Raymond's group discounts the possibility that emergency contraceptive is not very efficacious. Moreover, the theory that emergency contraceptive is counteracted by increased risk-taking was proven not to be the case in their study.Maybe the solution is greater accessibility accompanied by a campaign to counter misinformation propagated against the drug?
Instead, they believe that even when they could have emergency contraceptives on hand, subjects who became pregnant had not used the pills.
The investigators therefore conclude that a proactive program like theirs "would probably not be feasible for widespread, long-term use outside a study." Instead, they suggest a strategy that would target women at the highest risk of pregnancy.
The headline on this article is "Pregnancy rates unchanged with Plan B on hand." I'm sure the study will be spun to defend the argument against emergency contraception, that making it more available accomplishes little to curb pregnancies. The abstract of the study does mention, however, that "the increased access group used emergency contraceptive pills substantially more often and sooner after coitus than the standard access group." Also--
The authors point out that the risk of STDs in the easy access group was slightly lower than in the control group, but not significantly different, relieving fears that easy access would increase STD rates.
I'm wondering if the study's results distinguish between intended pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies within the sample. Probably relevant, no? Shouldn't it be looking at whether there were fewer unintentional pregnancies in the sample that had Plan B on hand? Maybe that was included in the full results of the study.
Also (very appropriately) in the same November issues of Obstetrics & Gynecology--"Emergency Contraception: Politics and Science Move Forward ." About time.
No comments:
Post a Comment