By Dr David van Gend
IN the humble scene at Bethlehem we see the deepest of human loves, a mother and her baby, blended with the newly revealed tenderness between God and his children, and that has given the Christian world its sense of the sanctity of human life – in particular that of the defenceless baby.
So a development like the abortion pill RU486 poisons the heart of what we hold dear.
It must be resisted, because when we defend the life between a mother and her baby against an assault like RU486, we are defending sacred ground.
It must always be stressed that it is the life of both mother and baby that we are defending. Their life cannot be separated.
When I gave testimony to the current Senate inquiry into RU486, Greens Senator Kerry Nettle tried to have me pit the mother against the baby, but I explained: “It is not just the death of the baby; it is the deathly effects on some – the gentler – women that are to me as great a tragedy as the loss of the baby’s life”.
Having said that, when Senator Nettle implied that there was only one life to be considered, with the question “Do you believe that women should have control over their own bodies?”, the only possible Bethlehem based response was: “Absolutely, but regrettably the other little body is not their body. Its heart beats at a different rate to their heart; it has a different blood group flowing through its veins … Where there is no medical indication for abortion and the baby was conceived through the consensual act of adults, the mother has a duty of care to that baby which is unmovable and she must most certainly defer to the life of that baby”.
So the debate is on, concerning a bill which seeks to remove all moral dimensions to the consideration of RU486 – and thereby ensure its importation – by taking away any oversight by the Health Minister and leaving the decision entirely with bureaucrats at the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).
The TGA is permitted to consider only a drug’s “safety, efficacy and quality”. Such ethically sterile criteria may be adequate for non-contentious medicines, but do not do justice to the complex moral issues surrounding a drug which is designed to kill. Our elected ministers must set the parameters for the use of any such drug, not abandon responsibility to unaccountable bureaucrats.
The Senate inquiry into RU486 is taking public submissions until January 16. For those who might be moved to write to the inquiry, I will outline the central issue, in the statement I gave to the senators.
The central question facing MPs and senators is this: Why should RU486 require special approval by Government when all other drugs are simply assessed by the TGA?
The answer is that abortifacients like RU486 are unique, as drugs designed to take life. That fact is of obvious public concern, raising serious moral issues, and requiring a special level of scrutiny and accountability by our elected representatives.
The current regulation of RU486 was established in 1996 on exactly this principle of accountability, and with bipartisan support.
On behalf of Labor, former Senator Belinda Neal spoke with a moral seriousness that we need to get back into this debate: “We acknowledge that this issue raises large concerns within the community. It raises issues beyond purely health issues. These issues need to be addressed by the executive of this government and addressed with absolute and direct accountability” (Hansard 9/5/96).
The Parliament in 1996 thereby aimed to prevent recurrence of the debacle in 1994 where an anonymous official in the Health Department approved the importation of RU486 without the minister’s knowledge.
As Senator Neal concluded, in support of Senator Brian Harradine’s bill: “We wish to ensure that, in circumstances where this drug is to be imported or supplied in Australia, the minister be required to approve the drug and that notification of this approval be given in this chamber”.
Parliament is again to debate the regulation of RU486, but this time the stated aim is to remove this accountability, so once more an official from the TGA can approve RU486 on mere technical grounds without the minister taking policy responsibility or the Parliament knowing.
Parliament should retain its proper accountability on difficult social questions, especially those touching on life and death and justice, and reject the attempt of the proposed bill to shift responsibility to an unelected group of bureaucrats and scientists in the TGA who have no statutory role to deal with complex social and ethical matters.”
Contrary to public misunderstanding, RU486 has never been banned for valid medical uses such as cancer and hormonal diseases – and at present it is being used in Australia for certain cancers – but if RU486 is confirmed as safe by the TGA, then any rare cases of medically essential termination of pregnancy should also be authorised by Government.
However, uses for RU486 which are medically unjustifiable, such as taking the life of healthy offspring to relieve the social distress of parents, should have no place in Government policy or medical advocacy.
RU486 must not be released as a mere human pesticide in the service of social abortion.
Instead, the compelling policy task for both Government and the medical profession is to strengthen social supports for women distressed by unplanned pregnancy.”
The bishops’ conference has made clear that it will work with Government to find effective ways of supporting distressed pregnant women.
That is the only response for those nurtured on Bethlehem’s tender images – especially in an era of late-term abortion, cloning and RU486, when the violent sounds of Herod’s soldiers seem ever louder and nearer.
Submissions to the Senate inquiry into RU486, even just a few sentences, can be sent before January 16 to: The Senate Community Affairs Committee Inquiry into RU486, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600. The committee prefers an e-mail attachment: community.affairs.sen@aph.gov.au or fax (02) 6277 5829. Inquiry Web site: www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/clac_ctte/ru486/tor.htm
Dr David van Gend is the Queensland secretary of the World Federation of Doctors who Respect Human Life.
[divider]
