Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 13 May 2016
- Published on: 13 May 2016
- Published on: 13 May 2016Comment on 'Embracing post-fertilisation methods of family planning: a call to action': authors' responseShow More
Dr Gordon is uncomfortable with a family planning method that exerts its effect after fertilisation.[1] However, a new study, published after our personal view article was already in press, suggests that many women feel differently.
This study surveyed 1137 women from randomly selected households in five European countries in 2008.[2] Overall, 41% of the respondents said they would consider using a method that...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared. - Published on: 13 May 2016Comment on 'Embracing post-fertilisation methods of family planning: a call to action'Show More
While acknowledging that the article 'Embracing post-fertilisation methods of family planning: a call to action' [1] is a personal view, the authors appear to assume that readers of the Journal will agree and be motivated to promote such methods. I would like to voice the view that I and many others would find this unethical. This is a price too high to pay to in our desire to help prevent unplanned pregnancies.
...
Conflict of Interest:
None declared.