Gli effetti nocivi della pillola RU486 sono finalmente sotto gli occhi di tutti.
Il 18 marzo scorso, in Belgio, è nato un agnello a sei zampe.
Abbiamo intervistato Maurice Peeters, proprietario e allevatore di mamma pecora e figlio. Ci ha rilasciato dichiarazioni sconvolgenti, in esclusiva per questo blog.
D.: può dirci che cosa è accaduto il 18 marzo?
R.: una delle pecore gravide ha cominciato a dare segni di un parto imminente; dopo un intero giorno di doglie ha partorito questo unico agnellino a sei zampe.
D.: aveva qualcosa di strano questa pecora?
R.: a dire la verità nel corso dell’autunno le avevamo somministrato una pillola abortiva.
D.: una pillola abortiva? alla pecora?
R.: si era accoppiata con un montone del nostro vicino, che ci aveva intimato di porre rimedio a questo increscioso incidente perché non desiderava discendenza; quando ci siamo accorti dello stato interessante della pecora le abbiamo somministrato la RU486, la cui sperimentazione era appena cominciata in Italia ma qui in Belgio è la prassi.
D.: e poi?
R.: qualcosa deve essere andato storto, avremmo fatto meglio ad eseguire una interruzione di gravidanza regolare, con tanto di raschiamento etc.
D.: ma non vi siete accorti che la gravidanza non si era interrotta?
R.: era ormai troppo tardi, sa con tutto il bestiame cui devo star dietro...
D.: pensa che l’anomalia del piccolo agnello sia una conseguenza della somministrazione della RU486?
R.: non sono un medico, solo un semplice allevatore, ma ritengo proprio di sì. Faccio questo mestiere da 40 anni e non mi è mai successo di vedere un agnello con sei zampe, nemmeno cinque ad essere sinceri.
D.: dunque lei sconsiglia di ricorrere alla RU486 in quanto pericolosa per la salute della madre e del nascituro?
R.: assolutamente sì; e mi pento anche di avere sottoposto Emma (la pecora) a questo strazio.
D.: che ne sarà dell’agnello a sei zampe?
R.: sarà il monito contro la tracotanza dell’uomo e della scienza. Speriamo che sopravviva, questa prima settimana sarà un periodo critico.
Post
5 commenti:
Non so se è vero, ma quando ero piccolo mi hanno insegnato che dare dolci ai cani è per loro - più che per noi - oltremodo nocivo.
Non so se quel che va bene per l'essere umano vada bene pure per gli ovini, o viceversa; sta di fatto che mi piacerebbe conoscere una volta tanto gli effetti sugli uomini (pare che da moltissimi anni - è prassi - questa pillola venga usata fuori dall'Italia). Chiedo troppo?
Leggetevi quanto scrive il New York Times - non proprio organo ufficiale del Movimento per la Vita - sulla Ru486.
Sarebbe interessante documentarsi un po' a riguardo, non credete?
Assuntina Morresi
New York Times 1.4.2006
Some Doctors Voice Worry Over Abortion Pills' Safety
By GARDINER HARRIS
Abortion rights advocates once hoped that RU-486 would prove at least as safe as surgical abortions and largely end the abortion wars by making access widely available and very private.
But in the wake of reports in March that two more women had died after taking abortion pills, some doctors say they are increasingly uneasy about prescribing them.
"None of these women should be dying; it's shocking," said Dr. Peter Bours, an abortion provider in Portland, Ore., who is rethinking whether to offer pill-based, or medical, abortions.
Dr. Warren Hern, a provider in Denver, said the latest reports demonstrated that abortions by RU-486, or Mifeprex, were far riskier than surgical ones. "I think surgery should be the procedure of choice," Dr. Hern said. Pills, he said, "are a lousy way to perform an abortion."
When followed up by another drug, misoprostol, Mifeprex induces a miscarriage that generally occurs within two weeks. To some women, this process seems more natural than surgery, and the expulsion of the fetus often takes place at home, which some also prefer.
But the number of women who have died in the United States after taking Mifeprex has now reached six, according to reports received by the Food and Drug Administration; another has died in Canada.
The drug has been used in more than 560,000 abortions in this country, so the reported risk of death is a bit more than one in 100,000. Some deaths may have gone unreported, meaning the real risk may be even higher.
By contrast, the reported risk of death associated with surgical abortion is one in a million, according to studies — one-tenth as high.
Quite apart from death, women who undergo medical abortions suffer an increase in complications, some doctors say. A 1999 study of 377 women found that those who took the pills suffered significantly higher levels of pain, nausea, vomiting and worrisome bleeding than those who underwent surgical abortions.
Pill-based abortions are also 5 to 10 times as likely to fail as surgical ones, and those that do fail require a follow-up surgical procedure in women whose pregnancies by then may have advanced significantly. Generally, the later a woman undergoes an abortion, the greater the risks.
The causes of the two most recent deaths are unknown, but all five previous fatalities resulted from infections with an unusually virulent bacterium called Clostridium sordellii.
F.D.A. officials said that there was neither a definitive link between the infections and RU-486 nor any concrete evidence that the drug increased the risk of infection beyond that found in women who underwent surgical abortions, suffered natural miscarriages or gave birth.
Dr. Cynthia Summers, a spokeswoman for Mifeprex's manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, said a comparison of the risks of medical and surgical abortion was unfair because, she said, reports of problems with surgical procedures were poorly collected.
And Dr. Vanessa Cullins, vice president for medical affairs at the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the nation's largest abortion provider, said, "Both surgical and medication abortion are extremely safe and effective procedures."
The two kinds of abortion "have comparable risks with the exception of what we have recently seen as it relates to septic fatalities," Dr. Cullins said.
Experts debate whether the method of administration has played a role in the deaths. When the F.D.A. approved Mifeprex in 2000, officials instructed doctors to give it and misoprostol orally. But Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers soon started instructing women to insert misoprostol vaginally at home two to three days after taking Mifeprex. This method allowed women to take lower doses of misoprostol and meant fewer office visits for abortion providers.
All five women who died of infections had inserted misoprostol vaginally, Dr. Cullins said. In France, where no deaths have been reported, the oral method of administration is still standard. Planned Parenthood announced on March 17 that it would go back to giving misoprostol orally.
Opponents of abortion have long argued that RU-486 is not safe and should be withdrawn. Some abortion rights advocates now concede that their counterparts are somewhat right.
"The complications associated with RU-486 far exceed the complications of surgical abortion," said Dr. Damon Stutes, a provider in Reno, Nev., who refuses to offer pill-based abortions. Dr. Stutes, whose clinic has been bombed, said he was uneasy about agreeing with abortion opponents on anything.
"But the truth is the truth," he said.
Still, Dr. Stutes and some other physicians interviewed did not call for Mifeprex's removal from the market, since the drug may be the only option available to women in some rural areas. But women who have a choice should be steered toward surgical abortions, these doctors said.
"One needs to tell patients that the medical procedure, even though it seems more natural, may be more likely to result in death," said Dr. Phillip G. Stubblefield, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Boston University.
Dr. Stubblefield speculated that women who had inserted misoprostol vaginally might have accidentally dragged the pill across the skin near the anus, inserting bacteria that then flourished. But Dr. Mitchell Creinin, director of the division of gynecologic specialties at the University of Pittsburgh, said the method of drug administration had nothing to do with the deaths. Miscarriages, both induced and natural, can lead to infections, he said.
Non mi sembra che l'articolo aggiunga delle novità significative. E avrai notato questa osservazione, no?: «All five women who died of infections had inserted misoprostol vaginally, Dr. Cullins said. In France, where no deaths have been reported, the oral method of administration is still standard».
Se ci saranno nuovi fatti, comunque, io sarò dispostissimo a cambiare la mia posizione. E tu?
E tu avrai notato la conclusione, visto che Creinin è uno dei primi sperimentatori della RU486:
But Dr. Mitchell Creinin, director of the division of gynecologic specialties at the University of Pittsburgh, said the method of drug administration had nothing to do with the deaths. Miscarriages, both induced and natural, can lead to infections, he said.
La novità, che capisco sia abbastanza scomoda e imbarazzante per gli ideologici sostenitori della Ru486, è che sul New York Times - che ammetterai non essere di posizioni proprio papaline - medici abortisti prendono le distanze dalla Ru, dicono che è schifoso abortire con la RU486.
"Dr. Warren Hern, a provider in Denver, said the latest reports demonstrated that abortions by RU-486, or Mifeprex, were far riskier than surgical ones. "I think surgery should be the procedure of choice," Dr. Hern said. Pills, he said, "are a lousy way to perform an abortion."
La novità è che oramai apertamente si parla di morti probabilmente sottostimate:
"The drug has been used in more than 560,000 abortions in this country, so the reported risk of death is a bit more than one in 100,000. Some deaths may have gone unreported, meaning the real risk may be even higher."
Ne riparleremo sicuramente, ne sono certa. Non mancheranno le occasioni. La stampa italiana non potrà fare a meno di prendere atto della marcia indietro sull'aborto chimico, e dell'enorme speculazione ideologica fatta sulla pelle delle donne. (Perchè Repubblica non traduce gli articoli del NYT sulla Ru486?) Che schifo.
AM
Per come la leggo io, la frase di Creinin («Miscarriages, both induced and natural, can lead to infections») mi sembra dire che l'infezione sia indipendente dal metodo usato per abortire, e che le morti non siano quindi addebitabili direttamente alla Ru.
Sulle morti sottostimate: se ricordo bene (non ho le fonti a portata di mano), in tutti e cinque i casi fatali di infezione da Clostridium sordellii la morte è avvenuta entro una settimana dall'aborto. Con una finestra temporale tanto ristretta mi pare improbabile che un decesso non venga collegato all'uso del farmaco.
Posta un commento