Are you for or against RU486?

No. 20, 3 February 2006

by Rod Benson

Over the last three months a debate has simmered over whether the abortion pill, commonly called RU486, should be permitted in Australia, and – if so – who should decide. Over the next seven days, you can expect it to reach boiling point.

RU486 is an artificial steroid that blocks progesterone, a vital nutrient hormone. It causes the nutrient lining of the mother’s uterus to disintegrate, and the embryo withers and dies. A second drug, misoprostol, a prostaglandin developed to treat ulcers, is used 48 hours later to induce uterine contractions that detach and expel the embryo and uterine contents. RU486 is effective from the fifth to the seventh week following the last menstrual period, with decreasing effectiveness up to the ninth week.

Used alone, RU486 has an abortion rate of 60-80 per cent. Used with misoprostol, this rises to 95 per cent. The drug is widely used as an abortifacient in the USA and Europe.

The debate is largely due to our unique regulatory regime for the drug. The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regulates therapeutic goods in Australia to ensure the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines and ensure the quality, safety and performance of medical devices.

Normally the TGA would regulate the use of RU486, but a controversial amendment to the Act was passed in 1996 when former Tasmanian Senator Brian Harradine, a Roman Catholic, successfully argued that the drug should be made illegal. The amendment created new class of drugs known as “restricted goods” which cannot be evaluated, registered, listed or imported without the written approval of the Health Minister. Currently RU486 is the only medicine in this restricted class of goods.

In November 2005 a campaign by four senators, representing each of the four main political parties, sought to introduce a private members bill to overturn the effective ban. The matter was referred to a Senate Community Affairs Committee for consideration, which called for public submissions and will probably release its report just in time for a projected conscience vote on the bill in federal Parliament on 9 February.

It seems to me that this is not a debate about women’s freedom to manage their own bodies, or freedom to choose between various methods of abortion, or similar arguments. It is firstly a medical issue: there are significant proven and potential side-effects and complications to the drug. These are described at length elsewhere, but range from abdominal pain to chronic bleeding to death. Further, there are potentially catastrophic effects on later pregnancies, and on babies who are not killed by the drug and are subsequently born.

Two other factors add complexity to the debate. First, mifepristone can be used to treat certain rare forms of cancer, and may have other therapeutic applications. For example, Australian woman Mary Lander, who suffers from an inoperable brain tumour, shared her heart-rending story on the ABC’s 7.30 Report on 24 January. Thus, should RU486 be approved for non-abortifacient use?

Second, while many Christians – both Catholic and Protestant – oppose abortion, not all do. On 16 January, a Uniting Church Senior Policy Analyst, Rev Dr Ann Wansbrough, advised her constituency to “take no action on the anti-RU486 campaign,” but also advised Uniting Church congregations “NOT to support the anti-RU486 campaign.”

UCA President Rev Dr Dean Drayton bypassed the heart of the debate, saying, “We have already had the public debate about abortion; the issue is whether or not this particular drug is safe to be released for use in a country where abortion is legally available.”

Catholics and evangelicals, and many other Christians and persons of other religious faiths, have not followed the UCA line.

Whether or not Parliament votes to overturn the Harradine amendment next week, here’s why I think RU486 should not be available in Australia:

(a) RU486 is not a simple and safe alternative to surgical abortion
(b) RU486 intentionally kills the embryo and trivialises the taking of human life
(c) access to RU486 may be a step toward legislating for abortion on demand
(d) access to RU486 may encourage promiscuity among women who view it as a virtual contraceptive
(e) women orally self-administer it and the process takes a week to complete, leading to undue trauma
(f) women may be unsure of the gestational age of their embryo (without an ultrasound)
(g) many overseas abortion providers apparently prescribe it beyond the recommended 49 days
(h) the TGA is not empowered to advise on the moral and social implications of approving a drug

The current debate focuses on two important issues: whether the drug should be permitted in Australia; and who should decide.

As to whether RU486 should be permitted in Australia, it is widely acknowledged that RU486 is a dangerous drug. It was specifically developed by the French pharmaceutical company Roussel-Uclaf as a non-surgical abortion option. RU486 intentionally kills the embryo and trivialises the taking of human life. Given the available alternatives, the possible complications seem to constitute an unacceptable burden to women. For those who need an abortion, there are less costly and less traumatic options available. Further, many Christians and persons of other religious faith oppose abortion on moral grounds, and thus oppose the approval of RU486 as an abortifacient.

As to who should decide on the approval of RU486 in Australia, the current regulatory regime, while unusual, ultimately serves Australian women well. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain by leaving the legislation as it stands rather than allowing the TGA to act independently on such matters. The restriction on RU486 should be maintained.

For my part, I counsel all federal politicians to oppose the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005. And I urge all concerned citizens to contact their federal member of parliament and share their concerns. Rather than legislating to encourage abortion in Australia, our political leaders should encourage development and funding of programs aimed at reducing the need for women to seek abortions.

Rev Rod Benson is founding Director of the Centre for Christian Ethics at Morling College, Sydney, Australia. Thanks to Eric Lockett of the Baptist Union of Tasmania for invaluable advice on this issue.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Soundings is a publication of the Centre for Christian Ethics, edited by Rod Benson. Soundings welcomes submissions of 750 to 1000 words that seek to facilitate debate and explore issues of religion, ethics and public policy in Australia and internationally. Previous columns give a good indication of the topical range and tone for acceptable essays. Columns may be quoted or republished in full, with attribution to the author of the column, Soundings, and the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College, Sydney Australia. Views expressed in Soundings articles are not necessarily those of the Centre for Christian Ethics, Morling College or the Baptist Churches of NSW & ACT.