Last July 24, 2011, the UST Nursing Central Board of Students(NCBS) in collaboration with the UST Office for Student Affairs (OSA) sponsored a symposium entitled “Bill-live: Focusing on the Different Perspectives of the RH Bill” , held at the Tan Yan Kee Student Center AVR from 9:00am to 12:00nn.The symposium had Paranaque 2nd district representative Roilo Golez and UST Faculty of Medicine and Surgery Bioethics Chair Dra. Edna Monzon as its speakers. The event was participated by the student leaders from the different colleges and faculties of the University. “We believe that the leaders are the main stakeholders in promoting the campaign since they are the ones that lead the students to get involved”, said NCBS Asst. Treasurer Eugene Gibb Mendoza.
The first speaker, Hon.Roilo Golez, gave the audience a quick insight on the possible bias that may have occurred in the surveys due to the use of the term “Reproductive Health” rather than “Reproductive Health Bill”. He stressed that the term might have been used to deceive the people as everyone would like to achieve reproductive health same as they would like to have cardiovascular health, mental health and so on. He also argued the validity of the answers of the respondents since a big percentage admitted that they haven’t even read the bill (H.B. 4244) thus rendering them less credible to take a stand.Golez also addressed the issue on the alleged overpopulation where he cited a different perspective, considering the growing population as a vital resource in nation building. He pointed out that this could work in our advantage over the more developed countries with their inverse growth of population. He also argued that the main problem was not the population itself but rather the improper and faulty allocation of funds. Instead of highlighting the faux issue of population control, why don’t we focus ourselves with the real issue of inadequate classrooms, understaffed health centers and mass starvation? The Filipino people’s money would be more useful if allocated to that way.
He also pointed out that the bill was unnecessary since similar provisions, some copied verbatim, are already present in the Magna Carta for Women which is already accepted by the public.
Meanwhile, Dr. Edna Monzon discussed about the bioethical and medical aspect of the bill. She explained that the use of contraceptives is a form of abortion since the actual mechanism of contraceptives is to prevent the zygote from implantation in the uterus. The zygote is the product of the union of the sperm and egg cell where cellular division occurs, this is also the stage where life arguably starts. Thus preventing a dividing cell from implanting through the use of contraceptives is clearly a form of chemical abortion.
Another point by Dra.Monzon is that maternal death is not part of the Top 10 cases that cause morbidity in the Philippines (most of which are lifestyle diseases such as heart attack, stroke, etc.) and that therefore does not immediately need drastic responses to save the lives of the mothers giving birth. In the table presented by Roilo Golez that showed the Safe Reproduction Index, we can deduce that those provinces with understaffed health clinics/lying-ins are the ones with a greater maternal morbidity rate thus the government should focus more on adequate staffing of health institutions. She also shared that the inclusion of contraceptives as “essential medicines” in the bill is baseless since pregnancy is not a sickness but rather a state of enhanced wellness. Essential medicines are those supposed to serve the whole population regardless of age group, examples of which are antibiotics, painkillers, and vitamins. Furthermore, the use of the term “medicine” is used for a drug that would offer cure. Clearly the contraceptives are not medicines because of the side effects such as increased incidence of breast cancer and increased rates of ectopic pregnancy.
In every social issue that we encounter, one must be aware of both sides for proper discernment on a stand. Let us not rely on what we see or hear from others or the media. Rather, we must take a proactive attitude by carefully studying the issue by ourselves and that is only time when we can decide on where we truly stand.
where is the deeper perspective? i don't see any critical analysis here, but just overly simplistic sound bytes for easy repetition in the media.
ReplyDelete- problems with results in survey design for opinion polls are best criticized by conducting a transparent opinion poll with corrections in methodology and to show the variance. simply criticizing a survey because people are ignorant of hair-splitting phraseology distinctions gives us no additional information in order to properly determine the actual view point of the populace.
- a large population can relatively speaking support economic growth. however, there is no economic data to support that unchecked population growth at the rate of the Philippines has ever produced successful long-term economic growth. there is a body of economic data from across the globe that unchecked population growth causes economic stagnation and decline. it is innovation that causes long-term economic growth not unbridled baby making.
- the magna carta for women law is a law focused primarily on gender equity in employment, etc., and not a health bill and while the policy objectives may overlap or be the same, their intended area of regulation is hardly duplicative.
- the determination of where life begins and interference in the process of reproduction is not a medical question but a group of social and religious questions that can be greatly aided, in being answered, with biological knowledge. therefore, it is not clear that certain forms of contraception is a 'form of chemical abortion.'
- the 'essential medicine' argument makes little sense but i don't want to get too 'deep' into it. let me just use one example, should ovulation inducing medicines be considered essential adult medicine although it only effects women of age bearing years?
- finally, asserting that 'medicine' is the name for a drug that offers a cure eliminates vast swaths of medicines used to treat symptoms, manage diseases, or prevent disease and improve well-being in general. is medicine to treat Hepatitis C or Herpes not medicine because it doesn't offer a cure?
naturally if there had been someone of a varying opinion on the panel, these issues could have been delved into deeply for a deeper perspective of the RH bill. unfortunately, it did not.
Um, okay so I want you to know I mean no offense with this comment. I think to be a good blogger, we have to accept all types of comments whether they be praise or criticism.
ReplyDeleteI'm a proud Thomasian too. You know that. It's just.. there are things that they tell us that are not always right. It is a catholic university so I'm not surprised why they have avenues like this.
I guess it's just surprising given that your blog's promise is to deliver the "truth that nobody wants to speak of." While I respect that to every story, there are multiple sides, I guess I just don't see yours in this post.
Yun lang. Peace tayo ha. :)