Emergency Contraception: an Anthropological Perspective.
Word Count (excluding title and references) = 1469.
What are the basic assumptions about sexuality, health decision-making, and the doctor-patient relationship that inform the positions of opponents and proponents of emergency contraception (EC)?
Introduction:
Emergency Contraceptives (ECs) have been defined as a post coital method of contraception that is effective if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. Although the primary method of post coital contraception is ingestion of oral pills, copper bearing intra-uterine devices (IUDs) have also been known to be effective (Parker 2005). Parker (2005) also informs that the most effective regimen is a progestin only pill. However, an alternative to this is the Yuzpe method (Parker 2005) which is considered less effective. McLaren (1990) argues that comparatively less successful post coital contraceptives have been available for hundreds of years, although they were mostly douches or disinfectants, and marketed as “female hygiene products” (Ziebland 1999). As reported by the media, modern efforts to make EC more available have been met with frequent resistance. This is because it has been repeatedly equated to abortifacients, and seen as a tool to create a morally degenerate population. In contrast, proponents see it as an option within the wider reproductive health agenda, and argue that it allows greater autonomy for women and reduces health issues associated with unwanted pregnancies. In the following paragraphs, we explore the opposition and proposition of EC in the context of female sexuality, health decision making, and doctor-patient relationships.
Emergency Contraception and the Female Sexuality:
Historically, women’s sexuality has only been considered “respectable” when it’s either passive or completely absent (Turner 1995). Barett and Harper (2000) say that the very strong influence of Church doctrines in conceptions regarding sexuality means that the female sexuality was deconstructed into two
What are the basic assumptions about sexuality, health decision-making, and the doctor-patient relationship that inform the positions of opponents and proponents of emergency contraception (EC)?
Introduction:
Emergency Contraceptives (ECs) have been defined as a post coital method of contraception that is effective if taken within 72 hours of intercourse. Although the primary method of post coital contraception is ingestion of oral pills, copper bearing intra-uterine devices (IUDs) have also been known to be effective (Parker 2005). Parker (2005) also informs that the most effective regimen is a progestin only pill. However, an alternative to this is the Yuzpe method (Parker 2005) which is considered less effective. McLaren (1990) argues that comparatively less successful post coital contraceptives have been available for hundreds of years, although they were mostly douches or disinfectants, and marketed as “female hygiene products” (Ziebland 1999). As reported by the media, modern efforts to make EC more available have been met with frequent resistance. This is because it has been repeatedly equated to abortifacients, and seen as a tool to create a morally degenerate population. In contrast, proponents see it as an option within the wider reproductive health agenda, and argue that it allows greater autonomy for women and reduces health issues associated with unwanted pregnancies. In the following paragraphs, we explore the opposition and proposition of EC in the context of female sexuality, health decision making, and doctor-patient relationships.
Emergency Contraception and the Female Sexuality:
Historically, women’s sexuality has only been considered “respectable” when it’s either passive or completely absent (Turner 1995). Barett and Harper (2000) say that the very strong influence of Church doctrines in conceptions regarding sexuality means that the female sexuality was deconstructed into two