Jump to content

Talk:Emergency contraception

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Introduction is too technical

[edit]

WP is written for the ordinary reader. See WP:NOTPAPER. I think this introduction starts out by introducing too many complicated ideas that the ordinary reader is not likely to be familiar with.

Look at the introductions to the professionally-written web sites addressed to the ordinary reader:

Princeton:

Emergency contraception is birth control that prevents pregnancy after sex, which is why it is sometimes called "the morning after pill," "the day after pill," or "morning after contraception." You can use emergency contraception right away - or up to five days after sex - if you think your birth control failed, you didn't use contraception, or you were forced to have sex. [1]

Planned Parenthood:

Morning-After Pill (Emergency Contraception) at a Glance
Birth control you can use to prevent pregnancy up to five days (120 hours) after unprotected sex
Two kinds of emergency contraception — morning-after pill and IUD insertion
Safe and effective
Available at health centers and drugstores
Costs vary from $10 to $70 for the morning-after pill and up to $500 for IUD insertion [2]

Our introduction should be as simple as that.

Opinions? --Nbauman (talk) 06:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I might agree but a lot of the language being used might be a bit too un-precise for some if it didnt come with explanations. For example looking at the discussions here and some of the references cited, it looks like some pro-life people are contesting defintions for "contraception", "implantation", and "pregnancy." I think it may be best to sacrifice brevity for precision, in this case, so people know exactly what the article is talking about. Absolutezero273 (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if your reader can't understand the introduction, he or she isn't likely to read the rest of it.
The introduction must be easy for an ordinary reader to understand. If your reader can't understand it, there's no point in writing it.
According to WP:MOS, WP:MEDMOS, and WP:NOTPAPER, you're writing for a general audience. You can't use terms that ordinary people won't understand, especially in the introduction. You can't use unfamiliar terms that require people to follow links.
Doctors have done studies of how well people understand medical information. When you use terms like "ovulation" and "fertilization", ordinary readers don't understand it. That's why Princeton and Planned Parenthood don't use words like that.
The pro-life people may contest the definitions. But that doesn't justify tortuous language that the reader can't understand. You can discuss the contested definitions further down, after the reader understands the basic ideas. --Nbauman (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you and support a more concise intro that doesn't sacrifice clarity. I think the discussion of ovulation, fertilization, and implanation could occur further down in the article. The distinction of ECs and IUDs also doesn't really belong in the introduction.Absolutezero273 (talk) 03:16, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the same vein as this discussion, this statement seems odd and even somewhat snide:

'The phrase "morning-after pill" is a misnomer; ECPs are most effective when used shortly after intercourse.'

The phrase is presumably a popular nickname based on when people most commonly take it, not on perceptions of optimal effective usage. It might as well also say "'Plan B' is a misnomer because abstinence and condoms should be considered Plans A and B respectively". There's also the fact that while some article sources like Planned Parenthood do advise taking EPCs 'as soon as possible after unprotected sex', they mostly stress effectiveness timeframes such as '85% effective up to 5 days', with numbers falling off after that. This sentence could be interpreted as implying the next morning may be too late, which might be especially misleading for a reader in need of concise, reliable information quickly. AveVeritas (talk) 05:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Moved the following stale, hodgepodge, play-by-play, U.S.-centric section started on 24 February 2006 by Chooserr (talk | contribs) to talk page:

United States legal and ethical controversies

A great deal of controversy accompanied the FDA approval of over-the-counter (OTC) access to Plan B. Supporters of over-the-counter access believe that easier access will reduce unintended pregnancy and abortion rates; some abortion opponents believe that EC itself is a form of abortion. The American Medical Association, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other leading U.S. medical organizations all supported OTC access. An advisory committee to the FDA recommended that Plan B be made available over the counter in 2003. In 2004, the FDA refused the advisory board's recommendation and prohibited over-the-counter sale, citing insufficient evidence that ECPs could be used safely by adolescents without medical supervision. In 2005, Susan F. Wood, assistant FDA commissioner for women's health and director of the Office of Women's Health, resigned to protest the FDA's delay. Reproductive rights supporters accused the FDA of basing the decision on political pressure from the pro-life lobby. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit regarding the approval process, which had not been resolved as of December 2006. In the legal proceedings, two senior FDA officials alleged in depositions that the decision to reject the OTC application was made on political, rather than scientific, grounds to "appease the administration's constituents". In 2006, the FDA approved over-the-counter access to Plan B for women 18 years of age and older. In April 2009, the FDA followed the ruling of a New York Federal District Court and loosened the restrictions to allow Duramed Pharmaceuticals to provide Plan B without a prescription to 17-year-olds. However, as of June 2009, Duramed had not yet put a non-prescription Plan B product for 17-year-olds through FDA approval, a process that could take some time.

On April 5, 2013, Judge Edward R. Korman of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ruled that "the government must make the most common morning-after pill available over the counter for all ages, instead of requiring a prescription for girls 16 and younger." Korman ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to lift all age and prescription restrictions on Plan B One-Step and its generic counterparts within thirty days. In his opinion Korman wrote that "More than twelve years have passed since the citizen petition was filed and eight years since this lawsuit commenced. The F.D.A. has engaged in intolerable delays in processing the petition. Indeed, it could accurately be described as an administrative agency filibuster."

On April 30, 2013, the Obama administration U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved (with three-year marketing exclusivity) Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Plan B One-Step for sale without a prescription to anyone age 15 or over who can show proof of age such as a driver's license, birth certificate, or passport to a drug store retail clerk. Generic one-pill levonorgestrel emergency contraceptives and all two-pill levonorgestrel emergency contraceptives will remain restricted to sale from a pharmacist—without a prescription to anyone age 17 or over who can show proof of age.

On May 1, 2013, the Obama administration U.S. Department of Justice said it would appeal Judge Korman's decision and pending the appeal asked him to stay his order for the FDA to approve levonorgestrel emergency contraceptives for OTC sale without prescription or age restriction by May 6, 2013.

A Massachusetts law that went into effect on 14 December 2005 requires all hospitals in the state to provide emergency contraception to any "female rape victim of childbearing age" including Catholic Hospitals who oppose the provision of emergency contraception. In a letter criticizing the joint UN/WHO Inter-agency Field Manual on Reproductive Health in Refugee Situations, the Catholic Church explains its belief that emergency contraception, along with IUDs and hormonal contraception, cannot be considered "solely contraceptive because in the case of effective fertilization a chemical abortion would be carried out during the first days of pregnancy." The Catholic position on family planning is explained further in Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services. Because of this expressed moral stance against emergency contraception, the Massachusetts Catholic Conference opposed this law, stating interference with religious freedom.

In isolated instances across the United States, pharmacists have refused to dispense emergency contraception even when presented with a legal prescription. In 2010, the Washington State Pharmacy Board decided that pharmacists do have a right to refuse to dispense emergency contraception. In addition, Wal-Mart, the nation's fifth-largest distributor of pharmaceuticals, refused to stock EC, beginning with Preven in 1999. However, Wal-Mart reversed this position when it was announced that stores would sell Plan B in March 2006.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in the 2008 Instruction Dignitas Personae (Paragraph 23) stated that: "Alongside methods of preventing pregnancy which are, properly speaking, contraceptive, that is, which prevent conception following from a sexual act, there are other technical means which act after fertilization, when the embryo is already constituted, either before or after implantation in the uterine wall. Such methods are interceptive if they interfere with the embryo before implantation and contragestative if they cause the elimination of the embryo once implanted...Therefore, the use of means of interception and contragestation fall within the sin of abortion and are gravely immoral. Furthermore, when there is certainty that an abortion has resulted, there are serious penalties in canon law."

BC07 (talk) 12:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Linacre Quarterly

[edit]

Does not appear to be a have good impact factor. Thus I am not sure it supports

"Some scholars still insist that the abty-implantation effect is possible and aptients should be infomed about it.[1]"

[Per http://www.maneyonline.com/bibliometrics/lnq] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per here it looks like it just started [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trimmed it again. The fact that The_Linacre_Quarterly is associated with the Catholic church raises concerns IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:09, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what this means exactly:

" If progestogen-only emergency contraceptive pills had post-fertilization effect,then they would lessen the number of normal pregnancies without influence on the number of ectopic pregnancies,[2] but increasing the percentage of ectopic pregnancies up to maximum of the norm [3] There were studies that showed the increase of percentage of ectopic pregnancies among women using LNG-EC amounted to compared to women who didn't use it.[4][5] Thus, some scientits don't reject the possibility of anti-implantation effect of LNG-EC.[6][7],[8]"

In fact the JAMA paper states " Both epidemiologic and clinical studies of Plan B's efficacy in relation to the timing of ovulation are inconsistent with the hypothesis that Plan B acts to prevent implantation."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Chris Kahlenborn, Rebecca Peck, Walter B. Severs, Mechanism of action of levonorgestrel emergency contraception, „The Linacre Quarterly”, Volume 82, Issue 1 (February, 2015), s. 18-33, DOI: 10.1179/2050854914Y.0000000026, PMID: 25698840
  2. ^ Frank Davidoff, James Trussell, Plan B and the Politics of Doubt, „JAMA”, 296(14), 11 października 2006, DOI: 10.1001/jama.296.14.1775, PMID: 17032991 (ang.).
  3. ^ Chris Kahlenborn, Rebecca Peck, Walter B. Severs, Mechanism of action of levonorgestrel emergency contraception, 2015.
  4. ^ Jian Zhang i inni, Association between levonorgestrel emergency contraception and the risk of ectopic pregnancy: a multicenter case-control study, „Scientific Reports”, 5, 12 lutego 2015, DOI: 10.1038/srep08487, PMID: 25674909 (ang.).
  5. ^ Chris Kahlenborn, Rebecca Peck, Walter B. Severs, Mechanism of action of levonorgestrel emergency contraception, 2015.
  6. ^ Chris Kahlenborn, Rebecca Peck, Walter B. Severs, Mechanism of action of levonorgestrel emergency contraception, 2015.
  7. ^ Rebecca Peck, Rev. Juan R. Vélez, The Postovulatory Mechanism of Action of Plan B. Marie T. Hilliard, Are Jourlalists Now Scientists?, National Catholics Bioethics Center [dostęp 2014-11-11].
  8. ^ Marie T. Hilliard, Are Jourlalists Now Scientists?, National Catholics Bioethics Center [dostęp 2014-11-11].

Terminology

[edit]

Hi Doc James and UCDEBS, I noticed that the phrasing of the article for sexual assault section was changed from "rape victims" to "women who have been raped". The article also uses "women" for "women who had been sexually assaulted" and "women of child-bearing age". This seems to omit girls, however, who also can experience sexual assault and need emergency contraception. Should instances of "women" here (and perhaps other places in the article) be replaced by "women and girls"? Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest simplifying to "individuals who have been raped" as unfortunately, women, girls, and those who may identify as trans-men at times may find the need to use emergency contraception after rape. As there are some who feel "survivor" is more empowering than "victim" probably a good idea to remove that word if we can--UCDEBS (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with User:UCDEBS "individuals or people who have been raped" is better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between emergency contraception and abortion

[edit]

Rather than just stating that it's a type of birth control, the article should state the difference between emergency contraception and abortion. A lot of people who read this probably want to know that. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emergency_contraception&oldid=1269599740"