Political Crossfire Forums

[Prole]

This was the frong page of The Guardian today, a left-centrist British newspaper. I foolishly neglected to pick up a copy (was in a hurry), and can't figure out how to access it online. If anyone could post a link regarding the study, or one from another news source, that would be just dandy.

From a quick glance, though, I was able to gleem that somehow it would be possible to personally and safely perform medical abortions from one's own home, until much later into one's pregnancy than is possible with the EC pill; up to nine weeks, as I recall. (The EC pill is effective up to a maximum of 72 hours).

What do you believe the implications of such a personal and yet still safe method being available will be? Do you believe that even if a method is medically safe without doctor assistance, that it is important that a doctor being involved, and if so why? Lastly, do you think this will make abortions more accessible, and if so, what do you think the consequences of that would be?

And please, no blanket "abortion is fine" or "abortion is wrong" statements; that dead horse gets enough of a beating in other threads.

[Sailor Moon]

Prole, I have been arguing this very point for some time now.. you know I stand by my premise that women have autonomy and fetuses dont have rights.

I am so glad you found this article! It really backs up my own prior claims.

[Selfish_Meme]

Which is why the right and religous people (pro-lifers) are trying to get it banned in Australia right now. Because the morality of making women undergo dangerous operations is outweighed by the 'sin' of sex.

It's called RU486

[Sailor Moon]

Actually, Selfish Meme, I am not sure you are on the same page as we are. There are many ways to have a safe medical abortion from home. There are also other forms of abortion that the pharmeceutical companies dont support, simply because the herbs involved require FDA approval, a painstaking problem, with the knowledge that these can be mixed anyways, and also that these herbs would then HAVE to be sold as drugs, rather than just herbs, etc.. I also am not responding with blanket statements, either and would appreciate if you do the same in the future.

Heres the article (lemme see if I can find it) http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1710789,00.html

Now that I have read it, I really cant say that I am in total support, as it is still doctor assisted. I was really hoping you were talking about unassisted abortions... BUT I do think these are much better than surgical ones, as they do not seem to affect fertility, or future pregnancies.


Abortions at home are safe - pilot study

Polly Curtis, health correspondent
Thursday February 16, 2006
The Guardian


Women who are less than nine weeks pregnant can safely have medical abortions at home, according to the head of a government-backed pilot project.
Abortion services for the 20,000 women who seek a chemically induced abortion every year could be transformed should the Department of Health's official evaluation of the pilot confirm initial findings. But it is also likely to provoke controversy from anti-abortion campaigners who will claim that home abortions would make the procedure easier and therefore lead to more women having terminations.

Shirley Butler, the project manager of one pilot which has tested the abortions with 172 women patients since 2004, told the Guardian: "We haven't had any significant problems apart from one woman who had a slightly heavy bleed. In my opinion medical abortions outside of acute hospitals seem to be safe." She added that women who took part in the trial were positive about it.

Ms Butler stressed that the results were preliminary and were now being officially evaluated. She also asked for her hospital not to be named for fear of reprisal attacks from pro-life campaigners. St Mary's hospital in London confirmed that it is undertaking the second trial.

Chemical abortions are available before the 12th week of pregnancy. Women who request it take one tablet of mifepristone at a hospital then return two days later to take four doses of misoprostol which causes a termination within hours. Usually women remain in hospital after taking the second pills until the abortion is complete. Under the trials they took both sets of pills within local community clinics to test the theory that it is safe to be outside hospital, and therefore at home.

A Department of Health spokeswoman said the scheme, which was revealed yesterday by the journal Nursing Standard, had not yet been evaluated. "No changes to the way abortions are carried out will be approved unless we are content that there is no risk to the women's safety."

Anne Weyman, chief executive of the Family Planning Association, said: "Medical abortion is a highly safe and effective procedure. Completing the second stage at home can provide greater comfort and privacy."

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: Actually, Selfish Meme, I am not sure you are on the same page as we are. There are many ways to have a safe medical abortion from home. There are also other forms of abortion that the pharmeceutical companies dont support, simply because the herbs involved require FDA approval, a painstaking problem, with the knowledge that these can be mixed anyways, and also that these herbs would then HAVE to be sold as drugs, rather than just herbs, etc.. I also am not responding with blanket statements, either and would appreciate if you do the same in the future.

Heres the article (lemme see if I can find it) http://society.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1710789,00.html

Now that I have read it, I really cant say that I am in total support, as it is still doctor assisted. I was really hoping you were talking about unassisted abortions... BUT I do think these are much better than surgical ones, as they do not seem to affect fertility, or future pregnancies.


Abortions at home are safe - pilot study

Polly Curtis, health correspondent
Thursday February 16, 2006
The Guardian


Women who are less than nine weeks pregnant can safely have medical abortions at home, according to the head of a government-backed pilot project.
Abortion services for the 20,000 women who seek a chemically induced abortion every year could be transformed should the Department of Health's official evaluation of the pilot confirm initial findings. But it is also likely to provoke controversy from anti-abortion campaigners who will claim that home abortions would make the procedure easier and therefore lead to more women having terminations.

Shirley Butler, the project manager of one pilot which has tested the abortions with 172 women patients since 2004, told the Guardian: "We haven't had any significant problems apart from one woman who had a slightly heavy bleed. In my opinion medical abortions outside of acute hospitals seem to be safe." She added that women who took part in the trial were positive about it.

Ms Butler stressed that the results were preliminary and were now being officially evaluated. She also asked for her hospital not to be named for fear of reprisal attacks from pro-life campaigners. St Mary's hospital in London confirmed that it is undertaking the second trial.

Chemical abortions are available before the 12th week of pregnancy. Women who request it take one tablet of mifepristone at a hospital then return two days later to take four doses of misoprostol which causes a termination within hours. Usually women remain in hospital after taking the second pills until the abortion is complete. Under the trials they took both sets of pills within local community clinics to test the theory that it is safe to be outside hospital, and therefore at home.

A Department of Health spokeswoman said the scheme, which was revealed yesterday by the journal Nursing Standard, had not yet been evaluated. "No changes to the way abortions are carried out will be approved unless we are content that there is no risk to the women's safety."

Anne Weyman, chief executive of the Family Planning Association, said: "Medical abortion is a highly safe and effective procedure. Completing the second stage at home can provide greater comfort and privacy."
I think I am on the same page and *gasp* I even agree with you to a certain extent. Why not abort at home unassisted if it is safe. I stress if it is safe.

[Kt]

It will make abortion harder to outlaw, i believe.

[Sailor Moon]

I dont entirely agree with that, but yeah to a point.. as long as its manufactured, anyways.

[usuchamp]

In-home abortions sound like a great idea! If you're a woman foolish enough to get an unwanted pregancy, then you might do yourself some real harm in trying to abort the unborn. Or, better yet, you might not be wise enough to perform the abortion in nine weeks.

[Sailor Moon]

Why? Cause its dangerous to ride a roller coaster the weekend you find out youre pregnant? Or go bungee jumping???


Pleeeease....