Comment on ‘Embracing post-fertilisation methods of family planning: a call to action’: authors’ response
===============================================================================================================

* Elizabeth G Raymond
* James Trussell
* Kristina Gemzell-Danielsson

*   post-fertilisation methods
*   family planning service provision
*   abortion

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.

## Footnotes

*   Competing interests None.

## References

1.  Gordon S. Comment on ‘Embracing post-fertilisation methods of family planning: a call to action’. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 2014;40:73.
    
    

2.  Lopez-Del Burgo C, Mikolajczyk RT, Osorio A, et al. Women's attitudes towards mechanisms of action of birth control methods: a cross-sectional study in five European countries. J Clin Nurs 2013;22:3006–3015.
    
    [PubMed](http://jfprhc.bmj.com/lookup/external-ref?access_num=23957574&link_type=MED&atom=%2Ffamilyplanning%2F40%2F1%2F73.4.atom)