Well, the debate on RU486 has become more than a political bunfight (which reminds me of a rather funny remark my history teacher once made "'2nd Mess War' stands for the second Messinian war, not a bunfight in the syssition"). I just want to start by defining the issue, which is whether the Minister for Health (currently Tony Abbott but extending to future MPs) should be able to override decisions made by the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). An MP is elected by members of the voting public, though his/her portfolio is assigned by the Prime Minister and the TGA is a government body consisting of a number of health professionals who assess and regulate the availability of products for use by the general public.
Hmm, MP and TGA. One of these has medical qualifications, the other has a political agenda. I really don't see how an MP should suddenly be able to override a body like the TGA, which has been set up precisely to monitor the administration of therapeutic goods and deal with its availability to the Australia public. The TGA are specialists in their field, an MP is a specialist in theirs - politicising. If we see politics over health, or even just expertise, then we are in danger of becoming slaves to agenda, which makes us no better than the sheep than the government thinks we are. (I, for one, will not stand for it... etc etc).
The issue has been taken further with the drug in question, RU486, which can be used for abortion among other things. The other things being treatment of Cushing's syndrome, endometriosis and a number of cancers (thanks Wikipedia). Abortion is a touchy issue all around the world. For the record, I am both pro-choice and pro-life. Very Trainspotting - Choose Life. Let me explain; I believe that a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body and that she must be able to accept the consequences of her choice. Bringing a child into the world is no easy task, not just physically but mentally and emotionally and these aspects must be considered when a woman is pregnant. Of course the best case scenario is that the woman chooses to become a mother, whether she is to raise the child or pursue options such as adoption. Sometimes her choices lead her to conclude that her pregnancy is better terminated.
The biggest problem with the pro-life movement is that they do not take into account different circumstances, they believe in birth in any situation. Pro-choice campaigners are much more liberal, they do not say all embryos must die, rather they present options for the pregnant woman. That's what choice is, opportunity to decide. I wish that every choice would result in a pro-life decision, but I also understand that not all women feel capable of bringing a child into the world and respect her decision if she chooses otherwise. Pro-choice doesn't mean pro-abortion and pro-life shouldn't be about anti-abortion - after all, you are also taking to account the life of the pregnant woman. Presented correctly, both should be about informed decisions and the ability to pursue options.
Nobody should be allowed to bully a pregnant woman into a decision about her body; it is her body. And I must say that this has a lot to do with the 'pregnant body as public' conundrum. I mean, have you ever seen strangers stop a pregnant woman in the street to fondle her belly? People at parties tut-tutting about what Ms Pregnant is or isn't eating/drinking? Since when did being pregnant give anyone the right to invade a private body? Denying choice that could be available is well, fascism, really. And if you want to include the availability of RU486 in an abortion context, then essentially disallowing RU486 is just narrowing the choices available.
One point that poiliticians seem to be skimming over is that women are sentient beings who are fully capable of deciding for themselves. Just because RU486 is available doesn't mean there's going to be any more unwanted pregnancies. Having sex is a health risk. Getting pregnant is a health risk. Giving birth is a health risk. Terminating a pregnancy is a health risk. The onus should fall back on basic health education; ie "one of the consequences of sex is pregnancy and if you don't want to get pregnant have you considered contraception? abstinence?" If abortion is required, then unbiased information should be provided about the health risks of termination, whether termination takes place surgically or medically (RU486). The sooner as we all know and understand the risks, the sooner we'll realise that education beats politics hands down.
Now, get out of this abortion debate and see the RU486 issue for what it really is - a politician looking for power over the TGA.
No comments:
Post a Comment