SPUC has said “women deserve proper medical care” in response to proposals by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency that the oral contraceptive pill desogestrel should be available from pharmacies. A consultation run by the Regulatory Agency closes today and SPUC makes the case that important aspects of women’s health should not be demedicalised.
The consultation proposes that two progestogen-only contraceptive pills, Hana and Lovima, are reclassified so that they are available from pharmacies without a medical prescription. This is the first time such a change has been considered.
SPUC’s Alithea Williams said: “This is a very worrying development. DIY abortions are dangerous and DIY contraception poses risks for women. Women deserve proper medical care.”
Abortion provider BPAS supports the change, saying: “Whether it is the contraceptive pill or early abortion medication, reproductive healthcare should be placed in women's hands wherever possible, with no clinically unnecessary barriers or restrictions.”
Miss Williams explains: “We agree with BPAS that making the contraceptive pill a pharmacy medicine is part of the same trajectory as the home use of early medical abortion pills. This reclassification seems to be part of a general trend to demedicalise important aspects of women’s health, with the result that the burden of making what should be clinical decisions is placed on the women themselves.
“Where we disagree with BPAS is in seeing this as a good thing. Both desogestrel and abortion pills are serious drugs, with serious side-affects and possible complications for women. Women deserve proper medical consideration, in private, by a clinician before being given such drugs.”
SPUC’s submission points out some of the concerns about dispensing these contraceptive pills in a pharmacy setting, without a consultation with a doctor. One of these is that pharmacists will have to ask women questions to ensure safe and effective use; the consultation document says that these include vaginal bleeding and recent pregnancy history (including miscarriage and abortion). This puts the woman in a difficult position talking about very sensitive issues in earshot of staff and other customers, raising the possibility that important matters related to safety and effectiveness could be missed.
The consultation document also says that while where is no data on the safety of these drugs for adolescent women, “the benefits of avoiding an unplanned pregnancy clearly outweigh any risks” for women under 18. This actually contradicts information put out by one of the companies: “The safety and efficacy of Lovima in adolescents below 18 years has not been established. No data are available. The benefits and risks of supply to adolescents under 16 years should be carefully considered.”
Miss Williams added: “Our submission points out that, once again, women’s health is being ignored in favour of ideology. As with any medication, there needs to be careful consideration of suitability, especially considering the common side-affects and potential complications associated with hormonal contraception. A public consultation with a pharmacist, who doesn’t have access to a woman’s medical history, is not sufficient for an important aspect of women’s health.”