Use of Cytotec
User Rating: 0 / 5
- Details
- Hits: 55986
Is the Licensing and Use of Cytotec Ethical?
In this paper, I hope to discuss the ethics behind the induction of abortion using drugs that have been approved by the bodies regulating healthcare. The issue of reproductive rights has always fascinated me and I hope to make a positive contribution hence my desire to pursue this course. The role of publicly-funded health agencies in ensuring that the rights of individuals to access reproductive services as well as the utility of medicinal compounds in this regard are issues that I would like to tackle and possibly help resolve.
The article I am reviewing appeared in the press 14 years ago and is about the bid by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to compel the manufacturers of Cytotec to market it as an abortifacient. The active compound in Cytotec is misoprostol and misoprostol is effective in treating stomach ulcers. However, it has a side effect that causes the uterine walls to contract. It is this side effect that the FDA wanted the manufacturers of the drug to market for use in the induction of abortion. Looking back at the article 14 years later, FDA had their way and Cytotec is now widely used to induce abortion in women worldwide (BNF, 2014; Searle, 2014).
The article raises a lot of ethical issues about the morality of abortion and the role of FDA, a body that is funded by the public and which is mandated to protect the public, in championing abortion. For instance, should abortion pills be available for sell to anyone? This is a fundamental issue because many people consider abortion as murder. The right of the unborn child to live is deemed by many religious people as sacrosanct and abortion is seen as an evil that denies the unborn child this right. This also raises the issue of when life begins and this is a controversial issue that has raised a lot of heat and remains unresolved (Beckwith, 1995; Savulescu, 2002; Lee, 2005).
Religious individuals who are more liberal favor the induction of abortion only if the life of the mother is in danger and they say that this should only be done to save the mother’s life. This would therefore require a medical doctor to determine if a woman’s life is in danger before the drug can be prescribed. This brings into question then the issue of what would happen in societies where the doctor to patient ratio is so low that accessing a qualified medical doctor is very hard. It also raises the question of what would happen in emergency situations where a pregnant woman is in danger of losing both her life and the life of the unborn child. The availability of an abortifacient such as Cytotec makes it very easy for women to have abortions as it is widely available, affordable, and all one needs to do is to swallow the pill and let the drug do its work. It does not necessarily require medical supervision if it is taken early during the pregnancy. The drug can therefore save lives during emergencies and in situations where it may be difficult for a medical doctor to see somebody.
Denying women the right to access abortion affordably and safely raises brings into question the freedom of women over control of their own bodies and their right to universal healthcare. Should women be denied the right to make decisions on whether to terminate their pregnancies? What benefit would society obtain by denying women the rights to reproductive healthcare? Where does the right of a woman to access reproductive health services begin and where does it end? Denying women such rights may appeal to the morality of many people but it ignores the elephant in the room. This is because it will push abortion underground and force many women to go to unlicensed clinics and quacks thereby endangering their lives (McDonagh, 1999).
Another issue surrounding the licensing of Cytotec as an abortifacient is on the kind of society we want. Should pregnant women who cannot afford to raise a child properly be forced to give birth to the child? If such a child is brought up against the mother’s will, is there a guarantee that the child will receive the correct upbringing? There is also the issue of women who have been raped or have been forced to have an incestuous relationship. Should they be compelled to bring up such children against their will? On the other hand, giving the women unfettered rights to decide if and when to have an abortion may bring a lot of problems especially now that there is a pill that is both safe and effective. Opponents of abortion argue that this free pass will lead to an increase in abortions that are “unnecessary”, ending the lives of many innocent children.
My opinion is that the debate about abortion is a very difficult debate to resolve and will remain so for a very long time to come. Society has a duty to care for children and ensure that they are brought up in the best manner possible. The children should be taught sex education from an early age and given useful advice. This will help to reduce incidences where women seek to have abortions. Ultimately, everyone is responsible for his or her own morals and the government has no mandate to force one’s conscience to subscribe to a particular school of thought to morality. Individuals should have the freedom to make choices and to have access to whatever reproductive health services they want to. My duty is to endure that whatever decision they make their lives will not be at risk. This is why I seek to pursue this course: to help come up with safe and affordable medicines and solutions that will make the lot of humans happier, safer, and healthier.
References