SPUC
and emergency contraception
04/05/01
It was reported earlier this week that the Society for
the Protection of Unborn Children was to go to the High Court
to seek permission to bring a judicial review about the classification
of emergency contraception. The organisation has been granted
permission to do so. Women have been able to buy the emergency
contraceptive Levonelle-2 from pharmacists without a prescription
since January. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children
is claiming that the classification of the drug as suitable
for sale without a prescription was unlawful. They argue it
permitted a criminal offence - the administration or supply
of poisons or instruments with the intent to procure miscarriage
- under a law dating back to 1861. Granting permission for
a full hearing, which will take place by July, Mr Justice
Scott Baker said there was 'an arguable case on what is fundamentally
a very important question'. He added that it would be better
to deal with it in the civil courts than via private prosecutions
of pharmacists for supplying the pill. A spokeswoman for the
Department of Health confirmed that the government would contest
the high court application.
The following response
is from BPAS.
BPAS comment on SPUC's legal challenge to emergency contraception
The legal challenge to
the sale of emergency contraception is a stunt by a group
opposed to emergency contraception, which we are confident
will go nowhere.
This marginal group have
insisted that emergency contraception was abortifacient
in action since it first became available. Repeatedly their
assertions have been rebutted by the medical-legal establishment
which insists that abortion is the interruption of an established
pregnancy ie. an event after the embryo has attached in
the uterus.
The product has been confirmed
as safe for pharmacy sale by the Committee on Safety of
Medicines and the Medicines Control Agency.
Those opposed to emergency
contraception have no new evidence on the science of emergency
contraception, they have no new evidence to claim it is
unsafe. There is no possible justification for the judicial
review they desire.
They are entitled to question
the morality of emergency contraception but not it's mode
of action or safety profile which are matters of fact not
judgement.
Those who think emergency
contraception need not use it. They should allow other women
to make up their own minds.
For further information please contact BPAS director of
communications, Ann Furedi on +44 1795 890 557
References
'Morning after pill challenged', Tania Branigan, The Guardian,
Thursday May 3, 2001
|
