Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

RU 486drugs’ such as DES and Duogynon (one of the early heavydosecontraceptive pills). They also said, ‘the introductionof chemicals to the body can be no less intrusive than surgery’(p. 15) and pointed out that RU 486 causes greater bloodloss than conventional termination, thus reinforcing medicalsupervision. Finally, they cautioned against ‘fooling ourselveswith false hopes that this new pill might expand abortionoptions in countries which thus far prohibited abortions’.Similarly, Marie Vallée of the Quebec Family PlanningFederation, in an article entitled ‘RU 486—Another FakeMiracle?’ wrote in 1989 that nothing is known about longtermeffects, future fertility and babies born after repeateduse of the abortion pill. Valleé cautioned against rushing tosupport this drug and asked whether it is really the muchawaitedsolution to women’s 20-year demand ‘for moreresearch into products that do not endanger their health andthe health of their children’ (ISIS Women’s Health Journal1989:32).In response to the WGNRR Newsletter articles in favor ofRU 486, Rina Nissim, long-term women’s health activistand author, expressed disagreement with Callum, Downerand Berer (1989:5):20I’m surprised to find no criticism, doubts or disadavantagesof RU 486 described in those two articles… Since whendo we feminists trust a multinational pharmaceuticalcompany like this, without taking the time to search forinformation about possible short-term and long-term sideeffects, risk for the woman etc? Is Roussel Uclaf the mostreliable source for this information? Did you forget whatcounter-information is about?Nissim then described events that took place in Geneva in1982, with regard to the first trial. Working with theDispensaire des Femmes at that time, she had close contactswith Rolf Wyss, a member of the clinical trial team at the