case of course you will say that the State has to step in, thus transferring the burden from one unwilling person to a collection of unwilling persons.
“thus transferring the burden from one unwilling person to a collection of unwilling persons.”
So as a taxpayer it’s OK for you to refuse to support a person, but it’s OK to force someone to give up their bodily autonomy against their will. Whatever.
And MarkL, if you are going to be offensive, at least try not to misrepresent what I wrote.
I used the risks of Viagra to show that this debate is not about safety, it’s about morality. In which case, why should politicians be able to make decisions about my personal ethics?
Yes, a woman’s body is an incubator all right. That’s what we’re for.
But then, MarkL, if you think an erection is vital to ‘the sexual satisfaction of two people’, you’ve obviously got a bit more homework on women’s bodies to do. You should put in a bit more work on Logic 101 while you’re about it; para 3 alone would be enough to get you an F. You’re not really across contemporary feminism, either.
So Anna is an ‘amoral monster’, eh? And what would you call someone who slings this kind of insulting, half-arsed, holier-than-thou crap at a total stranger from behind the shelter of a half-anonymous discussion? What a good thing you ‘basically will not enter into any discourse’ with her; why ever would she want you to?
“So as a taxpayer itÄôs OK for you to refuse to support a person”
I did not say or even imply that, Anna! You are wilfully misrepresenting me – I am simply drawing your attention to a factual situation about individuals transferring personal responsibilities to the State which they assume has a greater ethical responsibility than they bear themselves. Of course many taxpayers disagree with some (or many) aspects of government expenditure policy, but no-one has the right to refuse to obey the tax laws, although many try (and succeed).
In this case I agree that it’s the State’s responsibility to be the parent of last resort, a task which all Western States readily assume, but which not all perform well. Some in fact quite badly.
Why place more ethical responsibility on the totality of people than on the individuals most intimately concerned?
If that’s not what you meant then you are entirely incomprehensible.
You seem to be saying that women should not be able to end a pregnancy, but that they shouldn’t be allowed to expect the State to support the result of that forced choice.
The right to be kept alive that I was referring to was not the collective duty of society to protect and support those in need. No adult has the right to demand that another give their body, or parts of their body, to keep them alive.
That you would get all outraged about tax dollars, while feeling comfortable about taking away a woman’s bodily autonomy says more about you than it does about those who support women’s rights.
Calm down a bit Anna, please. The point of my post is that I’d always assumed that each side of the debate had diametrically opposite views about the humanity or otherwise of a foetus. I’m surprised to read that now it’s the position of pro-abortionists that it’s IRRELEVANT whether a foetus is human or not. Because it is dependent physically on its mother it’s OK to kill it if it is human or to excise it if its just tissue. If a foetus is human it’s in a fairly weak negotiating position to “demand” anything as you so sweetly put it.
For myself, I am not convinced at this stage about the humanity or non-humanity of a foetus. But I still think it’s an important enough distinction to merit a lot more thought and debate. I even detect a tendency in the law to regard very late term foetuses as “human”. This debate isn’t the closed book that many feminists think it is. By the way my views are not in the slightest influenced by religious belief. I’m an atheist (well agnostic then – I don’t have enough knowledge to be dogmatic about the non-existence of God other than the deity from Cabramatta of course).
Didn’t say a thing about your religious beliefs or otherwise.
The point, as I see it, is not that the foetus’ humanity is irrelevant. It’s that even if it is a fully developed human person, it is not for the state to demand that any of us give up control of our bodies for the life of another.
This is a moral question that should be left to the person who will be the one to keep that person alive. Thousands of women choose to do just that every day. To argue that it’s OK to force that on someone diminishes the sacrifice of motherhood.
I am grateful that my mother chose to be a mother and have me. I would be devasted to discover that she’d been forced to go through all of that unwillingly.
Oh – and are you telling me to calm down because I disagree with you, or because I’m a woman?
‘Cause I can’t see any indications in any of my comments of my being “uncalm”.
Anna, I think it’s been fairly conclusively shown that Viagra – indeed, erectile dysfunction therapeutic agents generally – are not “available” through the PBS. There was a celebrated court case three years ago when Pfizer unsuccessfully sued the Commonwealth to reverse PBAC’s recommendation not to add Viagra to the PBS formulary. Far from “favouring” men, the government seized the celebratory moment to also delist the only other erectile dysfunction therapy that was previously listed. Chris correctly points out that Veterans are entitled to access Viagra at PBS rates but Veterans are a miniscule proportion of the Australian population and they receive a wide range of specific benefits not available to anyone else.
Your post might benefit from some amendment.
Changed. I apologise, and have sacked my sub-editor.
Do medicines have mortality stats on them so that people can make an informed choice? eg “This medicine has a mortality rate of 3 in 100 000. You take it at your own risk.”
Anna,
you are simply writing in the wrong season!
I though Anna’s main point was that Abbotts main stated reason for banning RU486 is that it is dangerous.
It isn’t.
Abbott here is counting on most people not knowing how many commonly available drugs have a *higher* death rate than RU486.
Also his comment about country doctors being unable to death with large-scale bleeding is patently crap when you consider, for even a microsecond, how gruesome agricultural infuries tend to be. Nice vote of confidence to country doctors as well!
The conscience vote is nothing but a complete and utter cop-out. It is just a way for Howard to personally side step responsibility – especially when he is so adamant on refusing conscience votes on nearly everything else, and (as has been commented on extensively elsewhere) gags debate.
Howard et al are trying to minimise damage by letting people have that panacea of a conciense vote. It is less than a pretense at upholding democratic ideals. It is no victory for commonsense. Commonsense here would deferr to medical opinion, and accept that opinion. This is not what is happening.
I have my doubts about a conscience vote going ahead now anyway after the possible deal between Fielding and the PM on VSU.
And welcome, Anna!
I’m trying to remain optimistic about that. Basically I’m trying to keep a picture in my head of Howard trying to explain the change in heart to Amanda Vanstone in Cabinet.
I was once told that I took the easy way out when I told someone that I had to have an emergency c-section after 22 hours of labor!!!