IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Normalizing the exceptional: incorporating the "abortion pill" into mainstream medicine

Listed author(s):
  • Joffe, Carole
  • Weitz, Tracy A.
Registered author(s):

    Mifepristone, also known as RU-486, and in the US known as "the French abortion pill", finally received FDA approval in the United States in September 2000. This paper discusses the steps now in process to integrate this drug into mainstream healthcare and the sociological implications of those efforts. Each of the steps that is normally taken to introduce a newly approved medication in the US context is rendered highly complex in the case of mifepristone--because of the unique circumstances of abortion in both American culture generally, and medical culture specifically. The story of RU-486/mifepristone, as it is currently unfolding, can be understood as one of attempting to "normalize the exceptional". After offering a brief historical overview of the protracted struggle for FDA approval of mifepristone in the US, this paper discusses the typical processes for integration of a newly approved medication into mainstream medicine and contrasts this process with the special challenges posed by a drug that is associated with abortion. We outline the challenges to implementation, including both external and internal obstacles. We compare the traditional role of a pharmaceutical company in drug diffusion and the circumstances of the company that produces mifepristone in the US. We discuss such external obstacles as the conflict between the FDA-approved regime and an evidence-based alternative; the necessity for physicians to order and dispense this drug; the ambiguity over the need for ultrasonography; and insurance reimbursement, malpractice, and other legal issues. Internal issues addressed include "turf issues" between medical specialties and between physicians and advanced practice clinicians as well as concerns over "cowboy medicine", and patient compliance. This paper concludes with an exploration of the sociological implications of this effort to "normalize the exceptional".

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Social Science & Medicine.

    Volume (Year): 56 (2003)
    Issue (Month): 12 (June)
    Pages: 2353-2366

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:12:p:2353-2366
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    Order Information: Postal:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:56:y:2003:i:12:p:2353-2366. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.