Anti-RH Spin to Make Your Head Spin

Share this

Fr. Melvin Castro, an official of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), argues that the RH bill is not needed since maternal deaths have declined significantly, and the government only needs to improve existing reproductive health services for women. For the past few weeks, anti-RH campaigners were also arguing that the RH bill is not needed since it duplicates existing laws, policies and programs of government.

Now let me see if I can make sense of the anti-RH side’s “not needed” arguments:

  1. the RH bill duplicates existing laws, policies and programs (LPPs)
  2. which succeeded in reducing maternal mortality
  3. therefore the government should improve existing LPPs
  4. except that the government should not pass the RH bill
  5. not because of religious objections
  6. but because… (back to #1).

Maybe the anti-RH folks enjoy creating twisted mind-benders. Or they’re just patching together anything, coherence and honesty be damned, to obscure the religious nature of their objections.

Based on official government statistics, an estimated 6.5 to 11 maternal deaths occurred per day in 2010. The anti-RH group Filipinos for Life produced a lower estimate by the simple trick of using registered births in its calculation, ignoring the warning from its source, the National Statistics Office, that the published number is lower than actual due to late or non-registration.

Using a new statistical model, the World Health Organization (WHO) did come up with a lower estimate of maternal mortality for the country in 2008: 2,100 at the middle of the range, some 5.8 maternal deaths per day. Because of the inherent difficulties in recording maternal deaths, which the WHO report extensively discusses, varying methods which come up with varying but overlapping estimates is not unusual.*

But on the crucial part of the WHO report, on what has to be done, the anti-RH groups are characteristically silent. Perhaps because at the end of the estimation exercise, the WHO advocated for enhanced commitment to RH measures, almost all of which are in the RH bill. Here’s part of what the WHO said:

The international community has been increasingly concerned about the fairly slow progress in improving maternal health. During 2010, the United Nations Secretary-General launched the Global Strategy for Women’s and Children’s Health, which seeks to catalyse action for renewed and enhanced commitments by all partners for adequate financing and policy to improve women’s and children’s health. The commitments would support the following elements to accelerate progress towards MDG 5:

  • Country-led health plans – development partners to support governments to implement country-led plans to improve access to reproductive health services.
  • A comprehensive, integrated package of essential interventions and services – women and children should have access to a package of integrated services including family planning, antenatal care, skilled care at birth, emergency obstetric and newborn care, safe abortion services (where abortion is not prohibited by law) and prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV services.

We have an ongoing tragedy whether 5 or 11 maternal deaths occur per day. Half of all pregnancies are unintended, which means family planning—using artificial or natural methods—can potentially prevent up to half of these deaths. To overcome the routineness of maternal deaths which anti-RH groups exploit, think of the thousands of deaths as two to four shiploads sinking every year. Half of the women do not even want to be passengers at all. And of the willing passengers, more than half can be saved with measures in the RH bill.

- A.R.Melgar


* WHO, using three different methods, estimated the maternal mortality ratio (maternal deaths for every 100,000 live births) for the Philippines at 120–280 in 2000, 60–700 in 2005 and 61–140 in 2008.

Image used: Enrico Rastelli, available at Wikimedia Commons

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Pro-RH Spin to Make Your Head Spin

Pro-RH Bill makes you moron and bigot. Read Section 18 from Senate Bill authored by three senators and Section 28 from House Bill authored by some congressmen.

CONSCIENCETIOUS OBJECTION must end to the one who object, but in those bills though you object you must still be part in sending those people to other people who can operate against your will.

Pro-RH Spin to Make Your Head Spin

Korea Republic of

re: Pro-RH Bill makes you moron and bigot

Medical workers have an ethical and legal duty to serve the best interest of their patients, to do them no harm. They obtained a license to practice from a non-sectarian State--not an Islamic-, Catholic-, Buddhist- State--which then asks from them a social obligation to serve all. Of course medical workers do not lose their human rights by choosing to enter their profession, so the RH bill's solution to the balancing of rights problem is to oblige them to refer. I find the approach a reasonable compromise. Do you have a better solution?

Philippines

think again.

Though medical workers have legal and an ethical duty to serve the best interest of their patients and as you have said they obtained a license to practice a non-sectarian state (eg. not-islamic, not catholic etc) is only limited IN AN EMERGENCY (LIFE OR DEATH)SITUATION ONLY.

Does prescription of Contraceptive pills a matter of life and death?

obtaining a license does'nt mean that you have to abandon your ethical belief based on your conscience.Even in legal aspects, no one can force you to act or not to act once you invoke your right for a "Consciencetous Objection". (except for a criminal offence)

c.pio
(for those who know nothing and next to know nothing)

Korea Republic of

re: emergency only

You want to be handled by a medical worker who will serve your best interest only when you are in an emergency?

Philippines

Rh Bill spinning into nothing

Don’t be confuse, what we are dealing here right now is all about conscientious objection, and that is the premise. Conscientious objection cannot be invoke once a patient is in a life and death situation; even if you knew that patient is your mortal enemy by faith, by race etc. and that is a real non-sectarian approach.

But in RH bill things are far from that scenario, I’ll give you some example to make it clear: I’m a father of a young child who is turning to grade 5, and according to RH bill my child must be exposed to so called “sex education” but according to my belief it is wrong. Now, my question is where can I find my right to invoke a “conscientious objection” once this bill enacted into law?

c.pio

Korea Republic of

re: don't be confused

I am not confused. You said clearly in your post: "Though medical workers have legal and an ethical duty to serve the best interest of their patients ... is only limited IN AN EMERGENCY (LIFE OR DEATH)SITUATION ONLY." I am examining your adherence to this principle you stated. So, you want to be handled by a medical worker who will serve your best interest only when you are in an emergency? Or do you want to revise your previous statement?

Re: sex education, the authors of the RH bill have agreed to add the following provision to that section of the bill, which answers your concern: "Parents shall exercise the option of not allowing their minor children to attend classes pertaining to Reproductive Health and Sexuality Education." See http://www.likhaan.org/content/15th-congress-authors-amendments-hb-4244

Philippines

put it in a proper context

Let me put it into a proper context. You and I are talking about RH Bill, you and I derived into an opposing viewpoint which is the "Conscientious Objection" that this bill has. and you and I since we have limited space must focus on this premise the "conscientious objection", in a very simple word though we argue in a wide range meaning of subject, we must focus on one thing, the PREMISE OF THE SUBJECT.

(Though medical workers have legal and an ethical duty to serve the best interest of their patients ... is only limited IN AN EMERGENCY (LIFE OR DEATH)SITUATION ONLY.")though to be handled by a medical worker who will serve in best interest is not limited in an emergency situation; but a yea if refering about the legality and ethical value of this bill in correlation with "conscientious objection".

Secondly, be aware of two binding phrases : "Legal and Ethical" in conjunction with "to serve the best interest of the patients" If for example amedical practioner would like to object according to the dictates of his/her conscience that this bill could not "serve the best interest of his/her patient" according to his/her "legal and ethical duty" (founded on the authonomy of the professional rights) then it is very clear that this bill is contradictory and spining in nature? Read HB4244 Section 28 No. 3.(it will spin your head) and you will find what i am saying about emergency situation.

Lastly, re. "sex education" (again it will spin your head): you cannot have an option if the statement is mandatory.

c.pio

Philippines

to c.pio

Sorry hindi na kita masagot. Hindi ko na talaga maintindihan ang mga pinagsasabi mo.

Philippines

to arm

aminin mong hindi mo masagot ang argumento ni c.pio dahil totoo at malakas.

Korea Republic of

Anti-rh spin to make your head spin

then who spin to make your head spin?

that's why RH Bill makes you moron and bigot.

Kailan man hindi kayang sagutin ng mga Pro-RH ang argumentong "conscientious objection"

Parang sa simpleng salita: "Pwede mong hindi gawin ito pero kailangan mong gawin ito." section 18 No. 3.

Basahin at unawain para malaman ang katotohanan.

c.pio

Korea Republic of

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.