Emergency contraception: unresolved clinical, ethical and legal quandaries still linger.

Emergency contraception (EC) has been prescribed for decades, in order to lessen the risk of unplanned and unwanted pregnancy following unprotected intercourse, ordinary contraceptive failure, or rape. EC and the linked aspect of unintended pregnancy undoubtedly constitute highly relevant public health issues, in that they involve women's self-determination, reproductive freedom and family planning. Most European countries regulate EC access quite effectively, with solid information campaigns and supply mechanisms, based on various recommendations from international institutions herein examined. However, there is still disagreement on whether EC drugs should be available without a physician's prescription and on the reimbursement policies that should be implemented. In addition, the rights of health care professionals who object to EC on conscience grounds have been subject to considerable legal and ethical scrutiny, in light of their potential to damage patients who need EC drugs in a timely fashion. Ultimately, reproductive health, freedom and conscience-based refusal on the part of operators are elements that have proven extremely hard to reconcile; hence, it is essential to strike a reasonable balance for the sake of everyone's rights and well-being.

The role of pharmacists and emergency contraception: Are pharmacists' perceptions of emergency contraception predictive of their dispensing practices?

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists can play a critical role in the access to emergency contraception (EC). We assessed if knowledge and attitudes were predictive of EC dispensing among a statewide sample of Florida pharmacists, who have legal authority to refuse to dispense medications. STUDY DESIGN: In 2008, surveys were mailed to a random sample of 1264 pharmacists registered with the Florida Board of Pharmacy. Data from 272 pharmacists (22% response rate) were analyzed using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Fifty-six percent of respondents incorrectly answered that EC causes birth defects, and 46% replied that it causes abortion. Only 22% said that EC can be purchased in advance of need. Many felt uncomfortable dispensing to adolescents (61%) and men (58%). Knowledge about EC was the most important predictor of dispensing [odds ratio (OR)=1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22-2.03]. In particular, pharmacists who reported that EC does not act as an abortifacient were more likely to dispense it (OR=4.64, 95% CI 2.15-10.00). CONCLUSIONS: Correct information about EC was the most important predictor of pharmacists' dispensing EC. To expand availability of EC, pharmacists will have to become better informed.

Obstetrician-gynecologist physicians' beliefs about emergency contraception: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Although emergency contraception (EC) is available without a prescription, women still rely on doctors' advice about its safety and effectiveness. Yet little is known about doctors' beliefs and practices in this area. STUDY DESIGN: We surveyed 1800 US obstetrician-gynecologists. Criterion variables were doctors' beliefs about EC's effects on pregnancy rates, and patients' sexual practices. We also asked which women are offered EC. Predictors were demographic, clinical and religious characteristics. RESULTS: Response rate was 66% (1154/1760). Most (89%) believe EC access lowers unintended pregnancy rates. Some believe women use other contraceptives less (27%), initiate sex at younger ages (12%) and have more sexual partners (15%). Half of physicians offer EC to all women (51%), while others offer it never (6%) or only after sexual assault (6%). Physicians critical of EC, males and religious physicians were more likely to offer it never or only after sexual assault (odds ratios 2.1-12). CONCLUSION: Gender, religion and divergent beliefs about EC's effects shape physicians' beliefs and practices.

Exploring emergency contraception knowledge among Florida pharmacy school students: a preliminary assessment.

OBJECTIVES: The United States leads all industrialized nations in unintended pregnancies. Many unintended pregnancies could be avoided through the use of emergency contraception (EC), a hormonal contraceptive that is highly effective if taken up to 5 days after unprotected intercourse. Pharmacists play a critical role in the ability of women to obtain EC, either over-the-counter or by prescription. This study assessed if U.S. pharmacy schools report teaching about EC in pharmacy school classes and how pharmacy students in Florida report learning about EC. METHODS: This study employed a mixed methods study design: a questionnaire was sent to the 91 deans of accredited pharmacy schools in the United States and focus groups were conducted with Florida pharmacy school students at the four accredited schools of pharmacy in Florida. RESULTS: Findings reported between the two phases of the study were discordant: All schools reported teaching EC content, whereas most students reported learning about EC outside of their classes. Knowledge that students have about EC does not seem to be adequate. Pharmacy students have preconceived biases or judgments about people who use EC and reported being hesitant about dispensing the medication. CONCLUSION: This preliminary analysis revealed that pharmacy schools report to be teaching about EC in their pharmacy schools classes, but pharmacy school students may not feel well enough informed to dispense EC. Future research in understanding the complex process of how education can impact professional beliefs and practice is critical.

Conscientious objection and emergency contraception.

This article argues that practitioners have a professional ethical obligation to dispense emergency contraception, even given conscientious objection to this treatment. This recent controversy affects all medical professionals, including physicians as well as pharmacists. This article begins by analyzing the option of referring the patient to another willing provider. Objecting professionals may conscientiously refuse because they consider emergency contraception to be equivalent to abortion or because they believe contraception itself is immoral. This article critically evaluates these reasons and concludes that they do not successfully support conscientious objection in this context. Contrary to the views of other thinkers, it is not possible to easily strike a respectful balance between the interests of objecting providers and patients in this case. As medical professionals, providers have an ethical duty to inform women of this option and provide emergency contraception when this treatment is requested.

Harm reduction or women's rights? Debating access to emergency contraceptive pills in Canada and the United States.

This article compares the ethical pivot points in debates over nonprescription access to emergency contraceptive pills in Canada and the United States. These include women's right to be informed about the contraceptive method and its mechanism of action, pharmacists' conscientious objection concerning the dispensing of emergency contraceptive pills, and rights and equality of access to the method, especially for poor women and minorities. In both countries, arguments in support of expanding access to the pills were shaped by two competing orientations toward health and sexuality. The first, "harm reduction," promotes emergency contraception as attenuating the public health risks entailed in sex. The second orientation regards access to pills as a question of women's right to engage in nonprocreative sex and to choose from among all reproductive health-care options. The authors contend that arguments for expanding access to emergency contraceptive pills that frame issues in terms of health and science are insufficient bases for drug regulation; ultimately, women's health is also a matter of women's rights.

Future of emergency contraception lies in pharmacists' hands.

OBJECTIVE: To increase community pharmacists' awareness about issues related to the provision of emergency contraception (EC) to women by describing pharmacist outreach and training programs and discussing pharmacy access and stocking issues, California's EC Pharmacy Program, methods for raising pharmacists' awareness, and professional development opportunities. SUMMARY: EC is both safe and effective in reducing the risk of unintended pregnancy after unprotected intercourse, yet awareness of and demand for the medication has not been high, and it often is not stocked in pharmacies. Various advocacy organizations have engaged in educating the public and physicians about EC, but relatively little attention and few resources have been targeted to ensure that the pharmacy community is aware of and educated about EC. Increased visibility and access to EC in the several states that allow pharmacists to provide EC directly to women have resulted from the active participation and leadership of pharmacists. In these states, women are showing interest in and receptivity to reproductive health services provided by pharmacists. In California, some 3000 pharmacists statewide have completed training, and in 2004 they provided EC directly to approximately 175,000 women. Pharmacists who provide EC overwhelmingly (91%) report that they do so because they see it as an important community service, and many (57%) recognize the opportunity for professional development. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists are uniquely positioned to improve access to EC, and leadership within the pharmacy community can facilitate efforts to improve access. Increased education and training of pharmacists about EC--such as continuing education programs available online at www.pharmacyaccess. learnsomething.com--are critical to ensure not only that EC is available in pharmacies but also that pharmacists are engaged in meeting the reproductive health needs of women. Increased access to EC can expand pharmacists' role in health care provision. State-specific information about EC pharmacy access initiatives is available on the Web at www.GO2EC.org.

Emergency contraception - a human rights issue.

Emergency contraception is the only resource that women can use to avoid becoming pregnant after having sexual intercourse without contraceptive protection. It could be a powerful means to prevent unwanted pregnancies and their devastating consequences for women's health, social wellbeing and life project, and for the unwanted child, if all people had ample access to good quality information, education and services for sexual and reproductive health. In spite of the preventive medicine value of emergency contraception, conservative sectors oppose its availability, appealing to moral values that are not universally shared in pluralistic societies. Excluding the only contraceptive that can be used after intercourse because some consider the mechanism of action to be unacceptable would mean restricting the right of choice of others, and imposing one particular belief or set of values on all members of the community, thus violating the freedom of conscience. Authorities have a moral obligation to protect human rights.