Ru 486 Misconceptions Myths and Morals - ressourcesfeministes

RU 486percent of the treated patients had a decrease in hemoglobinexceeding 20 g/1 during the first week but no patient neededblood transfusion. No serious side effects were recorded (Swahnand Bygdeman, 1989:293, emphasis ours).Chemical Abortion versus Conventional AbortionProponents of RU 486/PG abortions claim that chemicalpregnancy terminations are safer than conventionalabortions. However, there have been no systematiccomparisons between RU 486/PG terminations, andconventional abortions performed by vacuum aspiration orsurgical dilation, curettage, and evacuation. Various medicaljournal articles make mention of brief and generalizeddifferences in the two methods, without noting that thecategory ‘surgical abortion’ is hardly monolithic or, for thatmatter, always surgical. Any comparison between RU 486/PG abortions and other conventional methods of abortionmust take as its starting point a delineation of the variousmethods that are lumped into the imprecise category ofsurgical abortion.Often, what are referred to as surgical methods are moreappropriately termed suction methods. The medical articlesfocused on RU 486/PG abortions omit any discussion of thevarious methods of conventional abortion, an omission thatis obfuscating and/or misleading. Routine first-trimesterabortions fall into several categories: more surgical abortionsperformed by dilation and surgical curettage, and usuallyinvolving a general anaesthetic; less surgical vacuumaspiration abortions and other suction methods involvingcurettage, but usually employing a local anaesthetic.Distinguishing between types of conventional abortionsis crucial since promoters of RU 486/PG abortions are nowroutinely using the terminology of surgical as opposed tochemical abortions. One of the most frequently-citeddifferences between these two methods, so defined, is that48