Misconceptions on RH Law

Conclusion

Before I proceed to discuss the other feedback I received regarding our column on the urgent  implementation of the Reproductive Health (RH) law, I’d just like to congratulate the Philippine College of Physicians (PCP) which celebrated its 60th anniversary this week.

Composed of more than 7,000 of the country’s specialists in Internal Medicine, it has served as a beacon in the medical profession, providing leadership by staunchly advocating for the passage of crucial health legislation such as the RH and the Sin Tax laws.

I commend the previous board and I wish the new board, headed by incoming president Dr. Tony Leachon, all the best as it contributes its share in addressing the health inequities in the country; so let it never be said anymore that Filipinos living in remote areas in the country get sick and die without even having the chance of seeing a doctor.

The best place

Back to the RH Law, Grace Andres of Alabang says that the school is not the ideal place to learn about sex, and students might even have wrong notions about it. “The best place is the home, with parents telling their children what they need to learn about sex,” she says in Filipino.

It would be good if parents help in the sex education of their children. But we just have to be realistic. How many Filipino parents actually do that or would be willing to handle this responsibility? How many Filipino parents would be comfortable in discussing sex and reproductive health with their young children? In fact, a basic question is: Will the average Filipino parents be competent and knowledgeable enough in doing that so that  the proper and accurate information is taught to their children?

We send our children to school for their formal education instead of home schooling because we acknowledge that teachers are better trained and equipped to impart whatever knowledge our children needs to learn. Sex education should not be any different. I think it can be better handled in schools. And I’m sure, experts as they are in education, our teachers will use age-appropriate tools and methods in reproductive health and sexuality education.

Godfrey Buillon asks me in his posted comment: “Are you telling me that prescribing OCPs (oral contraceptives) or IUDs (intrauterine devices) to prevent pregnancy is to ‘help the sick’? What disease would that be helping?”

Let me tell Godfrey and all those who may have similar thinking this sad story: When I was just starting my practice, we had a young mother who had what we call preeclampsia or toxemia of pregnancy. Her blood pressure would go up every time she got pregnant. This happened for two pregnancies, and fortunately she survived her first two pregnancies. Her second baby—a boy—was premature, but he also recovered and is now a doctor himself.

After her second delivery, we advised her not to push her luck too far and to discuss a suitable contraceptive method with her obstetrician. She and her husband just opted for rhythm method. After a few years, she became pregnant again and her BP shot up as it did in her previous pregnancies. She developed eclampsia which is characterized by convulsions. She fell into coma, and she and her baby didn’t make it.

So many discussions pro and against the RH Law have been made. We’ve lost so much time already; it’s about time that, whether we believe in it or not, we should give it a chance to work, rather than find loopholes to make it fail or derail its implementation.

The RH Law may be a bitter pill to swallow for those against it. But no pill or medicine is perfect, and absolutely without any side effect. But we still take the pill anyway, because we know it will help cure or treat whatever ills we have.