"You can think of it as just one period."
This was the response received when a reporter inquired on the consultation board of a website selling the oral pregnancy-termination drug "Mifegyne." The counselor, who identified themselves as a "pharmacist," informed about the possibility of side effects such as vomiting and headaches, while reassuring that "side effects gradually disappear" and that "the authenticity can be verified via the QR code on the drug packaging." The online sales page also contained wording stating that "pregnancy termination services are provided in collaboration with doctors and medical professionals," which is difficult to verify.
Mifegyne, which has long been circulated in the shadows, is expected to be officially introduced domestically as early as the first quarter of next year. The aim is to manage a drug that has been left outside the regulatory framework for over 10 years within the national medical system. The government has presented a phased design plan, including limiting the scope of drug use to within 9 weeks of pregnancy and requiring doctors to directly prescribe and dispense it during the initial two-year period. This is a move seven years after the Constitutional Court ruled in 2019 that the crime of abortion was unconstitutional.
The government's recent decision is significant in that it has brought to the surface the issues surrounding pregnancy-termination drugs, whose access structure had been informalized. It was a necessary choice even to prevent indiscriminate abuse. The problem is that there are no clear answers on how to manage it. The government has taken a stance of "introduction first, discussion later" without providing clear answers on detailed matters such as the qualifications of prescribing doctors, whether prescriptions for minors will be allowed, and expanding access for vulnerable groups. There are also no criteria to distinguish between abortion based on "medical" reasons, such as the health issues of pregnant women, and abortion based on "non-medical" (social or economic) reasons. The right to conscientious refusal of treatment demanded by the medical community, or legal protection mechanisms, have not been concretized either.
There is at most six months left until Mifegyne can be officially prescribed. Within that time, the legislative gap must be filled and necessary detailed guidelines must be finalized promptly. Above all, a meticulous examination and management system must be established so that post-market surveillance of actual usage status and adverse cases, as well as safety nets prepared for complications, function properly within medical institutional investors. The purpose of this institutionalization should not simply be to import the drug, but to establish standards for using it safely. To ensure that the introduction of Mifegyne does not leave gaps in the safety net, remaining tasks must be resolved and the "sequence" between introduction and management standards must be corrected.
in OPINION
