A number of health care professionals have moral or ethical objections to dispensing the ‘morning after pill’, so a recent article in The Standard<\/i> (“Morning-after pill poses moral dilemma for some Mds”, 29 June 2000) is of interest beyond the community served by your paper. I would like to make two points.<\/p>\n
First: though the drug in question was described as a ‘contraceptive’ that ‘prevents pregnancy’, many who are familiar with the action of the drug consider it an abortifacient, not a contraceptive, and object to dispensing it for that reason. Moreover, people attempting to understand the issues involved need to be aware that the words ‘abortion’, ‘pregnancy’, ‘conception’ and ‘contraception’ are often assigned completely different meanings by parties in the dispute about Preven.<\/p>\n
Second: the good news in the story is almost too obvious for many to see. The woman obtained the drug that she wanted, and the physician was not forced to involve himself in something that he considered to be morally abhorrent. Arrangements at the hospital accommodated both her request for the drug, and his request not to have someone else’s morality imposed upon him.<\/p>\n
This is the kind of common-sense accommodation that ought to be more widely practised.<\/p>\n
Sean Murphy, Administrator
\nProtection of Conscience Project<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"