The Emergency Contraception Debate - Is It Ethical?

By : Susan Ray | Published : Friday December 2, 2011 | Posted in : Sexual Health | Comments (4)

Emergency contraception, more commonly known as the morning-after-pill, refers to hormonal treatments used by women following the practice of unprotected sexual intercourse. They are popular as they are able to prevent pregnancy in the event of oral contraceptive misuse or condom failure. However, they are not without controversy and many criticisms and concerns have been raised about their use and potential misuse, particularly from the more conservative and religious sectors of society, whose primary criticism stems from the belief that the availability of emergency contraception promotes sexual immorality.

The emergency contraceptive treatments themselves work using similar ingredients as those found in oral contraceptive tablets. Using artificial progestogen, the treatment tricks the ovaries into thinking ovulation has already occurred while simultaneously altering the womb lining so a fertilised egg can’t embed itself and start to develop. Clinically tested for efficacy and safety, the treatments are easy to use and are safe for the majority of women, but it is exactly this ease of use that is the source of critics' concern.

A number of those who take issue with emergency contraception do not have a moral objection to the actual intention of the treatment, which is to avoid pregnancy. Their concern is more to do with the idea that readily available emergency contraception may mean that women become too relaxed about staying safe during sex, as they know that the morning-after pill is always within easy reach.

Others take a religious or moral standpoint in addition to the concern that these treatments are simply too easy to purchase, as they often believe that these treatments promote unprotected sex. The religious argument was highlighted in a recent news article, which discussed a young woman being refused the treatment by a pharmacist because of the pharmacist’s religious inclination and a so-called “conscience clause”. This gave the pharmacist in question the right to refuse the customer this particular treatment, as it went against their personal code of ethics to prescribe the medication. This instance has caused great concern among supporters of contraception and sexual health in the UK and has lead to many debates on the issue, as to whether it is acceptable for a pharmacist to refuse to dispense a medication based on their own beliefs.

Though it is potentially problematic to suggest that an individual should be forced to act against their beliefs, it is also difficult to condone this decision. The morning-after pill is a safe, effective and legal medication and the only reason it should be refused is if it is deemed unsuitable for a particular individual. It should not be the choice of the pharmacist as to whether it is morally or ethically acceptable for any one person to take this treatment. An analogy can be made here with a vegetarian serving customers meat products. Though it is against their personal moral code, it is not their right to refuse service to other people. If they do find serving meat products to be morally objectionable, they should not be working in an industry which requires that they do so.

The debate on the availability of contraceptives such as the morning-after pill is likely to rage on for the foreseeable future, but the argument should always remain theoretical. If it begins to bleed out to providers of the medication, serious problems could arise, and it sets a dangerous precedent for all prescription and over-the-counter medications. The outcome of emergency contraception is to prevent pregnancy, and all contraceptives and condoms serve this purpose. Would the pharmacist in this case also have refused these products? It seems unlikely.

The only effective answer to this ongoing debate is to ensure that all parties are as informed as they can be. It will surely be more effective, if the desired outcome is to reduce emergency contraceptive use, to promote education about how to have safe sex without needing to resort to measures such as this. There will always be a small minority of individuals who abuse the availability of these medications, but they should not be used as a reason to deny the treatments to others who need them.

If you are looking for more specific information about you can find it under our emergency contraceptives section. Please also feel free to submit your comments and thoughts as to how this situation could possibly find a compromise.

Add Comment