If the pope can change his mind on condoms, why not emergency contraceptives?
BMJ 2010; 341 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c7073 (Published 21 December 2010) Cite this as: BMJ 2010;341:c7073
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Hey Mick, Tommy here from Daily Gossip, did you hear what the Pope
said about condoms? Yea ? Yea he said its ok. What about that for breaking
news !!If you are a male prostitute its moral to use them. But Tommy,
engage brain, the problem with that is that being a prostitute is immoral
for starters, so once you accept that whatever limits damage is a plus.
Its like saying a murderer can morally use a silencer to reduce noise
pollution. So try that for a headline "Pope says its ok to use silencers
on weapons"....killing with silencers is morally ok! Mick you`re a genius.
I am going to write an opinion piece for the BMJ on that scientifically
based, evidenced based, balanced and unbiased fact. Thanks a ton Mick.
Yours Tommy, trainee sub-editor Daily Gossip.
Competing interests: No competing interests
This is a splendid and most important article. If the science is
secure, this information needs to be widely publicise. Most Catholics -
not all - believe that the Church's teaching on artificial contraception
is mistaken. Most Catholics - not all - believe that the Church's teaching
on abortion is generally right. If levonorgestrel does indeed act by
preventing ovulation, many Catholic would use it with a clear conscience.
(The reaffirmation in 1968 of the traditional Catholic teaching about
artificial contraception was a great tragedy for the Church and especially
for the poor of the world. The decision was a close run thing: it needs to
be reversed.)
jgd@gerrydanaher.com
Competing interests: I am a Catholic
As you can read here
http://press.catholica.va/news_services/press/vis/dinamiche/b0_en.htm the
Catholic Church's position has not changed at all. And regarding the
emergency "contraception", I remark that it is a more serious moral issue
because it involves the killing of a human being, so no hope of a change
in this area either.
Competing interests: I am Catholic.
Re:Levnorgestrel is the only post coital contraceptive
I was rather surprised to read the above statement in Sara Carrillo
de Albornoz' piece about emergency contraception. What about the
emergency intra-uterine device? This method of post coital contraception
has been available for far longer than hormonal methods and is licensed
for up to 120 hours after unprotected intercourse. It is more effective
than hormonal methods. However its mode of action when used post-coitally
would be to prevent implantation so perhaps this is why she has not
mentioned its use in her article as this mode of action would be far less
likely to be approved by the Roman Catholic Church. However, what about
ulipristal? This is marketed in the UK as Ella One and is licensed for
use up to 120 hours after unproteceted intercourse in a single tablet
containing 30mg of the active drug. It's primary mode of action is
thought to be similar to levnorgestrel's in that it inhibits ovulation.
Competing interests: No competing interests