| Sexual Health or Contraceptive Evangelism? |
|
|
See also:
Why the pill can be abortifacient | Side effects of the Contraceptive Pill
|
First Published in Northern Ireland Pharmacy in
Focus, January 2007, see page 25.
I recently attended a NICPPET (Northern Ireland Continuing
Pharmaceutical Education and Training) pharmacist’s training day on
the theme of Women’s Sexual Health and it gave me much food for
thought. The presenters were clearly committed, dedicated, sincere
and truly believed they were working for the good of their patients.
Information delivery was high quality.
Over the course of the day, it became clear that indeed there is a
definite role for pharmacy in the arena of sexual health. Whether or
not one personally agreed with the lifestyle of patients or clients
presenting with a particular sexually transmitted infection (STI),
there is a clear role for pharmacy directly addressing and
alleviating viral and bacterial infections, sores or other symptoms
in a non-judgmental way. The idea of a proposed pilot chlamydia
testing project for pharmacies to the at-risk section of the
population is excellently pro-active and laudable.
However, deeply unsettling questions arose with the profession’s
involvement both in the area of condom promotion and regarding
emergency hormonal contraception (EHC).
Condom promotion fails in its clinical aims, the moral issues
aside. Studies from family planning journals attest to the extensive
failure of condoms to lessen abortion. In fact, between 50-70% of
women electing for abortion report using some form of contraception
at the time of conception (1,2,3). The so-called ‘safe-sex’ doesn’t
actually exist if it means intercourse with condoms. The more subtly
termed ‘safer-sex’ is not one iota better to users in practice.
Studies report breakage / leakage rates of 8%-42% (4,5,6). Taking
even the lowest 8% figure is a 1 in 12 statistical chance of exposure
to disease with an infected partner.
How many of us would board an airline which had a 1 in 12 chance
of crashing en route to our destination. Enough plane flights would
effectively ensure our demise. Used long enough and frequently enough,
condom use virtually assures STI/HIV transmission. In their stated
aim of disease reduction, used frequently, condoms fail, plain and
simple. Indeed, we even heard on the sexual health day that, in the
experience of one Belfast pharmacy, condoms appear to split much more
frequently than reported by the manufacturers. We also heard of a
high EHC uptake among the same user profile as the condoms.
The abysmal failure of condom / contraception promotion to reduce
STIs / unwanted abortion has not only led to a national and global
sexual health pandemic, but has contributed enormously to the sheer
scale of sexual licentiousness so patently obvious all around us. In
response to the statistics of failure rates, incredibly, we hear
calls for more contraception. The self-propagating monster feeds on
its own failure.
Reproduced with permission
Is it right that the profession of pharmacy lends its esteemed standing in the service of authentic healthcare to the purposes of the contraceptive evangelists which advocate a worldview that clinically, scientifically and statistically fails in its stated aims of disease and abortion reduction? Should pharmacy treat its clients for STIs, then equip them with condoms, and send them back into the very lifestyle that gave rise to the problem in the first place? Should pharmacy be going onto university campuses to promote the so-called ‘safer-sex’? Is that true healthcare? Is our noble profession not tacitly affirming the primary problematic behaviour? Do we not tarnish our calling?
Then there is the question of EHC. How is EHC relevant to true authentic sexual health? A pregnant woman by definition is not diseased, infectious or sick. She is not sexually ‘unhealthy’. She’s expecting a baby.
In this arena, for pharmacy, if a woman is expecting and walks into your pharmacy seeking an abortifacient, does the pharmacist not owe a duty of care to two patients, not one? Is not the supply of an EHC, in effect, a facilitation in the expiration of one of those patients? Had the same woman instead enquired about folic acid tablets or presented a prescription for methotrexate in psoriasis, would we not act differently in the protection of her ‘baby’?
Some pharmacists do have a genuine ethical problem with the EHC scenario. There are serious questions but no immediately obvious easy answers. Real solutions exist, but they require hard, honest, objective analysis.
There is a coherent basis for pharmacy to cogently and credibly review its involvement in this entire scenario. Anyone for further discussion?
References
Human Life International (Ireland)
6 Belvedere Place, Dublin 1
Tel: (01) 8552504
Fax: (01) 8552767
Further information