Join Our Community!
Share
Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum > Man Blames Daughter's Death On Abortion Pill
User Profile
Q: Man Blames Daughter's Death On Abortion Pill
asked by: paganangel on November 4th, 2006
Experienced User
May 17, 2006 — twelve days after her 18th birthday, holly patterson went to a planned parenthood in california and was prescribed ru-486.

Seven days later, she was in the emergency room, barely conscious and struggling to breathe. Hours later, she was dead.

Her father, monty patterson, who blames her death on ru-486, is expected to testify today on capitol hill in a hearing on what's called "the medical abortion pill."

"our message out there to everyone is that we wouldn't want to have, see anybody have to go through what we have had to go through here. In such a short period of time, our daughter was with us and the next day she's gone," patterson said.

Ru-486, also known as mifeprex or mifepristone, is a two-pill process. The first pill stops the womb from building up the necessary hormones in preparation for pregnancy. The second pill, taken two days or three days later, causes the uterus to contract and expel the fetus.

Rep. Mark edward souder, r-ind., who chairs the house government reform subcommittee on criminal justice, drug policy and human resources, organized the hearing. He is an anti-abortion activist and christian conservative opposed to ru-486.

Souder, a co-sponsor of a bill called holly's law — named after patterson — which would ban the drug, says the goal of the hearing is not to take the drug off the market but instead to examine the health problems associated with it.

Five women, including patterson, have died from a bacterial infection after taking ru-486. Roughly 12 other women have contracted the same infection, without having taken ru-486, meaning you can't necessarily blame ru-486, some say.

"if we care about women's health — and I do — we really need to address this infection in a concrete and real way," said susan wood, a former assistant commissioner of the fda. "and taking ru-486 off the market will not realistically reduce the risk of women being infected with this bug."

an estimated 500,000 to 600,000 women have used ru-486 since it was approved in 2000. There are nine known deaths, which many doctors say is a solid safety record. However, critics, including patterson and some in the medical community, point out that aside from the handful of deaths associated with ru-486, there have been hundreds of hospitalizations.

Serious complications from surgical abortions are rare, according to the national abortion federation, an association of abortion providers in the united states and canada. About 88 percent of women who obtain abortions are less than 13 weeks pregnant. Of those, 97 percent report no complications; 2.5 percent have minor complications that can be handled at the facility; and fewer than 0.5 percent have more serious complications

Did you find this post useful?
|
Replies(13)
Avatar
Cambion
replied on November 5th, 2006
Active User, very eHealthy
I remember reading this story - and ru-486 is not to blame. The infection the girl contracted was due to fetal matter being left in the uterus, which can also occur during miscarriage. Yes it was tragic, but daddy can't accept the fact that what happened was an accident, so he needs to find himself a scapegoat. Also, if the retard is so opposed to abortion and ru-486, why did he allow his daughter to seek an abortion method utilizing the pills? Maybe she did it without his knowledge, but who knows.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
paganangel
replied on November 5th, 2006
Experienced User
cambion wrote:
i remember reading this story - and ru-486 is not to blame. The infection the girl contracted was due to fetal matter being left in the uterus, which can also occur during miscarriage. Yes it was tragic, but daddy can't accept the fact that what happened was an accident, so he needs to find himself a scapegoat. Also, if the retard is so opposed to abortion and ru-486, why did he allow his daughter to seek an abortion method utilizing the pills? Maybe she did it without his knowledge, but who knows.



she was 18...It was not up to him to allow her. She was old enough to do it herself.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Jules
replied on November 5th, 2006
Extremely eHealthy
It's a very sad story and I think that more tests should be done on the drug but there's risks with every drug you take.

Does anyone know the facts behind how this abortion drug was tested before it came into wide public use? Was it just tested on animals and the women who now use it are guinea-pigs? I can imagine it's a difficult drug to trial on humans - "you want an abortion? Great! Wanna try a new drug that we don't even know if it works yet? Might only half kill your baby and cause you untold damage but hey! It worked on mice, right?" Confused
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
Birch
replied on November 5th, 2006
Extremely eHealthy
purestgreen wrote:
it's a very sad story and I think that more tests should be done on the drug but there's risks with every drug you take.


Does anyone know the facts behind how this abortion drug was tested before it came into wide public use? Was it just tested on animals and the women who now use it are guinea-pigs? I can imagine it's a difficult drug to trial on humans - "you want an abortion? Great! Wanna try a new drug that we don't even know if it works yet? Might only half kill your baby and cause you untold damage but hey! It worked on mice, right?" Confused


the problem with this is that a drug of this nature can only be tested on people. It's the old dicotomy of animal rights activists-"if animals are so unlike humans that we can morally justify testing on them, then why are we using animals that are so unlike humans?"

personally, I shy away from taking meds of any kind-the fda approves the usage of drugs based on studies paid for by...The drug companies themselves...Dum dum dum...
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
justgottaloveit
replied on November 5th, 2006
New User
paganangel wrote:
she was 18...It was not up to him to allow her. She was old enough to do it herself.


yup... And she was old enough to ignore the signs of infection. And she obviously didn't trust her parents enough to tell them what was going on. Should all drugs be banned? After all, they all carry side effects, most include death.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Carifairy
replied on November 6th, 2006
Extremely eHealthy
I must explain something to you all.. It is absolutely not the abortion pill itself which has killed these women, it is a bacterial infection whcih was introduced into the vagina through the use of cytotec. In case you do not know, vaginal use of cytotec is the second step of the medical abortion procedure. It causes contrcations, and the cervix to open, so infection is a risk.

The women died of an infection, bacteria cause infections, not pills.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
paganangel
replied on November 6th, 2006
Experienced User
carifairy wrote:
i must explain something to you all.. It is absolutely not the abortion pill itself which has killed these women, it is a bacterial infection whcih was introduced into the vagina through the use of cytotec. In case you do not know, vaginal use of cytotec is the second step of the medical abortion procedure. It causes contrcations, and the cervix to open, so infection is a risk.


The women died of an infection, bacteria cause infections, not pills.


the pill is what left them open to infection. So in reality it is the pill to blame.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
diamondsz
replied on November 6th, 2006
Extremely eHealthy
paganangel wrote:
carifairy wrote:
i must explain something to you all.. It is absolutely not the abortion pill itself which has killed these women, it is a bacterial infection whcih was introduced into the vagina through the use of cytotec. In case you do not know, vaginal use of cytotec is the second step of the medical abortion procedure. It causes contrcations, and the cervix to open, so infection is a risk.




The women died of an infection, bacteria cause infections, not pills.


the pill is what left them open to infection. So in reality it is the pill to blame.


in reality it is not from the pill, the pill did what it was supposed to do and it was her responsibility to seek a secondary appt after 2-5 days aftet taking the pill.

I got bacterial infections after having my kids and I cant blame a pill for that, basically my body is infection prone, alot of woman can get these infections from iud and I was informed against iud as a b/c method.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Tylanas
replied on November 6th, 2006
Especially eHealthy
paganangel wrote:
carifairy wrote:
i must explain something to you all.. It is absolutely not the abortion pill itself which has killed these women, it is a bacterial infection whcih was introduced into the vagina through the use of cytotec. In case you do not know, vaginal use of cytotec is the second step of the medical abortion procedure. It causes contrcations, and the cervix to open, so infection is a risk.

The women died of an infection, bacteria cause infections, not pills.


the pill is what left them open to infection. So in reality it is the pill to blame.


her hands are actually to blame, most likely, as they are what stuck sterile, packaged pills up into her vagina.

If not her hands, then perhaps she is prone to infection as dimondz said; some people just get sick a lot. If all of the material was not expelled, then it could have become infected.

There are so many ways she could have become sick, and almost none of them have to do with the pill or its effects.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Carifairy
replied on November 6th, 2006
Extremely eHealthy
Paganangel

the point is that the pill in question was not ru-486, but the second pill, cytotec. It causes the cervix to open, and a consequence can be infection. I particularly do not like abortion by pill, I feel that surgical is better for a variety of reasons, including the sterility factor.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
diamondsz
replied on November 6th, 2006
Extremely eHealthy
carifairy wrote:
paganangel

the point is that the pill in question was not ru-486, but the second pill, cytotec. It causes the cervix to open, and a consequence can be infection. I particularly do not like abortion by pill, I feel that surgical is better for a variety of reasons, including the sterility factor.


the cervix is closed for a reason to protect the uterus from infection if it opens there is always a possibility of infection and like eiri said her hand could have been dirty!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Carifairy
replied on November 6th, 2006
Extremely eHealthy
Correct diamondz...

Her hands could have been not washed properly, and you need to wash your hands for at least 2 minutes with vigorous scrubbing for the washing to be effective. Many people do not know proper 'medical grade' handwashing techniques.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
diamondsz
replied on November 6th, 2006
Extremely eHealthy
carifairy wrote:
correct diamondz...


Her hands could have been not washed properly, and you need to wash your hands for at least 2 minutes with vigorous scrubbing for the washing to be effective. Many people do not know proper 'medical grade' handwashing techniques.


if I remeber its actually 45 second with an antibacterial soap but it needs to be done vigourously like you said!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Quick Reply
Search