MEDICAL ABORTION IN AUSTRALIA - A PROGRESS REPORT
DECEMBER 2nd 2005
RU86 AUSTRALIA -- UPDATE
The Australian Federal Government has decided to postpone the vote on the TGA amendment Bill until February. The Prime Minister has said there will be a conscience vote on the issue of the Harradine Amendments.
On Wednesday this week a research note was published by the Federal Parliamentary Library - it can be accessed by clicking HERE
Essentially this document comes to the same conclusion as I have (but probably expressed more diplomatically ) .
"In other words, the current debate over RU486 in Australia is essentially over questions of risk management. This is a key point because the management of risk associated with medicines is an explicit function of the TGA."........
"However, this is not the same as saying that the process for evaluating applications for abortifacients would become less transparent or accountable. Under current arrangements, the Minister is simply required to notify the Parliament of a decision to approve an application for evaluation by the TGA. Given the fact that such a decision would not be disallowable by the Parliament, this does not amount to a significant level of parliamentary scrutiny. Further, the Minister is not required to table decisions not to approve such applications, meaning that the Parliament is neither necessarily informed of these, nor does it have the capacity for any oversight of such decisions.
Essentially, current arrangements mean that the Minister for Health alone decides whether applications for evaluation of abortifacients such as RU486 can proceed through the usual processes of the TGA. It could be argued that this situation is at odds with the evidence-based framework generally used to assess other medicines in Australia.
While it could also be also be argued that special arrangements are necessary in the case of RU486, given community sensitivity to the issue of abortion, it should be noted that the current arrangements do not necessarily provide for significant parliamentary scrutiny of applications to evaluate, register, list or import RU486 for use in medical abortion. Rather, this power currently resides entirely with the Minister for Health. "
Given that this is the opinion of the Parliament's own research Library then the question remains - WHY does there need to be a conscience vote on an issue of governance ? Surely this anomaly is clear and surely it needs to be rectified.
We must ensure there are no hidden agendas. Reproductive Choice Australia has an online petition to get this message to the government - if you wish to sign it click HERE
On the issue of safety of RU486 ( which should be for the TGA to decide ) an article was published in this week's New England Journal of Medicine - click HERE to read this excellent article
On Thursday Dec 1 2005 An article I wrote was published in the Melbourne Herald Sun - click HERE to read it
NOVEMBER 2005
RU486 AKA MIFEPRISTONE : A SCANDAL IN AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT
CONTINUES TO DENY WOMEN
SAFE ALTERNATIVE TO SURGICAL ABORTION
In over 17 countries around the world women who have decided to have an abortion have a choice to avoid surgery and use tablets instead. It is estimated that over 20 million women may have used this proven safe and effective method of termination of pregnancy.
The WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION states
“in circumstances where abortion is not against the law, health systems should train and equip health-service providers and should take other measures to ensure that such abortion is safe and accessible. Additional measures should be taken to safeguard women’s health.”
click HERE to read the WHO 2003 policy guidelines for health systems - section on on SAFE ABORTION
Here in Australia women can access surgical abortions but not medical alternatives.
Here in Australia the law was changed in 1996 through an amendment proposed by Senator Brian Harradine. That change meant Australian women have been effectively denied the options that women in USA, ENGLAND, RUSSIA, CHINA AND NEW ZEALAND etc have.
This Bill was passed by the government as a means of securing Senator Harradine's vote to sell off part of our government owned Telco - TELSTRA. Today Telstra shares are around $4 .What price women's reproductive rights ?
Expert Health and medical bodies around the world support the right of women to choose safe options where abortion is legal and support the safety of this method in appropriate clinical settings :
click HERE to read the opinions of more of these organizations
In approving this method of abortion in 2000 the USA's Federal Drug Administration ( FDA) stated at the launch :
"The
approval of mifepristone is the result of the FDA's careful evaluation
of the scientific evidence related to the safe and effective use of this
drug," said Jane E. Henney, M.D., Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
"The FDA's review and approval of this drug has adhered strictly to
our legal mandate and mission as a science-based public health
regulatory agency."
Abortion can be accessed lawfully in this country.
The Harradine Amendment of 1996 was proposed with the clear intention of preventing women access to abortion alternatives.
Senator Brian Harradine is a staunch anti abortionist. He has every right to his morals . But government has NO moral right to use Australian Women's reproductive rights as a trade off for commercial purposes. Women everywhere have every right to be outraged !
In July this year Sen. Harradine, stood down from the parliament as “the father of the senate” after 30 years loyal service to his country and his ideals he left as the longest serving member. During much of that time, as would be expected from any good patriarch, Senator Harradine held the deciding vote in many decisions affecting Australians.
In
his valedictory speech to parliament he said :
“I
have consistently addressed matters of public policy through a rigorous
analysis of
proposals
against a framework of social justice principles that are able to be
understood and supported by persons of goodwill who are committed to a
just, free, equal, and life-affirming
society.”
http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/view_document.aspx?ID=106153&TABLE=PRESSREL&TARGET=
Senator
Harradine’s commitment
to his personal set of ethical and moral beliefs is undeniably true. He
is to be admired for his personal fortitude.
However, there is one area of government where “analysis of proposals against a framework of social justice priniciples” is simply not enough. That area is Health.
In
the words of another
government
Minister, Peter Costello, who was quoted in The Age News paper on 18th
November 2005, in reference to the issue currently under scrutiny
: “I
think the medical assessments have to be done by the medical experts.”
Then why not let the TGA evaluate this drug without interference from the Minister for Health ?
In 1996 Senator Harradine's amendments to the Law created a special class of drugs that were separated from all other drugs under the jurisdiction of Australia's independent drug watch dog - the TGA . The drugs specified were those which induced abortion . These drugs may not be evaluated licenced or registered without the express written permission of the Minister for Health. Current Minister for Health, Tony Abbott is clear on his views on abortion of any kind. He is against it. Yet he holds women's reproductive rights in his hand.
While
the health issue involved in this law is sensitive and open to moral and
religious opinion, the flaw in governance principle underpinning this
the law is clear: Surely an individual should not have power
over properly constituted independent government health body. Surely
one class
of drugs which could be used lawfully should not be excluded from
the usual processes of evaluation and licensing. Surely
medication should be evaluated using sound scientific principles
not moral and religious views.
Currently
there is a Bill in the House to remove the Harradine Amendments. The Politicians are probably going to be given a conscience vote
on the issue. It is vital that the RIGHT issue is being voted on. That
is the politicians are NOT being asked to vote on a matter of Health.
They are being asked to vote on a matter of Governance.
There is only one question that Parliamentarians need to ask themselves - who should decide what drugs Australians have access to - Tony Abbott or an accountable committee of medical experts?
In fact why does there need to even be a conscience vote in this issue? All parties must believe in the principles of good governance ? Surely choosing to have a conscience vote indicates a party is divided on tha