Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

The History of RU 486service of women. In August 1990, President Eleanor Smealof the Feminist Majority visited the Paris headquarters ofRoussel Uclaf and deposited 400 kg of signed petitions.Support for RU 486 in the USA also came from theAmerican Medical Assocation (Lee, 1990:1). Louise Tyrer,vice president of medical affairs for National PlannedParenthood welcomed the decision ‘for advancing a majorscientific breakthrough such as RU 486’ (idem.).Others have speculated that it may be necessary to createa company that would solely test and market the drug. Sucha possibility was also mentioned by David Grimes. Hepointed out that ‘RU 486 is a relatively simple molecule tosynthesize’ and that there were already half a dozen smallCalifornian companies ‘that want to run with this thing’ andhave requested his help. As Grimes put it, The big boyswon’t touch it’ adding, ‘The problem is that [to duplicate orimport RU 486] you need the consent of Roussel Uclaf (Krier,1990: E 12).Whether the idea of a special purpose company is arealistic possibility for introducing RU 486 into the USAremains to be seen. Peter Huber, Senior Fellow at theManhattan Institute for Policy Research is sceptical. Hecommented that ‘readying RU 486 for FDA approval couldcost US$50 million to US$100 million in clinical tests andlegal fees…as much as US$125 million to US$200 millioninto marketing and distribution costs’ (Chapman, 1989:13).In addition, there is the fear of litigation, as Huber puts it:the two to four per cent ‘natural’ birth defects in childrenmight be blamed on RU 486.In addition to Roussel Uclaf’s reluctance to market RU486 in the United States, there is the problem of theprostaglandin needed for combination treatment with RU 486.Despite FDA approval for PGs in other areas, for exampleapproval of Cytotec (misoprostol) as an anti-ulcer drug, (seeChapter Four), no PG is approved for abortion purposes inthe US.15