The AMA are continuing their push to reduce the legal liability of their members by publishing another call for the decriminalisation of abortion. The article, loosely disguised as a synopsis of the legality of early medical (drug-induced) abortion, promotes decriminalisation of abortion on the grounds that this would protect medical practitioners from criminal liability. Published in the July edition of the Australian Medical Journal, the article is written by Kerry Petersen, Associate Professor at the La Trobe University school of law in Melbourne.
Early medical abortion is generally used around 6-8 weeks gestation. It is refered to as ‘early’ but nevertheless after the baby’s heart begins to beat. In the western world, the drug combinations of choice are methotrexate-misoprostal or mifespristone-misoprostal (RU486). Both cause the growing embyo to starve to death, and then induce labour to dispel the embryo and placenta.
Strangely, the introduction and conclusions of the article have little if any link to the material work. The introductory material is a quote-fest of controversial articles, reports and opinion pieces with no critical analysis. The closing statements include fairly obvious points that amount to saying that decriminalisation will make it easier to legally provide abortion services. Other conclusions are completely unsupported such as the claim that decriminalisation will ‘promote the health interests of Australian women’.
One of the article’s key claims is that ‘very few women have access to medical abortion’ and that outlawing RU486 ‘denied the choice of a safe alternative to surgical abortion’. However, medical abortion is readily available in Australia – both through GPs and via the major players in the Australian abortion industry (eg Marie Stopes). This is clearly stated on their websites. Ms Petersen’s claim is at best an erroneous guess, as medical abortion is not reportable (despite recommendations by a Federal Senate enquiry recommending this), and does not have a unique Medicare code.
Ms Petersen’s article also suggests that medical abortion using the widely available methotrexate-misoprostal drug combination is less effective than the unauthorised RU486, but provides no references that support this. In fact, the distinction between methotrexate abortions and mifepristone abortion is difficult to discern in the literature. Some quick research finds articles quoting a similar experience for the patient, and similar risk rates. It is therefore difficult to agree that RU468 should be authorised for abortion in Australia.
Ms Petersen expresses concern that the illegally imported abortifacients are being used without medical supervision – a modern ‘backyard abortion’. The article doesn’t, however, discuss the potential for authorised RU486 use to encourage unsupervised abortion. The ‘telemed’ method of delivering medical abortions without direct consultation with a doctor has already been piloted in Planned Parenthood clinics in the US. This disturbing and reckless bid to increase market share in the abortion business demonstrates that registration of RU486 may not lead to better medical supervision. In fact, it opens up the possibility of completely unsupervised abortions.
It seems the AMA will use any and all methods within it’s power to convince Australia that abortion should be decriminalised. Sadly it has abandoned both truth and reason in the attempt. Perhaps this is because there is simply no genuine argument for decriminalisation.
