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.
