Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

The Role of Prostaglandins: Known and Unknown DangersAs a consequence of deficiencies such as these,investigators have been challenged to improve the clinical efficacyand acceptability of PGF 2•treatment, either by altering theroute of administration to allow a reduction in dosage orby using prostaglandins of greater efficacy (pp. 1059–60,our emphasis)and implied that the ‘in press’ PG studies of Arpad Csapowould provide a concise understanding of the importantmechanisms of chemically induced abortion to avoid itsnegative elements (p. 1062).By 1972, the WHO Prostaglandin Task Force focused itschemical abortion program on the PGF 2•and PGE 2analogues,despite their abysmal abortion failure rates (WHO, 1972).Many of the factors 4 which determine the abortion successrate of PGs were identified subsequent to the program’scommencement, so that—like the current RU 486 promotion—it was a premature exercise. Here too, lies a further parallel,the general trend to acknowledge Bygdeman as the theoristresponsible for the PG abortion approach, just as there is toacknowledge Baulieu with the anti-progesterone approach,when in truth it was the theories of Csapo et al., which gavethe impetus to both PG and RU 486-induced abortion. Wecondemn the practice of PG-induced terminations and opposePG usage with, or without, RU 486.Based on the following statement we would have thoughtthat the WHO Scientific Group on Advances in Methods ofFertility Regulation was aware of the advantage ofconventional abortion methods: ‘It is evident that suctioncurettage is the method of choice for termination of pregnancyin the first 12 weeks of gestation. The method is associatedwith a surprisingly low incidence of complications as indicatedby results from e.g. Eastern Europe’ (1972: 92). WHO’smotive for discarding the conventional approach to abortionwas unclear. Particularly when at least one further importantreservation had emerged from the PG approach: ‘pregnancy93