note: we are not talking about abortion SI o aborto NO, in Italia l'aborto è legale ed è regolato dalla legge 194/1978, da questo dato di fatto si parte per discutere la questione.
La questione Ru486 (mifepristone) la si può risolvere semplicemente:
Aborto chirurgico ed aborto farmaceutico sono due differenti pratiche mediche che hanno lo stesso fine: l'interruzione della gravidanza.
I progressi in medicina sono tesi non solo a indagare e curare malattie nuove o non ancora curabili, ma anche a migliorare le stesse pratiche mediche rendendole più sicure, meno dolorose e meno invasive. La Ru486 fa semplicemente questo: rende l'interruzione di gravidanza meno invasiva. Chi è contro la Ru486 non è un vecchio chirurgo appassito che vede svanire i tempi doro del taglia e cuci , no, è semplicemente parte di quello strato della nostra società che è (apertamente o meno) contro l'aborto, e preferisce l'aborto chirurgico perché, in confronto alla Ru486, ha un aspetto punitivo sul corpo della donna.
Inoltre la Ru486 può essere utilizzata già nelle prime settimane di gravidanza (ma entro e non oltre la 7a) mentre l'aborto chirurgico può essere praticato solo dalla 6a settimana in poi, non usare la Ru486 è anche in questo caso un'arma per incidere sulla psiche della donna che voglia o debba ricorrere all'interruzione volontaria della gravidanza, procurando un'attesa angosciante.
Bisognerebbe lasciare le donne libere di decidere la pratica less affected their psyche, or choose between a surgical and invasive procedure that takes about 20 minutes and is often performed under general anesthesia and therefore without feelings and memories physical or non-invasive procedure that provides for 3 days but taking two different drugs and the expulsion of embryonic material conscious.
Resolved the issue with agility Ru486si Ru486no at its base, it can be more specific.
- One could argue that a less invasive, the higher the danger of pharmaceutical practice than surgical, Monsignor Elio Sgreccia, president emeritus of the Pontificia Academia pro Vita cites the cases of 29 women died as a whole the world following the administration of RU486 from the '80s until today. The first thing to remember that the drug has been studied and is considered safe by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is used in advanced countries like the U.S. and throughout most of Europe. Secondly you can not forget that every drug and every medical practice has the potential risks, there are no medicines or surgical practice is 100% safe and 29 cases in 30 years a small number, then it is true that comparing these numbers with the dead to surgical abortion mortality data is overwhelming (1 death every 100 thousand intakes of RU486 against a death every 1 million surgical abortions), but in evaluating the use of a drug can not only calculate the extreme and rare event of death, it must also be considered normal, and the data tell us that the problems related to the two practices are: pain, bleeding (longer with the drug), nausea both methods. Serious complications (occurring in less than 1% of cases) to surgical abortion trauma or injury to the cervical and / or the wall of the uterus, infection, severe bleeding, incomplete removal of embryonic tissue with consequent need 'a second intake, vascular blood clots (thrombosis), the risk of future ectopic pregnancy or infertility. For the pharmaceutical method instead the problems are: high blood pressure or incomplete expulsion, resulting in need 'of a suction to remove the remains of embryonic tissue remaining in the uterine cavity, method failure and continuation of pregnancy with suction with the need for further surgery.
sum up: in 99% of cases for both methods there are no complications (except the normal aches nausea loss of blood), the pharmaceutical method, however, is certainly not invasive. 1% of cases appear to be harmful or dangerous complications that belong to the surgical approach. Although rare, while mortality is 10 times higher with RU486.
The question is why in 99 cases out of 100 to zero for the health dangers some want mantenere una pratica invasiva?
- Giuliano Ferrara è contro la Ru486 . In un appello firmato insieme a Lucetta Scaraffia e Roberto Formigoni si dice che la Ru486 è un sistema abortivo altamente controverso anche dal punto di vista della sua sicurezza ed efficienza clinica .
I dati scientifici riportano una percentuale di efficienza del 95%.
Ma al di là di questi dati evidenti ai quali non si può controbattere, è più interessante analizzare le altre parole di Ferrara:
La pillola costa 14 euri, è alla portata di tutte le borse, e la minimizzazione dei suoi rischi clinici, ché quelli di cultura e di senso sono evidenti e irrimediabili, farà in modo che spread properly.
I share that concern, that, as in other countries, abortion can pass through the purchase in pharmacies. It 's definitely something to be regulated, but the present state of things in Italy that is not what is happening, the AIFA (Italian Drug Agency) has approved the marketing of the abortion pill RU486, but be careful, not marketing means that the RU486 can be found at the supermarket, and even in pharmacies with a prescription, according to the dictates of Act 194, the use is only in the hospital, even if it is realistic, such as presages Ferrara, who probably (a less restrictive legislation in this direction, such as in many other countries there is not) the time of the expulsion of embryonic material will not be in hospital but at home, well, the topic is interesting. Here is the analysis: If
medical practice requires that the woman (informed about what happens to his body and that it will not be a pleasant experience) can eject the embryonic material home safely, then the house hospital is better, because it is a more intimate, more everyday and less terrifying than the average of Italian hospitals.
If the difference between making surgical abortion in the hospital and complete it at home (after a check and medical care) lies in the psychological support, then just read the introduction to psychological support, the woman who needs it will go to the hospital. But we must also remember that today does not seem to have a real psychological support for women who terminate a pregnancy by surgery, and even if in some cases there is, this support is at odds with the attempts of figures connected to the Catholic world that the hospital bother with their moral support women at that time are in a state of mind certainly is not peaceful. Even when these figures are not of a Christian charity are not present, there is often a medical corrupt, morally bankrupt , which can not prevent fatto l'aborto si vendica tormentando la donna. (Corrado Augias sta raccogliendo testimonianze di questi fatti QUOTIDIANI, qui un esempio .)
Continua Giuliano Ferrara, un medico
ti dà in ospedale, se con il tempo e con l’uso non te lo passi addirittura la farmacia, un veleno antifeto che, molte settimane dopo il concepimento, puoi ingerire per espellere il bambino “indesiderato” che hai in corpo a casa tua, con dolore e rischi per la salute, nella più disperata e indifferente delle solitudini, tirando lo sciacquone. Ferrara lo chiama feto, ma feto non è, perché diventa feto dopo 60-70 giorni, mentre la Ru486 la si utilizza entro 49 giorni; se la Ru486 you use it several weeks after conception then the surgical practice is feasible only after many weeks, and if this is a negative value is even more for the surgical practice, the pain is there even with the RU486 and this is true but risks are calculated and determined that it is a safe practice, and here we are at the important question: Ferrara still insists on the equation in that house alone if an injury, the woman not to abort if the hospital is alone, that translates into: the woman who aborts is alone, and this is not the reality may be that as it may be the opposite as can be for any other medical practice and any human being man or woman. The problem is in wanted to surreptitiously pass a difficult time for the main feature of the woman who becomes a mother, that depict a woman who aborts as a disaster, a sucker, a woman alone and desperate. Is not never seen instead as a woman who lives a couple of real, live, fulfilling a woman conscious, self-determined. Surely this juncture of his life will be difficult and sad but can not deny a lifetime, and a choice can not deny the presence of a companion, a friend, a family who know how to care for and comfort better than a doctor and especially foreign when evil from its position of advantage (because the doctor always has an advantage made available when a patient's own body) and its moral judgments is not no pity a woman who aborts deliberately.
And if a woman should be alone in this moment of choice, must be able to choose which medical practice, the less afraid and feel calmer.
's all, not a question but medical ethics, nothing could be simpler.
0 comments:
Post a Comment