Controversial Abortion Pill

As a physician who cares for patients currently being denied the potential benefits of RU-486, I would like to thank you for your editorial supporting the release of this drug for research purposes. Contrary to your opinion, however, I believe that the manufacturer of the drug, Roussel-Uclaf, bears more responsibility than does the FDA for the failure to open up access to RU-486 and to explore its clinical potential.

You note that the FDA’s restriction on importation of the drug for personal use does not prevent researchers from receiving a license to import it, but you claim that this restriction has had a “chilling effect” on testing. Certainly the FDA’s action could be no more chilling than the company’s own unilateral withdrawal of the drug from ongoing research at County-USC Medical Center, the only site of U.S. RU-486 research, last February. Why would any researcher waste time planning studies on a drug which cannot be obtained reliably from its sole manufacturer?

Considering Roussel-Uclaf’s attempted capitulation to the comparatively weak anti-abortion movement in France, it appears unlikely that the company would respond to a shift in FDA policy favoring research on the drug. It may require action by the public and by physicians. Unfortunately, until RU-486 becomes available, the health interests of women will continue to be held hostage to the politics of abortion.

DANIEL J. STONE, MD

Los Angeles