I found a recent letter1 offensive because of its suggestion that the provision of emergency contraception is unrelated to providing a service to patients or to reducing violence against abortion providers.
Why is it easier for young people to buy street drugs than to get emergency contraception? Why had none of my friends in high school ever even heard of the morning-after pill? A 2-dose regimen of levonorgestrel is more effective and better tolerated than the traditional Yuzpe regimen.2,3,4 If women were better informed and had better access, a lot fewer therapeutic abortions would be performed in Canada.
Safe abortions are an essential service. I am grateful to all physicans and nurses who have chosen to put themselves at risk in the name of justice, and I long for the day when all physicians act as patient advocates: pro-children and pro-choice.
Signature
Madeleine Cole
Family physician Iqaluit, Nunavut
References
- 1.Gutowski WD. Access to the morning-after pill in BC [letter]. CMAJ 2000;162(11):1554. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 2.Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Randomised controlled trial of levonorgestrel versus the Yuzpe regimen of combined oral contraceptives for emergency contraception. Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Lancet 1998; 352:428-33. [PubMed]
- 3.Glasier A, Thong KJ, Dewar M, Mackie M, Baird DT. Mifepristone (RU 486) compared with high-dose estrogen and progestogen for emergency postcoital contraception. N Engl J Med 1992;327(15):1041-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
- 4.Task Force on Postovulatory Methods of Fertility Regulation. Comparison of three single doses of mifepristone as emergency contraception: a randomised trial. Lancet 1999;27(353):697-702. [PubMed]