On the Reuters News website the following heading was published on the 2nd February 2007: Most women view “morning after pills” favorably. They are reporting on an article that appeared in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology of January 2007, written by C.H. Rocca and colleagues.
The implications of and assumptions behind such a heading include:
- If you do not favor “morning after pills” you are part of a minority group that does not take medical research seriously
- If the majority thinks it is good, then it must be good
As one delves into the article, it becomes clear that the term ‘most women’ means more than 90% of a group of 1,950 Californian women between the ages of 15 (yes, 15) and 24 years old.
Can the ethical considerations of this group of young Californian women be extrapolated to include all women in all cultures? Certainly not. Such a heading creates a false impression of acceptability.
The ‘results’ show that 92% of these women believe the pills are be safe. By now the article refers to the “morning after pills” as emergency contraception – because they can be taken directly after having intercourse. One does not have to wait till the morning after…
In the Journal extract, the authors state: “Advance provision improved promptness and convenience of use overall…”
Advance provision – for an emergency? So what exactly is the emergency our esteemed researchers are talking about in their randomized trial? Having ‘unprotected’ or ‘unplanned’ or ‘unintended’ or ‘unexpected’ sex?
The deceptive term “emergency contraception” together with the “advance provision” of the pills is used to mask the fact that these women were simply put in a position to use the pills as a non-emergency form of planned contraception.
Questions that trouble me are: How much did the young Californian women know about what these pills actually do? Were they told that the pills cause what can be ethically interpreted as a very early abortion? Should such young women be allowed to decide the future fate of their unborn children so soon after they have had sexual intercourse without adequate moral support and/or time to reconsider their choices? Will this type of publication not promote social acceptance of such pills as part of ‘normal’ family planning practice? Is it ethical to use misleading terminology and headings about pills that are highly controversial in medical ethical discussions?
Thanks for the good article.Just again and again we can see how succesfuly information can give spiritual "anaesthesia" to make this "small" operation. The saddest thing is to see how desperately people seek for happiness,but in a wrong way.
Posted by: Anete | 08 February 2007 at 19:52