|
An 18-year-old who had concealed her pregnancy died of complications one week after she began taking RU-486 (news - web sites), also known as the abortion pill.Religious conservatives have been pushing for some time to get RU-486 banned. This will give them just the fuel they've been looking for.Holly Patterson, who lived in the San Francisco suburb of Livermore, visited a Planned Parenthood clinic Sept. 10 to take the pill. She followed the prescribed procedure for using RU-486, taking two more pills at home in the following days.
After experiencing bleeding and cramps so severe that she was unable to walk, her boyfriend rushed her to the hospital, where she was given painkillers and sent home. She was back in the hospital a few days later and died on Sept. 17.
I'm about as adamantly pro-choice as you can get, but if the pill isn't safe, then it needs to have its FDA approval revoked. But we aren't there yet. As I write this, the story doesn't say whether the pill directly caused the death, or if it exacerbated some other problem, or if it was coincidental. And we need to know that before passing judgment.
Not to diminish this girl's tragic death in any way, but lots of people die every year from "safe" prescription and over-the-counter drugs. It just so happens that this one is especially politically charged. According to the story, this is the second death tied to RU-486. In 1998, at least 69 deaths in the US were tied to use of the anti-impotence drug Viagra. I wonder why the religious conservatives aren't calling for the revocation of Viagra's FDA approval...
And let's not forget that without access to legal, low-risk abortions, both surgical and medical, even more women die, many as a result of unsafe, illegal abortions.
So while this death (and any death) is tragic, and certainly warrants a re-examination of the efficacy and safety of RU-486, I'm not ready to condemn it just yet. I'd prefer to wait for the dust to settle and the facts of the case to become clear.
In the segment you have quoted, the article mentions that' "after experiencing bleeding and cramps," the girl eventually sought medical attention. Most patients who arrive at the hospital with these symptoms have had them for quite some time before they determine a hospital visit is necessary. RU-486 cannot cause hemorrhaging as it is simply a hormone analog that inhibits the tissue growth necessary for uterine implantation by the fetus. The bleeding is the likely result of a latent problem, caused by the detachment of the placenta, that would be expected if the same unfourtunate woman had miscarried. But you're right: this will become a tool for the argumentation against the safety of this drug.
Posted by: JKRU-486 cannot cause hemorrhaging as it is simply a hormone analog that inhibits the tissue growth necessary for uterine implantation by the fetus.
Is this true? I'm not terribly familiar with exactly how RU-486 works, other than that it's a multi-stage process.
Posted by: tgirschIf the above woman had injured herself in some stupid way, such as breaking into someone's house and getting shot by someone acting in self-defense, the homeowner would be at fault.
It sounds like to me that the maker of RU-486 should cough up a pile of money for this woman. She should also sue the Planned Parenthood clinic that she got the pill at, all of the people who handled her pill, and anyone else she can find.
It sounds like to me that the maker of RU-486 should cough up a pile of money for this woman.
Probably so. I'm guessing they probably will have to.
She should also sue the Planned Parenthood clinic that she got the pill at, all of the people who handled her pill, and anyone else she can find.
This would be considerably easier for her to do were she not dead.
But thanks for taking the time to point out a critical flaw with Libertarian thinking (and no, I'm not saying YOU are Libertarian, because I don't know that): In Libertarianism fear of lawsuits is supposed to be the motivator for averting corporate malfeasance. However, in this case, if the company was negligent in some way, there's nothing they can do to bring back this woman. The damage is already done, and no amount of litigation can fix it.
Posted by: tgirschIf the above woman had injured herself in some stupid way, such as breaking into someone's house and getting shot by someone acting in self-defense, the homeowner would be at fault.
Straw man? I really don't think that's true in most states.
Posted by: tgirschSo.. there was a hospital involved. Is there an inquiry into why they sent her home? If this is a case of sending her home without treating her properly because she didn't have insurance, then this is way more tragic than I thought.
If any re-examing is done, I certainly hope it includes looking at the sadly minimal health-care options for 18-year-old women.
Posted by: EdgarThis would be considerably easier for her to do were she not dead.
It was late when I wrote that. :P
I'm mildly Libertarian...but I don't like lawsuits. I'd prefer that people tough things out more, or at least accept that they screwed up and not blame others. There are some situations in which a lawsuit is called for, but it seems to be way overblown as of late.
