Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Repeal of Ministerial Responsibility for Approval of RU486) Bill 2005 Discussion

Senator JOYCE—I would like to put this on the record; I would like to help you out. I will retract that statement about shooting a mother. I think that was unreasonable; I should not have said it. My position is, though, that a baby in anybody’s body is no more that person’s property than a baby in a pram is the property of the pram. What I would like to ask is: at what stage do you think a person in their human development actually attains rights? At what juncture? We have been talking about the rights of the unborn. What time do you think they actually attain rights? I will put that one on notice because I have to go.

You mentioned that we do not know what the effects of the drug are. You also quoted the college of gynaecologists, who have said this process is fair and reasonable. Can you just explain, therefore, why none of the companies we can find out who develop prostaglandin actually recommend it for this abortifacient use? Could you just clear that up, because not one of the prostaglandin manufacturers want it used as an abortifacient? It is just a simple question: when do you think a child attains its rights, or do you think it does not have any?

Dr Cannold—I am a philosopher so I am quite happy to take that one up. I just wanted to ask the chair something. Do you want me, as a philosopher, to talk about that broader question of when an embryo takes on and acquires a right to life or is that something that is outside the terms of reference of this committee?

CHAIR—To be frank with you, I think it is outside the terms of reference. Witnesses have raised today questions about general availability of abortion and I might suggest that this issue, strictly speaking, is outside the terms of reference. You might care to take the question on notice and give information to the committee on notice.

Dr Cannold—I am happy to give Senator Joyce my book. I have written a whole book about the philosophy of abortions.

CHAIR—For the benefit of the rest of us, you might want to take that question on notice.

Dr Cannold—Do you want the answer?

CHAIR—If you want to take that question on notice, we will be happy to receive an answer but I do not think we need to take up the time of the committee now with getting evidence on that.

Dr Cannold—There was a question about misoprostol.

Dr Shelley—I am happy to answer that. I have actually done research on misoprostol and a range of other things. My understanding is that whether any drug company chooses to seek licence for a particular indication for their drug is purely a commercial decision on their part. I do not think that we can answer on behalf of any of the drug companies as to why or why not they choose to make those decisions. The reality is that misoprostol and other prostaglandins are used very broadly in a whole range of obstetric and gynaecological indications. They are used in all of those capacities in what is known as off-label mode and as a whole range of drugs for a whole lot of purposes.

Senator JOYCE—Why wouldn’t the drug companies recommend them for that use?

Dr Shelley—I cannot answer for the drug companies.

Senator JOYCE—Could it be that they think it is dangerous?

Dr Shelley—You would have to ask them that. I have no idea, but the medical profession certainly uses prostaglandins very broadly for a whole range of indications in obstetrics and gynaecology.

Senator JOYCE—They would know a fair bit about the drugs they make, wouldn’t they? That would be a fair statement.

Dr Shelley—I would presume so, yes.

Ms Beaumont—If I might deal with the first issue that Senator Joyce raised, Women’s Health Victoria’s submission started out by saying that we take issue with the violent statements that enter the public arena and make headlines by senators using this inquiry to say things like: shooting a woman would not be a crime unless you killed her baby. We took issue with that in our submission. It is incumbent on public figures who have the capacity to make headlines to also retract that in the public arena and not mumble it as they begin their questions in this hearing.

CHAIR—I take the point you have made. I think it is a matter for Senator Joyce to take up. I think he will read the transcript if not hear this relayed by the senators. We are running seriously short of time. I want to proceed quickly. Senator Adams has a question.


Senator JOYCE—Professor Greene is a research person of good repute. There is no reason to doubt the paper he wrote for the New England Journal of Medicine. There is obviously a greater incidence of clostridium sordellii after the use of mifepristone. Would that be a fair enough statement?

Dr Piercy—It appears to be more common. It is hard to gain statistical information on that. The article which is in that paper describes four deaths.

Senator JOYCE—So there is a fair case that the incidence of complication from RU486 in the first eight weeks of a period of usage is far higher than the incidence of complication from surgical abortions. Is that a fair statement? The previous deputation wandered around this and said that there was not. They said that they are comparable, or similar, or the same. But they are not, are they? They are completely different.

Dr Piercy—Not according to Professor Greene.

Ms Woolf—He is a professor of obstetrics at Harvard and is also the practising obstetrician at their medical school.

Talk
Senator JOYCE—It is very important that we get on the record that the previous evidence we got was flawed.

Senator WEBBER—That is totally inappropriate.

Senator BARNETT—It is an interpretation.

Senator WEBBER—These are all opinions.

Senator JOYCE—So it would be a fair statement that women who otherwise would have had a surgical abortion but who take RU486 will—if these things play out in Australia—die.

Dr Piercy—Yes.

Senator JOYCE—Good. The next question I pose is to you, Mr Francis. If someone was to present to you as a client and say, ‘My mother was given two alternatives, and they recommended the alternative which killed her,’ do you think you would have an ability to raise a case against whoever made that recommendation?

Mr Francis—Yes, you would.

Senator JOYCE—Good.

Mr Francis—Although I do not approve of it either, if I were asked, I would say have a surgical abortion every time. It is much safer.

Senator JOYCE—That would be a legal premise, if you recommended something to someone that was explicitly more dangerous than an alternative that was available?

Mr Francis—Yes, you are negligent.