Category: Morning after pill

Emergency contraception a flawed choice

London Free Press
March 19, 2002

Reproduced with permission

Sharon  Osvald

Tomorrow, the first day of spring, a coalition of American national, state and local organizations will take Walt Disney’s Bambi’s notion of “being twitter pated” to a new level.

March 20 is the kick-off to their first annual “back up your birth control” campaign. On that day, women all over the U.S. will be asked, regardless of their need, to request emergency contraceptives (EC) from their doctors. Doctors will promise to tell their patients about EC; pharmacists will talk to their customers about it and activists will lobby both state and federal legislatures in favour of more access and awareness of EC.

Similar campaigns to support what many call the morning pill have been taking place for a couple of years with radio ads, billboards picturing a broken condom and other literature. The Web site has an image of a young working woman flexing her bicep with a heart-shaped tattoo saying EC.

Preven and Plan B are the two emergency contraceptives approved in Canada, but according to pharmacists I’ve talked to, many doctors have been prescribing concentrated birth-control hormones within 72 hours of sex since the 1970s. If taken in time, it prevents fertilized eggs from implanting on the uterine wall. Advocates for EC call it “a  safe, effective back-up birth control method that can prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse or contraceptive failure.” Opponents, however, call it an “abortifacient,” believing conception begins at fertilization and the idea of contraception after the fact is nothing more than wishful thinking.

I am certain the intentions of the majority involved in this initiative are good. After all, even the most pro-choice person knows the fewer full-fledged abortions that take place, the better for everyone. Consider the horrible state of the 15-year-old Brampton girl recently charged with second-degree murder after hiding her pregnancy and injuring her baby girl in an unassisted home birth. In contrast, EC pills seem such a neat little compromise. More radical feminists embrace EC as a tool to empower women against the evil oppressor, men, who make us pregnant in the first place and get off scot-free.
However, aside from my personal convictions about when life begins, this campaign and others like it give me the willies. This is because, in the words of Canadian organization, The Protection of Conscience Project, they are so “well-organized, well-connected and well-funded” and “may directly impact some conscientious objectors, especially if activists decide to target objectors or objecting facilities in order to get media coverage or to initiate complaints of professional misconduct.” In short, these groups bully those who don’t see the world from their point of view and trample on objectors’ rights and freedoms.

Secondly, it seems to me the message of emergency back-up plans is cheap. I mean, if a group is going to take time, energy and resources to imprint a message into the psyche of young women, is this the best message we have to give them? Why not teach them to respect themselves, to be responsible for their actions (even mistakes) and how to form monogamous, lasting accountable relationships, instead of ones that create an emergency if you become pregnant when pre-intercourse birth control fails? Why don’t we hand out planned parenting post cards that say, “Don’t waste yourself on a one-night stand,” instead of, “You have 72 hours to erase last night.” Rather than simply empowering women to be in charge of their bodies, why not teach men and women what a wonderful thing sex can be in the right context? Maybe even, heaven forbid, encourage  them to wait? Then we might not only have less unwanted pregnancies, but also women who are emotionally healthy and truly empowered.

Aryan Defender Highlights BC Medical Journal

News Release

Protection of Conscience Project

It is an unusual cover for a medical journal: a crouching, brawny Aryan hero, glowering murderously from under a horned helmet, a copper IUD clutched in his sword hand.

The Administrator of the Protection of Conscience Project wants to post the cover of the January/February edition of the BC Medical Journal on the Project website. In a letter to the editor of the Journal, he describes the cover as “a splendid illustration of the usual basis for conscientious objection to potentially abortifacient devices and drugs.”

Most physicians or others who object to the IUD (intrauterine device) and the ‘morning-after-pill’ do so because such things may act – not by preventing fertilization – but by destroying the developing human embryo by preventing its implantation in the uterine wall. This mechanism of action is explicitly acknowledged in the Journal’s article, written by Dr. Roey Malleson.

Rather than recognizing that the destruction of the developing embryo is a key moral issue – and a controversial one – Dr. Malleson defines the issue out of existence by adopting a coded vocabulary. Only readers familiar with authoritative embryological texts are likely to recognize the polemic behind Dr. Malleson’s use of words like ‘abortifacient’, ‘pregnancy’, and ‘contraception’.

The Project letter lauds the article as “an excellent example of moral obfuscation masquerading as science,” but challenges Dr. Malleson’s authority to tutor colleagues in faith and morals. It rejects the suggestion that civil suits might be used to suppress the freedom of conscience of those who do not share the BC Medical Journal’s enthusiasm for Aryan warriors.

Project Letter to Telegraph Journal

New Brunswick, Canada
24 February, 2002

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

Dr. Monica Brewer’s characterization of physician referral for morally controversial purposes as a “black and white” issue is the result of inadequate reflection.(“MD’s Morals Restricting Birth Control Access,” February 9, 2002) Her suggestion that doctors who object to the morning-after-pill and contraception “should pair with doctors to whom they can refer” is a suitable solution only for those whose objections are simply matters of professional judgement or personal preference.

For example: physicians who know that 94% of the women who are sold the morning-after-pill do not actually require it to prevent pregnancy (the numbers are provided by those who support its widespread use1) may be unwilling to prescribe it for that reason. However, they might well refer a patient who wants the drug to a doctor who will.

Similarly, some physicians believe that women’s health and social interests are better served by learning to recognize their natural fertility cycles, so that they need not be dependent upon physicians or drug companies to plan or avoid pregnancy. These physicians may not prescribe birth control pills for ‘ecological’ reasons, but probably wouldn’t object to referral.

Finally, an obstetrician who thinks that aborting Down syndrome infants is a good idea, but finds performing abortions a traumatic experience, would probably welcome the opportunity to refer a patient to another colleague.

The situation is quite different when physicians are asked to refer a patient for something to which they have grave moral objections. They believe that by referring patients they are themselves morally culpable for facilitating the wrong that is done. Strange? Not at all.

Consider Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter’s suggestion that, since physical torture is “contrary to American values”, the US should turn terrorist suspects who won’t talk over to “less squeamish allies.”2 No one would seriously argue that this would relieve the US of moral complicity in torture.

Of course, moral complicity in abortion, contraception and the morning-after-pill are not issues for people like Dr. Morgantaler and his associate, Judy Burwell, who think these are good things, and that those who think differently are mistaken. But it is surprising that they view freedom of conscience as a problem to be solved by abolishing it, at least for those who don’t agree with them.

After all, Dr. Morgantaler justified his defiance of Canadian abortion law in a 1970 article titled, “A Physician and His Moral Conscience.” 3

Notes (provided for editorial verification)

1. “In 16 months of ECP services, pharmacists provided almost 12,000 ECP prescriptions, which is estimated to have prevented about 700 unintended pregnancies.” Cooper, Janet, Brenda Osmond and Melanie Rantucci, “Emergency Contraceptive Pills- Questions and Answers”. Canadian Pharmaceutical Journal, June 2000, Vol.133, No. 5, at p. 28. See also Valpy, Michael, “The Long Morning After”, Globe and Mail, 15 December, 2001)

2. Alter, Jonathon, “Time to Think About Torture”. Newsweek, 5 November, 2001, p. 45.

3. The article appeared anonymously in The Humanist. Quoted in Pelrine, Eleanor Wright, Morgantaler: The Doctor Who Couldn’t Turn Away.  Canada: Gage Publishing, 1975, P. 79

Project Letter to the BC Medical Journal

British Columbia, Canada
16 February, 2002

Sean Murphy, Administrator
Protection of Conscience Project

The cover of your  January/February 2002 edition highlighting Dr. Roey M. Malleson’s article on ‘emergency contraception’ was unexpected: a brawny, half-naked, Aryan warrior, eyes glinting murderously from under his horned helmet, wielding a copper IUD, crouched to spring and slaughter.

I would like permission to  post the cover on the Project website, and would appreciate it if you would send me seven copies of the issue. The cover is a splendid  illustration of the usual basis for conscientious objection to  potentially abortifacient devices and drugs, and the article provides  an excellent example of moral obfuscation masquerading as science.

Dr. Malleson clearly  believes, as a matter of faith (for it cannot be science), that it is not immoral to destroy an early human embryo by preventing implantation. However, the article fails to explain why this belief should be forced upon those who do not share it. The Journal of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, cited to support Dr. Malleson’s threatening accusation of negligence, is not widely acknowledged to be an infallible authority on faith and morals, nor is Dr. Malleson.

Finally, astute readers will recognize that the law is more complex than suggested by the article. Freedom of conscience is recognized as a fundamental freedom that must be accommodated. It is imprudent and unhelpful to publicly incite civil actions against colleagues in order to secure their submission to the moral outlook so aptly expressed by your cover.

Letter to the Telegraph Journal

New Brunswick, Canada
14 February, 2002

J. Edward Troy,
Bishop Emeritus of  Saint John Rothesay

[Comments in the December, 2001, Bulletin of the College of Physicians and Surgeons  came to media attention in February, 2002, generating pressure on conscientious objectors in New Brunswick.  Catholic Bishop J.  Edward Troy responded to the news reports in this letter, reproduced with permission of the author.  – Administrator-]

The headline on the front page, “MDs’ morals restricting birth control access” (Telegraph-Journal, Feb. 9) was eye-catching. Upon reading the piece, I learned the reporter was culling from the Bulletin of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of New Brunswick (CPSNB) in which it was recorded that at its meeting of Nov. 23, 2001, its council discussed the implications of the right of physicians not to participate in a treatment or process to which they morally object.

In other words, the Code of Ethics of the College quite properly permits physicians to practice their profession in accordance with their conscience. The discussion, as recorded in the bulletin, is repeated  almost in its entirety in the Telegraph-Journal. It was particularly noted that some patients are not referred for an abortion or do not receive advice on contraception from their doctors. This is followed by  comments (not contained in the bulletin) from one physician in Saint John who doesn’t have the same moral qualms, and by some remarks from  the administrator of the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton.

There is an underlying indignation present in the article more suitable to an opinion piece than to a news report. The writer goes back to Nov. 23 for this information which is given headline treatment on Feb. 9,  breathlessly zeroing in on the roughly eight per cent of the text in the college bulletin that considers the case of patients whose doctors refuse to counsel abortion or contraception because of their moral  principles.

Nothing about the other important matters the council deliberated upon  and which were reported in the pages of the same bulletin. Nothing about  the patient who died from a heart attack after being refused treatment for heart disease. Nothing about the instances where allegations of  malpractice were lodged against doctors for a variety of reasons that  resulted in loss of life or serious illness. Nothing about the extremely difficult choices physicians are faced with every day and the honest  efforts the vast majority of them make to serve their patients with  integrity and skill, but also with fallibility and occasional failure.

No, the focus, in a somewhat negative and disapproving fashion, on the  good news that physicians are acting conscientiously in their professional lives. Indeed I was impressed and heartened by all that I read in the bulletin precisely because it revealed the conscientious  manner in which the council of the CPSNB monitors and guides its members.

I doubt very much the CPSNB would wish to change its code of ethics so as to require physicians to disregard their consciences, especially today when there are factions promoting euthanasia and  physician-assisted suicide. While the code of ethics of the CPSNB does  not allow the doctor to impose his moral views on the patient, it would be equally objectionable to insist that the patient be authorized to  impose his or her moral outlook on the doctor. One hears of patients demanding a prescription for this or that drug; should the physician be  obliged to comply? There is reference in the newspaper piece to the  “morning after pill” that is not really a contraceptive but rather an abortifacient.

Pro-life doctors do not perform or cause abortions nor do they  co-operate with others in procuring an abortion. They rightly consider that abortion is the taking of a human life at an early stage in its  development.

In today’s social and cultural climate, the opposition to contraception is not easily understood, let alone accepted. This is not surprising  since the whole idea of any binding moral principles in the area of  sexuality is widely rejected. According to the lax standards prevalent in our culture, no sexual behaviour is morally wrong – fornication, promiscuity, adultery, masturbation, homosexuality, bestiality, etc.

With the exception of child sexual abuse, the guiding rationale seems to be a light-hearted “different folks, different strokes!”

If a person adheres to this sexual libertinism, he or she is not likely to be persuaded by any amount of argumentation that artificial methods  of contraception are wrong, nor will he or she be able or willing to  grasp the distinction between them and natural family planning. He or she will not see that the warm embrace of contraception has led logically and historically to the widespread acceptance of abortion.

While the views of the administrator of the Morgentaler facility were  completely predictable, she really demonstrates a lot of nerve in lecturing physicians about ethics. “I think it’s very irresponsible of doctors not to be meeting patients’ needs, regardless of their personal opinion or religious beliefs,” she is quoted as saying.  Now this judgment comes from someone who is managing a business devoted  to the destruction of babies in the womb!

Talk about the moral high ground! Also, please observe the mentality  revealed in this declaration. If the abortionists were in charge, they would require people to act against their conscience. These are the same  folks that are always whining about pro-life people who, they say, wish to impose their morality on them. However, it’s apparently all right for  the pro-abortion people to impose their morality on the rest of us.

She is also reported complaining that “many” women who had  been refused birth control pills by doctors were using other methods such as condoms and became pregnant. Was that a slip of the tongue?  Doesn’t she belong to the school that keeps insisting that condoms  should be made available to teens and others so that they won’t become  pregnant or contract AIDS? What about all that propaganda about  “safe sex?” It appears that she knows, as everyone should,  that condoms do fail with the result that the woman becomes pregnant or  the unaffected partner gets AIDS.

I salute physicians – no doubt the vast majority of practitioners – who refuse to ignore conscience and moral principle in the exercise of their  calling. I honour physicians who do not derive their notions of what is  right and wrong from popular magazines or from the superficial opinions of “celebrities” or from Hollywood script writers or from harangues by those who operate abortuaries.

Doctors have access to a long and solid tradition of medical ethics.  It’s encouraging to see that so many continue to draw on that wisdom in the practice of their profession and aren’t easily swayed by the fog of  moral indifference which covers so much of the world today.