October 4, 2007
New England Journal of Medicine reported that rosiglitazone increased the risk of heart attack by as much as 43 percent. Two days after publication of the study, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration told companies selling diabetes drugs containing rosiglitazone to include a warning on their labels about the heightened risk of congestive heart failure for patients. Likewise, the FDA required a popular drug used to inhibit arthritis to carry a warning on its label. Customers had to be told about potential heart and blood-clotting risks.
In recent years, there has been a dramatic increase in spending on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs in the United States. There has also been an increased demand for honest disclosure about these drugs. Today, no one takes offense when a commercial advertises the benefits of an antibiotic for influenza or pneumonia and then, with rapid, gun-fire speed, lists the drug’s most common side effects of nausea, abdominal pain and vomiting. It makes perfectly good sense to let customers know exactly what they are buying.
In 2000, the abortion pill RU-486 received the approval for use in this country. In a U.S. House of Representatives hearing, it was revealed that there have been more than 950 bad side effects that have come from only 575,000 prescriptions of this drug. Its use has led to 232 hospitalizations, 116 blood transfusions, and 88 cases of infection. Not to mention the death of eight (8) women (Dave Pierre, “
Los Angeles Times Omits Abortion Dangers in Reporting on Missouri Law,” September 11, 2007).
have bad side effects. The most common major complications are infection, excessive bleeding, embolisms, ripping or perforation of the uterus, anesthesia complications, cervical injury and endotoxic shock. Even a woman’s mental health is affected by an abortion.
The Elliott Institute reports that, within eight (8) weeks after their abortions, 55% of the women expressed guilt; 44% complained of nervous disorders; 36% had experienced sleep disturbances; and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor (cf. David C. Reardon, The Elliott Institute, 1990).
Any patient taking a drug or facing a medical procedure that could bring risks to their health should have all the necessary information. The facts are clear. Abortifacients and abortions bring medical and psychological effects that inflict harm on women. However, some women are not aware of these harmful side effects.
In the case of other medical procedures and drugs, there is an increasing demand to inform the public. Common sense. Yet, for some reason, when it comes to the risks associated with abortion, there is a flight from common sense. Could it be that the willful destruction of the life of an innocent unborn child in the womb is so evil an act that it diminishes moral sensitivity even in areas where common sense should prevail?
To be continued…