COULD RU486 also give life ?

Has a 1996 law preventing access to abortion pills, such as RU486, also contributed to delays in treatments or cures for HIV/AIDS and cancer?

In France, in the 1980s an exciting new drug was formulated to treat Cushing's disease, a condition where excess production of the hormone cortisol causes immune suppression, osteoporosis, diabetes and obesity. This drug blocked cortisol and reversed these health problems.

By 1992 research indicated this same drug might hold hope for aging, cancer, viral and stress-related diseases, as well as dementia. Scientists urged each other to alert everyone to the potential medical benefits of this drug.

The drug offered potential treatment for some of mankind's most devastating diseases: inoperable brain tumours, ovarian cancer and certain breast cancers.

But most amazing were the studies that showed it also interfered with replication of HIV.

But there was a complication. If taken during pregnancy this drug caused miscarriage in more than 60 per cent of cases.

Undaunted, scientists suggested clinical uses for this side effect. They found that by adding another drug, abortion occurred in more than 95 per cent of cases. So it offered an alternative to surgical curette in women whose foetus had died. But it also meant that this drug, known as RU486, had another application, abortion by choice.

If RU486 proved successful in only some of the conditions it promised, it might a godsend for millions of people. Voices in favour of RU486 for abortion, but also voices calling for its ban, got louder. The voices of  scientists with hope for cancer and HIV were largely drowned out.

In 1988, the French Government had taken a deep breath and licensed RU486 as an alternative to surgical abortion. Other countries followed.

In 1989, the Australian Government set up The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) to be responsible for ensuring Australians have timely access to safe medical advances. All drugs would be evaluated using the TGA's arms-length, accountable processes.  However, in 1996, things changed when an amendment to the Act governing the TGA was passed.

It was proposed by Senator Brian Harradine to create a special sub-class of drugs called ``restricted goods'', which would be removed from the TGA's jurisdiction.

Only one type of drug was described as ``restricted goods'', those that induced abortion. This law still stands today and ``restricted goods'' may not be evaluated, licensed or registered by the TGA without the express written permission of the Minister for Health. It is clear this law was intended to prevent women accessing these drugs for abortion. But maybe that's not all it prevented.

Since RU486 could no longer be evaluated without ministerial approval, the research sponsors were understandably reluctant to embroil themselves in political controversy. So the bottom fell out of RU486 research. Time passed, and RU486 safety data looked good, but medical opinion was at odds with some decision makers. If it is not unlawful for a woman to terminate a pregnancy by surgical abortion why can't she access safe medical alternatives?

By 2005 more than 17 countries, including USA, UK and NZ have licensed RU486, now called Mifepristone, for use as part of a safe, effective alternative to surgical abortion. It is estimated that more than 20 million women have used it.

Like many drugs, its side effect is now its main clinical application. But here in Australia, although a woman can obtain a surgical abortion and Medicare will even rebate it, the Harradine amendment denies her a safe medical alternative. Australia is renowned for its cutting-edge medicine, but RU486 research is mostly gathering dust on shelves, waiting for sponsors to apply for approval.

Could a cure for Cancer or HIV/AIDS be lying on one of those shelves blanketed by abortion rhetoric ?

Parliamentarians need to ask themselves one question. Who is best to decide what drugs Australians can have. Is it Minister for Health Tony Abbott or an independent, accountable committee of scientific experts?

(c) Dr Sally Cockburn December 2005

further reading  on RU496 and HIV :

http://www.thebody.com/pwa/NFUspr99/ru486.html

scientific refs :

http://www.retroconference.org/2004/cd/Abstract/544.htm

http://www.retroconference.org/2005/CD/Abstracts/25663.htm

a list of further refs :

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v3/n12/abs/nm1297-1302b.html