52718 The Social Life of TechnologyA2 Part 1: Controversy mapping case study preparation report

Title: The Controversial Use of the RU486 Abortion Pill and Technology

Synopsis: 

A medicine known as RU-486, which prevents fertilized eggs from implanting in the uterus, is a viable option for women seeking early abortions since it is both medically beneficial and safe. 1980 marked the beginning of work on RU486, although clinical trials of the medicine did not begin until 1987 (Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care, 2012). Because it is less expensive and has fewer unwanted consequences than competing technologies (Hanna, 1991), users in France consider it a beneficial technology. The abortion pill has not yet gained complete acceptance on a global scale; in fact, only a select number of countries, like France and China, make full use of the RU486 (Collins, 2022). Despite the fact that the vast majority of individuals in contemporary culture continue to hold the belief that abortion is immoral. When compared to the previous ways of aspiration, however, medical experts consider medical abortion to be one of the safest and most prevalent procedures. This has been the case for decades.

RU-486, much the same as the birth control methods, has been met with significant opposition from moralists who are concerned that it would reduce benefits of sexuality, importance of life, and basic human relationships to a mere game. These arguments often include remarks expressing worry about the health of women or the possibility of genocide via the use of contraceptives in undeveloped nations (King & Shields, 2019). However, studies that were analyzed by experts in the field have shown that RU-486 is a safer option for early abortions than suction methods. In addition to generating fewer adverse effects than suction abortions and being more cost-effective, RU-486 is safer than suction abortions.

Both supporters and detractors of RU486 have long maintained that the pill symbolizes desirable characteristics for women, such as the ability to self-administer the prescription, the avoidance of a surgical procedure, and the safeguarding of basic individual privacy. These are only a few of the favorable characteristics associated with the pill. Several Australian women have used the abortion medicine RU486 to terminate unwanted pregnancies in the previous 10 years. Because it is used so early in the pregnancy and “washes away” an embryo the size of a pea before it can implant or soon after, proponents of this procedure believe that it puts abortion closer to the category of contraception (Collins, 2022). In a medical abortion, the patient takes drugs recommended by their doctor in order to terminate the pregnancy. This is in contrast to a surgical abortion done in a clinic or hospital operating room. Despite the fact that mifepristone has been available for purchase in Australia since 2006, it is still only accessible to a small group of women in particular places.

Following its first release in France in the 1980s, mifepristone swiftly became the pharmaceutical of choice for medical abortions in many countries across the world. Because of its ubiquity, mifepristone has become the norm for medical abortions in many nations. Despite this, members of parliament in Australia negotiated an agreement that utterly disregarded women’s health concerns. In 1996, anti-abortion Senator Brian Harradine, who cast the decisive vote in the government, lobbied John Howard to adopt legislation limiting the use of mifepristone in Australia (Parliament of Australia, 2005). Mifepristone usage has been prohibited by law. Mifepristone was legally inaccessible to women in Australia for eleven years prior to the repeal of the Harradine Act in 2006 (Peterson, 2012). This restriction was only lifted when a coordinated national movement resulted in the repeal of the statute. However, this did not instantly result in a huge number of individuals having easy access to the medicine. Pharmaceutical companies denied the chance to develop or commercialize the medicine due to the controversy surrounding the event.

This case study’s goal is to track down the system of ideological, financial, and historical influences that have coalesced to slow the adoption of the abortion pill (RU-486) further into the global markets beyond France, thereby limiting its use, development, and regulation. This will be accomplished by looking at how these forces have interacted with one another over time. 

Relevance: 

It is possible to induce a miscarriage using medication, and this is how a medical abortion is performed (Rushton, 2020). It’s a huge improvement in abortion technology since it allows women to have them in safer, more convenient settings. Abortions that are not performed safely, particularly invasive abortions, put the life or health of the woman undergoing the operation in jeopardy. Estimates suggest that unsafe abortions performed in unsanitary circumstances by inexperienced individuals account for almost 13% of all maternal fatalities worldwide (King & Shields, 2019). Medical abortion, with or without a doctor’s assistance, is helping to reduce the number of deaths and diseases caused by hazardous, intrusive procedures gone wrong in regions of the globe where most abortions are still illegal. For example, a hysterectomy may be necessary if the patient develops sepsis or sustains a uterine perforation.

The use of medicine to end a pregnancy, often known as a medical abortion, usually includes the administration of more than one chemical. This method of terminating a pregnancy does not need any surgical treatment and may be performed in the comfort of one’s own home (Collins, 2022). People seeking abortions now have more alternatives than ever before, including taking pills rather of going through a clinic procedure. This is becoming a more common option. The abortion issue has moved in many parts of the world to include the use of abortion pills that may be taken at home to conduct an abortion. As more countries pass laws restricting or outright prohibiting surgical abortions, a growing number of women are opting for medication abortions, which include swallowing a pill prescribed by a medical expert. Currently, the only method to get these drugs is via personal visits to a medical institution such as a clinic or hospital; however, this may change shortly.

Sources:

For the research study, I chose to use primary sources from verifiable news sources and government data and information. Specifically, the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care and the Parliament of Australia data available in government websites were used to support the information relating to how RU486 entered the nation, its reception, and consequent information on its usage, banning, and other issues. I also chose to use leading news sources including the New Yorker and the Guardian, as well as The Conversation. These news sources are global, factual, and bias free on different matters. They present first hand interviews and statistics on usage of RU486. The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) was also used for a personal opinion piece on the opinion of doctors on the use of RU486.

Timeline:

Moment/Event in Evolution Explanation

Formal research project 1980-1987 Roussel-Uclaf begun formal research on the drug to advance the progress made since 1949.

Antiabortion protests in 1988-1990 Stopping of distribution of the drug due to social and political issues

Approval of mifegyne in Britain and Sweden 1991-1996 Political, religious and social issues forced RU-486 mass approval

Australia bans mifepristone use in abortions in 1996 Political, religious and social issues forced RU-486 ban in Australia

Hoechst AG buying of majority of shares in Roussel-Uclaf and end of manufacture and sale of Mifegyne 1997-1999 Mifepristone resumption in distribution and sales outside of the United States and France.

New Zealand and Australia lift bans on mifepristone 2005 Under special circumstances, Australia and New Zealand lifted the ban on RU-486

Approval for abortion in the United States 2000-2021 Mifepristone was approved as an abortion drug in the United States under licensed physicians.

Actor network diagram:

Relevance Social Actors Role in the Abortion and RU-486 Controversy

The Church (Catholic church) A religious stand on abortion informing public perception

Political and social events Political standstill on manufacturing and medical approval issues

Ownership and manufacturing problems Change of ownership and manufacturing requirements affecting availability of the RU-486

Bibliography:

Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care. (2012, 30 August). Registration of medicines for the medical termination of early pregnancy. [https://www.tga.gov.au/registration-medicines-medical-termination-early-pregnancy]. Accessed 3 October 2022.

Collins, L. (2022, July 5). The Complicated Life of the Abortion Pill. The New Yorker. https://www.newyorker.com/science/annals-of-medicine/emile-baulieu-the-complicated-life-of-the-abortion-pillKing, R., & Shields, M. (2019, May 4). RU486: The drug regional doctors can’t — and sometimes won’t — prescribe. ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-05/ru486-the-drug-country-gps-cant-and-sometimes-wont-prescribe/11077644Parliament of Australia. (2005, 28 November). RU486 for Australia? https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22library%2Fprspub%2FTI3I6%22

Peterson, K. (2012, September 11). Politics v women’s health: RU486 and the TGA saga. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/politics-v-womens-health-ru486-and-the-tga-saga-9472Rushton, G. (2020, July 14). Abortion drugs remain inaccessible, unsafe and unaffordable for many Australian women | Gina Rushton. the Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/commentisfree/2020/jul/15/abortion-drugs-remain-inaccessible-unsafe-and-unaffordable-for-many-australian-women