I'm with Monte

Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne gives herself entirely too much credit.

Regarding Ontario's new sex-ed program, Conservative Monte McNaughton said:

“it’s not the Premier of Ontario’s job, especially Kathleen Wynne, to tell parents what’s age-appropriate for their children.”

Kathleen replied:

“What is it that especially disqualifies me for the job that I’m doing? Is it that I’m a woman? Is it that I’m a mother? Is it that I have a master’s of education? Is it that I was a school council chair? Is it that I was the minister of education? What is it exactly that the member opposite thinks disqualifies me from doing the job that I’m doing? What is that?”

Who cares about all that Kathleen? I don't, and I don't think anyone else in the province does either.

And Kathleen while we're at it, I don't trust you with running anything in this province. Why would I trust you with sex education? Remember those hard drives being wiped clean Kathleen? And what about those skyrocketing hydro rates? Or what about paying down Ontario's monstrous debt of $278,510,000,000 instead of increasing the debt like you're doing now?

And what about hiding abortion statistics Kathleen? Do you think that's part of your job too?

Monte, I couldn't agree with you more: It's not the Premier of Ontario's job, especially Kathleen Wynne, to tell parents what's age-appropriate for their children.

CIHI - 2013 abortion statistics published

CIHI releases 2013 abortion statistics. I haven't reviewed them yet. Looks like they released them in Excel format instead of the usual PDF format.

IPPF and Depo-Provera: what about informed consent?

When we inject harmful drugs into the arms of poor women in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mali, Sudan, and Tanzania, do we tell them of the drug's serious side effects?

I'm talking about the contraceptive Depo-Provera. (revealed through an access to information request to DFATD on the $6 million funding to IPPF for the Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health initiative)

IPPF (through DFATD) purchased 18,000 units of this drug in one year (2013-2014), and injected over a half million shots of it into these women since 2012. (1)

So what are the drug's side effects?

Depo-Provera doubles the risk of breast cancer in women (2), causes severe bone loss forcing Pfizer to put a black box warning (3) on the drug. The drug also has horrible side effects for women coming off the drug, as reported by women themselves. (4)

Are we telling them of these risks? What about informed consent (5)? Laura Shea of the Women's Health Network wrote a 22 page paper on this drug. She discusses Bone Density loss, and the other side effects. She also comments on its use in developing countries.

"Many women’s groups have opposed the use of injectable contraceptives like Depo Provera in developing countries because Depo Provera poses particular health concerns for poor women, who may have low bone density due to poor nutritional status. These women are already vulnerable because access to local health care facilities is often inadequate or non-existent, and the right to informed consent is often overlooked..."

And just last month we learned that Depo-Provera is linked to a 40% higher risk of HIV.

So what is Canada doing about this? We team up with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who also provides Depo-Provera to poor countries. (7)

One of the mantras repeated over and over again throughout the hundreds of pages of documentation I've received from DFATD on the IPPF funding, is how IPPF is helping "remote, under-served, poor, and vulnerable populations" in these countries.

Really?

Does IPPF inform these women of the very serious side effects of these drugs? Do they explain the risks in the women's own language? Do these women benefit in any way from informed consent?

I couldn't find any references in the mountain of documentation I received, that referred to informed consent in any way. Yet IPPF tells us they are helping "remote, under-served, poor, and vulnerable populations". With Canadian money.

(1)  

(2) A study of Depo-Provera

"found that for women between 20 to 44 Years of Age, continued use for 12 months or longer was associated with a 2.2-fold [95% confidence interval (CI), 1.2–4.2] increased risk of invasive breast cancer."

(3) Pfizer's black box warning:

"Women who use Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection may lose significant bone mineral density. Bone loss is greater with increasing duration of use and may not be completely reversible. It is unknown if use of Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection during adolescence or early adulthood, a critical period of bone accretion, will reduce peak bone mass and increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture in later life. Depo-Provera Contraceptive Injection should be used as a long-term birth control method (eg, longer than 2 years) only if other birth control methods are inadequate (see WARNINGS)."

(4) Coming off Depo-Provera can be a woman’s worst nightmare April 4th, 2012 by Laura Wershler

Side effects as reported by women themselves (682 comments)

Depo-Provera: Does this Contraceptive Choice Support the Health and Well-Being of

Adolescents and Young Women? (From a paper written by Laura Wershler for Canadian Woman Studies in 2005)

"One acknowledged outcome of Depo-Provera use is the time delay (three to 18 months or longer) after the last shot for a full return to fertility. This recovery time can be, for some women, fraught with distressing health problems for which no apparent treatment protocol exists. Weight gain is extremely common and more extreme in teenagers than adult women. Many women discontinue the drug for this reason. The depressive effects of DepoProvera are well known. Severe depression, anxiety, and paranoia have all been reported. Some women experience symptoms while on it, others experience depression after stopping the drug. Hot flashes, vaginal dryness, and other menopausal symptoms experienced by some women are directly due to the "bottomed-out levels of estrogen and testosterone" (Rako 1 10) that are also responsible for loss of bone density. Loss of desire for sex and loss of sexual sensitivity are also subsequent to hormonal depletion. Herein lays the irony of DepoProvera use by young women. The drug induces the hormonal profile of a menopausal woman and with it the potential to experience the full constellation of symptoms (once thought to be all in women's heads) that can so diminish the quality of life for women in mid-life and beyond. As a contraceptive choice for teenagers and young women, DepoProvera provides them the opportunity to experience loss of libido, vaginal dryness, unmanageable weight gain, depression, bone loss and other unpleasant outcomes in exchange for pregnancy prevention. These negative side-effects cause many women to stop using the drug, but others tolerate them, often not aware their symptoms are related to their choice of contraceptive. The other irony? Women who tolerate Depo-Provera best are most likely to take it long-term and, therefore, are most at risk for significant and potentially irreversible bone loss... "

(5) Reflections on Depo Provera: Contributions to Improving Drug Regulation in Canada 

"International use as a population control measure 

Historically, family planning programmes typically limited contraceptive choice to those methods that resulted in either: 1) permanent sterilization, or; 2) temporary sterilization as in the case of Depo Provera. Even before its approval as a contraceptive, Depo Provera was promoted by family planning programmes and population control agencies, predominantly in the so-called “developing” countries, because it was identified as a highly effective, provider-controlled technology that promised to drive down birth rates among poor women. Many women’s groups have opposed the use of injectable contraceptives like Depo Provera in developing countries because Depo Provera poses particular health concerns for poor women, who may have low bone density due to poor nutritional status. These women are already vulnerable because access to local health care facilities is often inadequate or non-existent, and the right to informed consent is often overlooked..." (emphasis mine)

(6) Depo-Provera Linked to Higher HIV Risk Researchers Find 

"Depo-Provera is associated with an increased risk of HIV infection in women, according to a review of research in Africa.

Women who receive the so-called “birth control shot” have about 40 percent higher odds of becoming infected with HIV, compared to women using some other form of birth control or no birth control at all, researchers reported."

(7) The Globe speaks to Stephen Harper and Melinda Gates about maternal and child health

"...And Mr. Harper, do you see that the same way, that reproductive health needs to be a part of the initiative? 

[Stephen Harper] Yes, there’s actually a myth that we don’t fund any family planning or maternal health. That’s not true. We do. We, specifically as a result of a vote in Parliament do not fund abortion services but we fund other forms. And yes, I do happen to believe that’s an essential part of the continuum."

RU-486 - myth #5 - everybody else is doing it

Renate Klein from her book RU486 Misconceptions, Myths and Morals, states in her conclusion:

"There is much about RU 486/PG that is fraught with risk and problems. As we have queried, what is the meaning of a `private' and 'de-medicalized' abortion that requires three or four doctor visits to a specialized center, includes the taking of two and perhaps five hazardous drug combinations, is accompanied by vaginal ultrasound, and too often has complications ranging from moderate bleeding to severe pain and, for some women, blood transfusions? If this is a private and de-medicalized abortion experience, then the word `private' has lost its definitional moorings..."

I puzzled over why such a dangerous drug, could be so blindly promoted by the pro-abortions.

Then Klein answers this question.

"...There are many reasons why individual women and women's groups have jumped on the RU 486/PG bandwagon. The packaging of the new abortifacient has been immensely successful. `The very nature of specialized knowledge and information, the complexity of the technology, the way the `advances' have been publicized in the popular media and such places as Science magazine and the incredibly slick marketing job which is being done, have had the effect of silencing criticism' (pers. comm. to from Judy Luce, June 1991). 

Many women's groups have taken the erosion of women' right to abortion, as well as the fear of playing into the hand of the right-wing, as incentive enough for promoting RU 486/PG. The philosophy prevails that 'we' — those who are committed to women's rights — must be for whatever 'they'' — those who are not committed to women's rights, i.e. the anti-abortionists — are against. However, this defense of RU 486/PG has been too much defined by a reaction to the right wing."

Klein then questions the dumping of drugs into our bodies:

"It has been the purpose of this report to demonstrate that many of the basic assumptions about RU 486/PG abortion need to be fundamentally re-examined...most of these reproductive drugs used to intervene in women's reproductive cycle often have serious risks and complications. Thus for the last quarter of a century, feminist health activists have been put in the position of risk management and risk communication, documenting the downside of such technologies and drugs. At the same time, reproductive technologists, while admitting that there are some risks, minimize them so that the technologies and drugs become acceptable and go forward, despite the complications. They offer studies that convince women that the risks can be managed and that if women want effective contraception, abortions, and children, the risks have to be lived with. 

At a time when the rest of the planet is being warned about the risks of chemical fixes, there is an enormous increase in the number and kinds of drugs that are being prescribed for women, especially in the reproductive realm. From a girl's birth to a woman's death, she is often prescribed fertility drugs, the pill, a new generation of anti-pregnancy vaccines that are especially being promoted in third world countries, tranquilizers, estrogen — currently, hormone — replacement therapy, and now RU 486/PG, a haphazard combination of two dubious drugs..."

Finally, I have noticed that one of the main reasons we should approve this drug (according to the pro-abortion media), is that there has been a truckload of other countries that have already done so. I say so what. Just because my friend jumps off a bridge doesn't mean I have to too.

Health Canada must follow the the existing evidence, as Renate Klein has done, and not approve this dangerous drug.

RU-486 - the series

Wednesday, August 5, 2015
Health Canada and RU-486: fatalities, endometritis, salpingitis and haemorrhages

Thursday, July 30, 2015
RU-486 - you won't get the truth from the pro-abortions

Sunday, February 15, 2015
RU-486 - myth #5 - everybody else is doing it

Friday, February 13, 2015
RU-486 - myth #4 - more on safety and remote areas

Wednesday, February 11, 2015
RU-486 - myth #3 - benefit to women in remote areas

Wednesday, February 4, 2015
RU-486 - myth #2 - private way to end a pregnancy

Wednesday, February 4, 2015
RU-486 - myth #1 - drug is safe and effective

Thursday, January 15, 2015
RU-486 can be lethal for women in remote areas

Friday, February 7, 2014
RU-486 is a bad idea

RU-486 - myth #4 - more on safety and remote areas

I've condensed this last blog post on RU-486.

The main points in it, were that the two doctors interviewed, Dr. Shelia Dunn, and Dr. Donna Harrison, differed on the safety of the drug, and whether or not it caused immune suppression in women, and whether or not it is a good idea for women in rural or remote areas.

My take away from the interview was that the drug is not safe, it does cause immune suppression in women, and that it should not be give to women in remote areas. Yet look at how The CBC's Current, and the Women's Health College tweeted the interview.

I wonder if they listened to the same interview that I did?

Dr. Sheila Dunn - On the immune system and side effects	Dr. Donna Harrison - On the immune system and side effects
There is really no significant effect on the immune system of one dose of mifepristone. There is bleeding associated with any kind of miscarriage. The abortion process of a medical abortion involves bleeding and involves cramping. So that's an expected effect. There are unusual situations where the bleeding is excessive, there needs to be a surgical aspiration to stop that bleeding but that is an uncommon situation. And it could be something that would be experienced in a miscarriage, or even potentially after the occasional surgical abortion, that could be a complication or side effect. Well we are always concerned about side effects. But this drug has been used extensively by millions of women over the last 20 or so years. There certainly were a few reports in the early 2000's of some fatal infections that were associated with the use of mifepristone. they were extensively investigated and there was really no causal association found, it was found to be associated with it, the same types of infections also associated with miscarriage, with delivery, with certain gynecological procedures so it's not exclusive to mifepristone abortions but these were unusual infections and I don't think we know now even, have an explanation for what happened but were extensively examined by the FDA and there was really no causal determination made in terms of the effect of mifepristone in the cases.	14 died and what that means is that 1 out of 100,000 rate of death which is exactly what we got with the rate which was initially looked at by the FDA for the rate fatal sepsis. Now when you look at the infection rate which is 1 out of 100,000 for this clostridium sordellii, the reason for that infection, that fatal infection is that both mifepristone and the second drug misoprostol suppress the immune system. And even a single dose of mifepristone on experimental animals causes those animals to be much more susceptible to infection in fact... There is extensive research looking at this and in fact mifepristone is responsible for immune suppression and if you look at the transcript of the meeting the FDA meeting and I was there they did tie it. In fact it's clearly tied to suppression of the immune system for this particular bacteria that killed women and in addition to that misoprostol has been extensively looked at in animal models and it also suppresses the immune system so you are taking two immune suppressant drugs and the women that died were healthy before and dead a week later. These are not women who are immune suppressed like HIV patients or diabetic, these were previously completely healthy women that died from a bacteria because their bodies could not respond, that's the reason why they died they were taking two powerful immune suppressing drugs, so if you actually look at the transcript, you'll see that the FDA and CDC clearly tied it taking these drugs.
Dr. Sheila Dunn on - Rural and remote areas In my opinion the big benefit in terms of Canada would be that it would offer women who are living in areas where access to abortion may be difficult for them: sort of northern, rural, remote, and in some provinces, like PEI, maybe NB, where women really can't easily access a surgical abortion, they may have to travel etc.Mifepristone could be provided in a village or a town by a primary care provider, the woman's own physician, and she could have the abortion in her own community instead of having to travel. That would enable her to get it more easily, it would probably enable her to get it sooner, the sooner a woman has an abortion, the safer it is. Every time it's delayed or its later in pregnancy it becomes a little less safe to have a surgical abortion. And just in terms of making it easier for her. So that she doesn't have the expense, the cost, and potentially difficult issues with childcare etc. that may be associated with having to travel.	Dr. Donna Harrison on - Rural and remote areas So that the women in rural areas that our first guest was talking about who are being targeted for this drug are exactly the same women who will be at much higher risk with serous complications, simply because they don't have access to that emergency surgery. And in the US one of the requirements for using mifepristone, is that a woman have 24 hour access to surgical completion in case she hemorrhages. See it's convenient for the abortion provider to give these drugs and walk away but an abortion provider in a rural area is not going to be there when the woman hemorrhages so that's a big concern especially for rural women. So I think you have got to put some context into a word like "safe". When I reviewed and published the first 607 adverse event reports that were reported to the FDA, there were 237 of those who hemorrhaged and of those 237, one of them was fatal, 42 were life threatening, that means they lost over one half their blood volume, and 168 were serious cases of which 68 required transfusions...

Good for Quebec

*** Forwarded message ***

In case you weren't aware already, the COLF has launched a campaign for palliative care that is backed by the CCCB. I highly recommend this video http://youtu.be/_xOtbZFbHLE where you will see Dr. Balfour Mount (founder of Palliative care in North America), and Jean Vanier speaking, amongst others, about their concerns regarding euthanasia. It sheds light upon why we should be concerned that the Supreme Court recently struck down the law against assisted suicide and euthanasia. The resources on this site are very informative as well, especially the button “Understanding Better”. Please check out this website on Life Giving Love and share with your friends and family.

http://www.lifegivinglove.com/english

RU-486 - myth #3 - benefit to women in remote areas

Not available in Canada

This is quite the interesting interview.

Anna Maria Tremonti from the CBC interviews four doctors on the drug RU-486.

I transcribed the interview below. What struck me about the segment, was the bias of the interview. Not that I'm surprised, being the CBC and all--but it was just so blatant.

Of the four people Anna Maria interviewed, three of them were "pro-choice" (Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, Dr. Joel Lexchin and Dr. Sheila Dunn) and only one was a pro-life doctor (Dr. Donna Harrison). Dr. Gomperts actually performs abortions on women who live in countries where abortions are illegal. Dr. Joel Lexchin wonders if "[the holdup to approve the drug] is a political decision, in other words, if this is pressure coming from the anti-abortions members of the conservative government to not approve this product". And Dr. Sheila Dunn easily sails through her questions, and is not interrupted by Anna-Maria--unlike the pro-life doctor, who is also asked, if her reasons for not supporting mifepristone, are based on ideology. whereas none of the three "pro-choice" doctors are asked the same question.

Gotta love our national broadcaster who can't get out of the way of their own ideology.

Read on, and make your own conclusions about this drug, how safe it is, and whether or not it is a good idea for women in remote areas of Canada. As it's quite long, I've bolded the good bits for your scanning pleasure.

Anna Maria: A pill called RU-486, known as an abortion pill has been available in Europe for more than 25 years, and in the U.S. for almost 15 years but is still not available in Canada. In fact, Health Canada's drug approval process for the Abortion Pill is taking longer than any previous drug approval process. Why?

It's known as mifepristone, or RU-486. Sometimes it's simply called "the abortion pill."

It's been used by women in the U.S. since the year 2000, and in France since 1988. In fact, millions of women in more than 50 countries around the world have used it. But it hasn't yet been approved for use in Canada.

Dr. Rebecca Gomperts, for one, wonders why that is. She's the founder of Women on Waves, an organization that sails a ship to countries where abortion is illegal to perform early medical abortions for women who need them. She's been using the abortion pill -- mifepristone -- with patients for more than 15 years."

Dr. Rebecca Gomperts: It's safer than Viagra, it's safer than penicillin, and it's safer than driving a car. So it's quite interesting to learn that there has been, again...an application process has been delayed again because it's really, especially in Canada, mifeprestone can make such a difference to women's lives and health. When it comes to RU-486 this is not a new drug. This is something that's been used for decades. It's used in multiple countries around the world. So it's hard to imagine that there's a need for more information about how it works or how safe it is. That information should be readily available based on previous experience...

Anna Maria: We asked Dr. Lexchin (Dr. Joel Lexchin, Professor at York University in Toronto) what could be the reason for the delay. He offered two possible explanations.

Dr. Joel Lexchin: One of them is possible because this is a small company and small companies may not be completely familiar with how Health Canada makes its decisions and the kinds of documentation...[and] based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, my other speculation is that this is a political decision, in other words, this is pressure coming from the anti-abortions members of the conservative government to not approve this product and that's what's holding it up but as I said I have no actual evidence to back that up.

Anna Maria: Mifespristone's effectiveness as an abortion pill was studied right here in Canada in the early 2000s. Dr. Sheila Dunn was a part of that research team. She's a family physician at Women's College Hospital in Toronto, and an Associate Professor of Family and Community Medicine at the University of Toronto.

Mifepristone has been available for medical abortions in the United States since 2000. But that's not to say that there's no debate over the drug there. In fact, some U.S. doctors don't feel that mifepristone is safe.

Sheila Dunn joins us now.

Anna Maria: Can you explain how mifeprestone works?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: Mifeprestone is a compound that blocks the action of hormones, and progesterone is a pregnancy that is produced in high levels in early pregnancy, and it really supports the development of the pregnancy. It supports the lining of the uterus, keeps the uterus quiet. It keeps things stable and growing there. So it's really a pregnancy supportive hormone. And mifeprestone blocks the action of that hormone.

Anna Maria: Is it that blocking that causes essentially a miscarriage?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: What it does is in blocking the action of progesterone it kind of destabilizes the pregnancy, it makes the uterus a little bit more irritable and then a second drug called misoprostol is administered a couple of days after the mifeprestone and that causes uterine contraction and it causes the cervix to open up and the products of conception and pregnancy is expelled.

Anna Maria: Now you researched the effectiveness of mifeprestone and just how effective is it?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: it's very effective. We know that certainly in terms of women who don't need any surgical completion of the abortion, it's probably about 97 % of women need no further treatment at all other than that particular drug. In our study we found that there was a little bit higher rate, maybe 4% of women who had a surgical procedure to complete the abortion but I think if you look at a number of different studies that that rate is potentially lower than that and it's maybe 1% of women it may not be effective in terms of terminating the pregnancy.

Anna Maria: So we can get all our cards on the table, did the drug company that developed and sells mifeprestone support or fund the trials that you did?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: no

Anna Maria: Is a medication based abortion safer than a surgical one?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: No. I'd say they are pretty comparable in terms of safety.

Anna Maria: who would benefit from mifepristone being approved in Canada?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: Women who may need abortions would benefit. First of all it would give them another choice in terms of method they might want to use to terminate a pregnancy. Many women actually don't want a surgical procedure. They might want to choose something that's more like a miscarriage such as a mifeprestone abortion. Many women don't like the idea to have instrumentation in the uterus. This would be another option for them. In my opinion the big benefit in terms of Canada would be that it would offer women who are living in areas where access to abortion may be difficult for them: sort of northern, rural, remote, and in some provinces, like PEI, maybe NB, where women really can't easily access a surgical abortion, they may have to travel etc. Mifepristone could be provided in a village or a town by a primary care provider, the woman's own physician, and she could have the abortion in her own community instead of having to travel. That would enable her to get it more easily, it would probably enable her to get it sooner, the sooner a woman has an abortion, the safer it is. Every time it's delayed or its later in pregnancy it becomes a little less safe to have a surgical abortion. And just in terms of making it easier for her. So that she doesn't have the expense, the cost, and potentially difficult issues with childcare etc. that may be associated with having to travel.

Anna Maria: Some doctors have expressed concern about the side effects of mifepristone , the main one being that it can lead to fatal sepsis. Are those valid concerns?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: Well we are always concerned about side effects. But this drug has been used extensively by millions of women over the last 20 or so years. There certainly were a few reports in the early 2000's of some fatal infections that were associated with the use of mifeprestone. they were extensively investigated and there was really no causal association found, it was found to be associated with it, the same types of infections also associated with miscarriage, with delivery, with certain gynecological procedures so it's not exclusive to mifepristone abortions but these were unusual infections and I don't think we know now even, have an explanation for what happened but were extensively examined by the FDA and there was really no causal determination made in terms of the effect of mifepristone in the cases.

Anna Maria: What about something, like does it repress the immune system?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: There had been some thoughts that might be an explanation for it but these were not found to really to explain it. There is really no significant effect on the immune system of one dose of mifeprestone.

Anna Maria: I wanted to go back to the idea that it blocks progesterone. That would mean it's blocking it throughout the body. Is that dangerous for the brain, the breasts...

Dr. Sheila Dunn: This is a one time dose that has a profound effect on very sensitive tissues, such as the tissues that would support an early pregnancy, but in terms of other impacts, no.

Anna Maria: What about bleeding?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: There is bleeding associated with any kind of miscarriage. The abortion process of a medical abortion involves bleeding and involves cramping. So that's an expected effect. There are unusual situations where the bleeding is excessive, there needs to be a surgical aspiration to stop that bleeding but that is an uncommon situation. And it could be something that would be experienced in a miscarriage, or even potentially after the occasional surgical abortion, that could be a complication or side effect.

Anna Maria: is mifeprestone subject to a higher % of side effects than other prescriptions or even over the counter medication.

Dr. Sheila Dunn: No it's been shown to be a very safe drug we use lots of drugs over the counter that have the potential to be quite unsafe specifically for certain individuals, this is a drug that would be used by a provider who would assess a situation and there would be close medical supervision so I think it's a very safe drug.

Anna Maria: What was your reaction when you heard that Health Canada was delaying its decision on mifeprestone until the fall?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: I was disappointed. I am encouraged because I think we will see it. But it's one more length of time that Canadian women have to be without this drug that other women in other countries have access to and I think there is very good reason to think we need this drug in Canada to make sure that women across the country have good access to abortion that meet their reproductive health needs.

Anna Maria: If it is approved will it be smooth sailing after that or do you see other hurdles with this drug?

Dr. Sheila Dunn: Once its approved there needs to be some strategies to make sure that people who would be providing it would be able to provide it safely and effectively. Do the associated counseling that women women might need to make sure that there are structures in place that in terms of follow up that women can have the follow up they need, so I think there's a sort of implementation role that will need to be done that involves training and some thought but it's really not a complicated drug to use and this would just be something to ensure that its used in the most effective and safe way.

Anna Maria: Dr. Donna Harrison is next (Dr. Donna Harrison is the executive director of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. She was in Eau Claire, Michigan.)

Anna Maria:: You just heard that our first guest say that the research say this is a safe drug. It should be approved here for se here in Canada. What is your position on the safety of mifepristone?

Dr. Donna Harrison: I think we need to put some numbers on the word "safe". We know that roughly 1 out of every 20 women who have mifeprestone abortions will have a complication. Like major bleeding, some of those requiring blood transfusions, and emergency surgery, failed abortion with pregnancy tissue left inside, and also a need for emergency surgery to complete the failed abortion. So that the women in rural areas that our first guest was talking about who are being targeted for this drug are exactly the same women who will be at much higher risk with serous complications, simply because they don't have access to that emergency surgery. And in the US one of the requirements for using mifeprestone, is that a woman have 24 hour access to surgical completion in case she hemorrhages. See it's convenient for the abortion provider to give these drugs and walk away but an abortion provider in a rural area is not going to be there when the woman hemorrhages so that's a big concern especially for rural women. So I think you have got to put some context into a word like "safe". When I reviewed and published the first 607 adverse event reports that were reported to the FDA, there were 237 of those who hemorrhaged and of those 237, one of them was fatal, 42 were life threatening, that means they lost over one half their blood volume, and 168 were serious cases of which 68 required transfusions... (interrupted by Anna Maria)

Anna Maria: Out of how many women who took the drug?

Dr. Donna Harrison: At that point we had, well that's an excellent question because although the manufacturer was supposed to have tracked the drug and kept count of it the manufacturer didn't do that, so we didn't have an idea of how many. We can say roughly it was probably in the 1000,000s, but you're still talking exactly what she said about 4% of rate of complications. But 4% means one out of 20 women. So it's not like you can look at the numbers and say oh well it's okay that these women who were previously healthy are now hemorrhaging or may have died, these are all women who were healthy who didn't have to be exposed to this kind of a risk.

Anna Maria: the FDA, the American body responsible for approving drugs in the US , and its own figure show that one and a half million women over 10 years, 14 died while taking mifeprestone, of those deaths none of those could be conclusively tied to mifeprestone.

Dr. Donna Harrison: well that's a little bit of spin there. 14 died and what that means is that 1 out of 100,000 rate of death which is exactly what we got with the rate which was initially looked at by the FDA for the rate fatal sepsis. Now when you look at the infection rate which is 1 out of 100,000 for this clostridium sordellii, the reason for that infection, that fatal infection is that both mifeprestone and the second drug misoprostol suppress the immune system. And even a single dose of mifeprestone on experimental animals causes those animals to be much more susceptible to infection in fact...(interrupted by Anna Maria)

Anna Maria: yet we just heard our last doctor tell us that it fact they looked extensively into that issue and they could not significantly tie immune suppression to this drug.

Dr. Donna Harrison: well...(interrupted by Anna Maria)

Anna Maria: ...After extensive research

Dr. Donna Harrison: Well that's actually not true, I was there at the FDA...(interrupted by Anna Maria)

Anna Maria: ...so you're telling me she's not telling me the truth?

Dr. Donna Harrison: What I'm telling you is that there is extensive research looking at this and in fact mifeprestone is responsible for immune suppression and if you look at the transcript of the meeting the FDA meeting and I was there they did tie it. In fact it's clearly tied to suppression of the immune system for this particular bacteria that killed women and in addition to that misoprostol has been extensively looked at in animal models and it also suppresses the immune system so you are taking two immune suppressant drugs and the women that died were health before and dead a week later. These are not women who are immune suppressed like HIV patients or diabetic, these were previously completely healthy women that died from a bacteria because their bodies could not respond, that's the reason why they died they were taking two powerful immune suppressing drugs, so if you actually look at the transcript, you'll see that the FDA and CDC clearly tied it taking these drugs.

Anna Maria: Is your...um...first of all...there are 60 countries who have approved this drug? (stumble, stumble)

Dr. Donna Harrison: correct

Anna Maria: If it's so unsafe why have 60 countries gone along with it.

Dr. Donna Harrison: Well there's a lot of political pressure for population control and I think it's a sad thing that people are willing to give a drug that has four times as many complications as surgical abortions just simply because they...I don't know why people don't care about their women and why they think it's okay that women take a drug that is much much more associated with complications than surgical abortion.

Anna Maria: Is your opposition to this drug based on the medical analysis that you just cited or is there also an ideological stance for you?

Dr. Donna Harrison: Well I was the one responsible for, myself and another physician, looking at the first 607 adverse event reports that were submitted to the FDA and this drug as I followed it and followed it through the pharmacology, this drug is a very powerful drug and I think that the spin that is being put on it that you just pop this pill and the abortion is over--is just not true. So I think it's important that women know that when they take the drug the issue of informed consent, that this drug is associated with this increased risk of fatal infection, it's four times as likely that they will have a complication from this than if they have a surgical abortion and the drug does not work right away. It takes a week as opposed to 15 minutes for a surgical abortion.

Anna Maria: Have you ever prescribed it?

Dr. Donna Harrison: I have not, no.

Anna Maria: is it available in Michigan?

A It's available in Michigan

Anna Maria: Is it popular?

Dr. Donna Harrison: Well it depends on whether you've had a complication or not.

Anna Maria: What I mean is, is it widely prescribed?

Dr. Donna Harrison: I think the abortion in the US about one fourth of them are medical, so it is being used but there are complications from it and it's not a simple drug.

Assisted suicide: notwithstanding clause and palliative care‎

For Immediate Release                                                                               February 10, 2015

Vellacott urges use of “notwithstanding clause” in face of Supreme Court allowing doctors to use lethal injection on their patients

OTTAWA –In response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Carter case, in which the Court gave Parliament one year to enact legislation in light of the Court declaring unconstitutional the Criminal Code provisions that “prohibit physician‑assisted dying for competent adults who seek such assistance as a result of a grievous and irremediable medical condition that causes enduring and intolerable suffering,” MP Maurice Vellacott said:

I am deeply concerned and saddened by the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize in some circumstances what it calls “physician-assisted death.”

How we respond now to this landmark decision will affect the people of Canada and the values we hold dear for years and decades to come. We are at a turning point in our history. In responding to this decision, we are called upon to grapple with tough questions about our nature as human beings and as social beings, questions about the sanctity of human life, compassion, hope, autonomy, fear and despair.

The road ahead for Canada in the aftermath of this life and death decision imposed on us by the Supreme Court is unclear. Many are fearful of what lies ahead for them, that protections on which they once relied will be gone. The medical profession is looking to Parliament to set parameters on the power the Court has now given them to help their patients end their lives.

Given all the stakeholders who will need to be consulted on this emotional and sensitive issue, and given the profound consequences for individuals, for the medical profession, and for society, it defies understanding why the Supreme Court would give Parliament only one year to respond with new legislation.

Canadians are divided on this issue which involves the deliberate taking of human life. No major political party is united on this issue. All parties support access to palliative care for all Canadians who need it.  If ever there was a time to take back the political principle of “the supremacy of Parliament,” the time is now.

As such, I am calling upon all party leaders to set aside their partisan differences and unite in support of using the Charter’s section 33 “notwithstanding” clause in order to give Parliament the time itneeds to conduct broad enough consultations to discern: how we can implement a plan to provide the resources and substantial palliative care‎ to significantly alleviate suffering so that requests to die will be reduced to a minimum; and how to provide appropriate parameters and safeguards in response to the Supreme Court’s decision.

Now is the time for Parliament to act with courage, for the sake of all Canadians, and for the future of Canada. Let us not look back years and decades from now with regret that we didn’t take the time to get it right when we had the chance.

– 30 –

For further information and comment, call (613) 992-1966 or (613) 297-2249; email: maurice.vellacott.a1@parl.gc.ca

CIHI releases 2013 abortion statistics on Feb. 17

• February 17, 2015
  Induced Abortions Reported in Canada in 2013
  Data tables and stakeholder notification
  This product summarizes induced abortion data from hospitals and clinics in Canada. Volumes are presented at the national and provincial/territorial levels (service provider and patient residence) and by additional breakdowns (e.g., age group, gestational age). Important notes concerning coverage, data sources and methodologies are also included.
• 
  

Conscience rights for doctors more important than ever

Now that the Supreme Court has struck down Canada’s laws against assisted suicide, doctor's conscience rights are even more important. Watch this short video.

Visit CMDScanada.org for more information

Deadline to submit feedback is Feb. 20, 2015 in Ontario. Visit the CPSO site to provide feedback and to view the policy entitled "Professional Obligations and Human Rights" .

CPSO - freedom of conscience rights are sacred

My letter in the National Post today

Why would the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Ontario insist doctors be forced to refer for treatment that goes against their conscience? As MP Maurice Vellacott recently stated, there is “no other jurisdiction that currently allows euthanasia or assisted suicide imposes such an obligation.”

Requiring doctors to act against their conscience and/or be complicit in an act they find morally reprehensible is a surely not a road we wish them to travel. If I knew my doctor could so easily leave his conscience by the side of the road when treating me for “A,” then how could I ever trust him when treating me for “B”?

When doctors signed up to become doctors, they did so knowing their freedom of conscience rights were sacred. Creating a policy that tramples on these fundamental rights is wrong and dangerous.

Patricia Maloney, Ottawa.

RU-486 - myth #2 - private way to end a pregnancy

(Excerpt from Renate Klein's book RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals)

Privacy versus Control

"Many of the claims about RU 486 are based on its supposed privatization of the abortion experience. Ellen Goodman, for example, in her syndicated column, calls for the marketing of RU 486 in the United States. `What could be more private than taking a pill? How could a state control swallowing?' (1989: 11). Like Goodman, the media presentation of the new abortion pill in western countries tends to simplify and idealize the drug. The going wisdom holds that a woman pops a pill in the privacy of her own home and the pregnancy disappears.

The medical literature tells another story, belying the myth of the do-it-yourself abortion, Yet here too, the rhetoric of more control for women over the abortion experience exists with an entirely different reality. At a European meeting of gynecologists and obstetricians in 1987, Etienne Baulieu proclaimed that 'RU 486 could be a prototype of the second generation of ways of giving women more control of their fertility' (Baulieu, 1988b: 128). But in the medical journal article, on the same page, and in the same paragraph, he also said `... it should be given under strict medical supervision in specialized centers' (idem.). So what are women to make of these conflicting claims and is effective doublespeak?

The clearest answer lies in the medical journal article themselves. The conclusions that much of the medical literature draws are not consistent with the findings that the articles present. Additionally, every article, without exception, remarks that RU 486 should be administered only under strict medical supervision. The reality of medical surveillance is not simply physician oversight from a distance but a highly medicalized, multi-step, time-consuming procedure which, for many women, involves continuous suffering and pain. This treatment regimen deserves careful scrutiny.

1. A woman seeking a chemical abortion must submit to physical examination and pregnancy test. This includes a pelvic examination to see if there is any uterine bleeding or previous pelvic infection. During the physical examination, women should be checked for contraindications, making the drug more dangerous for certain women. Most centers, now testing or administering the new abortion pill, use vaginal ultrasonograph i.e. sound waves that project a picture of the embryo a a screen to estimate gestational age of the pregnancy and/or a determination of serum human chorioni gonadotropin (B-hCG) to confirm and define the age a woman's pregnancy.

2. Depending on the legal situation in a particular country, many centers impose awaiting period of at least 24 hours or more after which a woman must return to the clinic hospital for RU 486, given in tablet form (usually three). Contrary to the popular picture of the pill-popping abortion, a woman does not take these tablets home but usually swallows them in the presence of a nurse or doctor while she is at the clinic. This has been one of the myths supporting the privatization argument for RU 486. Some feminists have claimed that women eventually will be able to obtain RU 486/PG at the local supermarket. However a woman must go to a clinic or other medical center to obtain the tablets and return to the center for several visits. During the 48 hours between RU 486 and PG administration, women are required not to smoke or drink alcohol.

3. Procedures at this point vary. Some centers that give RU 486 alone require the woman to visit the clinic seven days after RU 486 administration to confirm that the embryo has been expelled completely. Most centers, however, now administer prostaglandins in concert with RU 486 to hasten and strengthen the contractions that will ultimately propel the embryo from the uterus. Thus women once again must return to the clinic for a prostaglandin injection, vaginal prostaglandin suppositories, or, more recently, oral prostaglandins. The prostaglandins are usually given 36-48 hours after RU 486 administration because it takes this time to fully sensitize the myometrium (part of the uterine lining) to contract (see Chapter Four for an alternative theory).

4. Then the wait begins. Many clinics keep women prone for three to four hours, in the hope that the embryo will be expelled before sending them home. Other women wait longer hours, days, and some even weeks. The only thing private about RU 486 is that the final stage of the abortion, the expulsion of the embryo, often happens at home — or someplace else. To call this an at-home abortion is deceptive, to say the least, since most of the treatment transpires in the clinic or hospital and is extremely medicalized. What actually happens at home can be an excruciatingly long wait for the embryo to be expelled from the uterus, accompanied by pain: bleeding, vomiting, nausea, and other complications that are drawn out over a substantially lengthy period of time compared with a conventional abortion.

5. Finally, a woman must return several days later for physician's examination to make sure abortion complete. (Some studies mention as many as three follow-up appointments, e.g. Hill et al., 1990a: 415). Again, vaginal ultrasound and/or a determination of B-hGG used to ascertain whether the pregnancy has be en terminated and whether the embryonic tissue has been totally expelled. At this point the woman receives another pelvic examination, the third within a time period usually eight days. The pelvic examination, vaginal ultrasound, and other instruments used internally in chemical abortion are important to emphasize, because women have been led to believe that an RU 486/P abortion is free of medical instruments inserted into the body. This misrepresentation singles out only suction curettage as an invasive internal or instrument procedure. In actual fact, chemical abortion involves the use of more interventionist instrumentation than conventional abortion.

6. If abortion is not complete, then a conventional is performed. Between two and 13.4 per cent of undergoing RU 486/PG terminations endure abortion jeopardy (Gao et al., 1988).

How does the claim that RU 486 is a private means of abortion square with the claim that it needs close medical supervision? It doesn't. Physicians have been very explicit that RU 486 will never be available over the counter for do-it-yourself abortions..."

(Pages 25-28 excerpt of Renate Klein's book RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals)

CPSO's "effective referral" policy misunderstood by spokesperson?

CPSO is seeking public input on a draft policy that would force doctors to refer for services which they are legally entitled to.

From the National Post:

"If ap­proved, the new pol­icy would re­quire doc­tors to make those re­fer­rals. 

In an emer­gency, doc­tors would even have to pro­vide ser­vi­ces them­selves, re­gardless of re­li­gious be­lief. 

Sim­i­lar poli­cies are al­read­y in place in Al­berta, Mani­toba, Que­bec and New Bruns­wick, 

Dr. Ga­bel says: “This is noth­ing new.”"

But Dr. Marc Gabel is wrong to say Alberta, Manitoba and NB have "similar" policies to CPSO's "effective referral" policy.

CPSO's "effective referral" is:

"Where physicians are unwilling to provide certain elements of care due to their moral or religious beliefs, an effective referral to another health care provider must be provided to the patient. An effective referral means a referral made in good faith, to a non-objecting, available, and accessible physician or other health care provider."

Those provinces require a referral to a doctor who will provide information about a procedure, not the procedure itself. See: Appendix 3 of CPSO's annual meeting of Council.

New Brunswick:
Referrals: When moral or religious beliefs prevent a physician from providing or offering access to information about a legally available medical or surgical treatment or service, that physician must ensure that the patient who seeks such advice or medical care is offered timely access to another physician or resource that will provide accurate information about all available medical options.

Manitoba:
Referrals: If the moral or religious beliefs of a member prevent him or her from providing or offering access to information about a legally available medical treatment or procedure, the member must ensure that the patient who seeks that advice or medical care is offered timely access to another member or resource that will provide accurate information about all available medical options.

Alberta:
Referrals: When moral or religious beliefs prevent a physician from providing or offering access to information about a legally available medical or surgical treatment or service, that physician must ensure that the patient who seeks such advice or medical care is offered timely access to another physician or resource that will provide accurate information about all available medical options.

See my previous posts on CPSO and conscientious objection here and here.

RU-486 - myth #1 - drug is safe and effective

I hope Health Canada reads Renate Klein's book (RU486: Misconceptions, Myths and Morals) before they approve RU-486. The book contains a lot of disturbing information about this dangerous drug. Information that I notice is conspicuously missing of late, from the pro-abortions' cries to have the drug approved (especially the Globe and Mail) here, here and here.

It's important to realize that Renate Klein is pro-choice.

The pro-abortions think the drug is "safe and effective". Renate Klein, the author of RU486, has issues with this sentiment:

"Readers might not draw the same conclusion [that the drug is safe and effective], like hemorrhage-like bleeding, including the need for a blood transfusion, and/or re-evacuation, cardiovascular problems, a potentially lethal infection, or an ongoing pregnancy." (Page xiv in the Preface)

Klein tells us about Regine Sitruk-Ware, an early researcher from France.

"Sitruk-Ware confirms that an average of 10% of women suffered from excessive bleeding, another 1.4% required hemorrhage-controlling curettage, and .25% a blood transfusion. These numbers appear low but extrapolated to approximately 1.5% million women in the USA alone who, according to the FDA, by 2011 had undergone an RU-486/PG abortion, this amounts to approximately 150,000 women who bled excessively, 21,000 who had to endure a second procedure (a curettage to terminate their pregnancy); and 3750 women who needed a life-saving blood transfusion." (emphasis mine) (Page xv-xvi in the Preface)

Then then there are infections: A Canadian woman died in 2001 from septic shock, after an infection with the anaerobic bacterium Clostridium sordellii. Seven US women died in 2005 from septic shock after being infected with the same bacterium. Klein states:

"The particular danger is that C. sordellii does not cause fever, so in the absence of warning sighs, the infection spreads."

Then an Australian woman died on 2010 by an aerobic Streptococcus A infection.

There is also potential danger to the fetus if in a failed abortion, the pregnancy continues, because of unknown risks to the fetus.

According to Klein, Sitruk-Ware also warns against taking RU 486/PG for women with:

"allergies, renal failure, liver failure, and malnutrition, due to the fact that specific studies have not been conducted on impaired metabolism after use of RU 486/PG. Her warning against [its] use to women with malnutrition--if taken seriously--would eliminate its use for women in poor countries (where anemia is endemic) who are said to be the major beneficiaries of RU/486PG abortion by its eager promoters." (Page xvii in the Preface)

Then Klein warns that most adverse affects, are not even reported to the DFA:

"The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published 'A postmarketing Events Summary' up to 30 April in 2011. It contains a list of adverse events that are reported to the FDA. We should bear in mind that only between l and and 10% of` adverse reactions to medicines are ever reported to the FDA; in other words the real numbers of adverse effects could be even 100 times higher. (emphasis mine)

With this proviso in mind, in 2011, the FDA recorded 2,207 adverse events; 14 deaths; 612 hospitalizations (excluding deaths); 58 ectopic pregnancies; 339 women who experienced blood loss requiring transfusions; and 256 infections, 48 of which were `severe' (2011a). 

Of the US deaths, the FDA reports that 8 were associated with sepsis (7 tested positive for C. sordellii, 1 for C. peifringens, another anaerobic bacterium). The FDA also mentions 5 more deaths from other countries." (Page xxiii-xxiv in the Preface)

What some pro-choice doctors say about RU486/PG

...the New York Times reported that even a number of `pro-choice' doctors voiced concern over the dangers of RU 486/PG abortion. One was Dr Warren Hern, a provider in Denver, who said the latest reports demonstrated that abortions by RU 486 (called Mifeprex in the USA), were far riskier than surgical ones. "I think surgery should be the procedure of choice," Dr Hern said. "Pills are a lousy way to perform an abortion" (in Harris, April 2006) . Dr James McGregor, a visiting professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Southern California, said RU 486 might make women more susceptible to C. sordellii in part because the drug may inhibit mechanisms that moderate immunity. In cases of toxic shock, the body's immune response becomes lethal. "The body ends up attacking itself, and RU-486 may encourage this attack" Dr McGregor said (in Harris, May 2006) . The FDA put a `Black Box Warning' on RU 486's Patient Information alerting health professionals and users to the risk of serious and sometimes fatal infection and insisting that oral misoprostol be used. (A Black Box warning required by the FDA of a pharmaceutical company to put on its Patient Information sheet, is the strongest warning. It means that medical studies indicate that the drug carries a significant risk of serious or even life-threatening adverse effects.)" (Page xiv-xxv in the Preface)

More later.