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.

Embryonic viability, parental care and the pro-life thesis: a defence of Bovens.

On the basis of three empirical assumptions about the rhythm method and the viability of embryos, Bovens concludes that the pro-life position regarding empbryos implies that it is prima facie wrong to use the rhythm method. Pruss objects to Bovens's philosophical presuppositions and Kennedy to his empirical premises. This essay defends two revised versions of Bovens's argument. These arguments revise Bovens's empirical assumptions in response to Kennedy and, in response to Pruss, supplement Bovens's argument with what I call 'the principle of parental care'.

Under what conditions is it ethical to offer incentives to encourage drug-using women to use long-acting forms of contraception?

AIMS: To stimulate debate by examining ethical issues raised by Project Prevention, a US-based organization that offers $US300 to addicted individuals who agree to either undergo surgical sterilization or use long-acting forms of contraception. METHOD: An analysis of key ethical questions raised by Project Prevention. RESULTS: The important issues for debate are: (i) what are the reproductive rights of drug-using women; (ii) does a substantial cash incentive undermine the ability of addicted women to make free and informed decisions about long-term contraception; and (iii) how can we best assist addicted women to access good reproductive health care and obtain treatment for their addiction? CONCLUSIONS: We need more research on ways in which small non-cash incentives for reversible methods of contraception could be used in a morally acceptable and effective way to promote the sexual, reproductive and general health of addicted women.