Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Comment on ‘Embracing post-fertilisation methods of family planning: a call to action’: authors’ response
  1. Elizabeth G Raymond, MD, MPH
  1. Senior Medical Associate, Gynuity Health Projects, New York, NY, USA; eraymond{at}
  1. James Trussell, PhD
  1. Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Office of Population Research, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA and Visiting Professor, The Hull York Medical School, Hull, UK; trussell{at}
  1. Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson, MD, PhD
  1. Professor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; Kristina.Gemzell{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Dr Gordon1 is uncomfortable with a family planning method that exerts its effect after fertilisation. 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 may work after fertilisation, and 23% would consider using one that may work after implantation. Given the pressing importance of fertility regulation to both individuals and society and the potential benefits of post-fertilisation methods, we hope that readers of this Journal who respect each woman's right to make her own reproductive decisions will advocate for research to develop such products.



  • Competing interests None.