From Mr I. M. Grace, MRPharmS
SIR,—It is amazing how you can "spin" an article. Take the one on p665 of the PJ dated October 23 - "Majority of pharmacists favour OTC emergency contraception".
Having read the article and noticed that 3 per cent of the very small sample size of 1,543 (less than half returned from the 3,999 questionnaires sent out) had no concerns about deregulation, the headline could have read "Overwhelming majority of pharmacists (97 per cent) have concerns about deregulation of emergency contraception". This gives a completely different impression, does it not?
For emergency contraception to be OTC many things would have to be sorted out first, eg, medical history (should it be stipulated that only pharmacies with consultation areas separate and out of earshot of the counter be eligible?), follow-up (how would this be done?), liability and payment (pharmacy has not got a good record of being paid adequately for its current roles).
We easily forget that there are already family planning clinics etc, and that Schering PC4 is not the only option available. Therefore, speed of use of PC4 is not as big an issue as some would suggest.
Another thought. If pharmacists are keen to provide emergency contraception, should all contraceptives be made OTC? Surely, ideally, emergency contraception may often need the supply of regular contraception, too?
The debate will go on. As I have written before I only hope that women will not be able to go pharmacies and buy OTC emergency contraception like a pack of sweets. Provision should not be an easy process and we must be wary of people thinking this is an easy option without thought of responsibility for their behaviour. "Emergency" would have to be very clearly defined and there should be clear instruction to the public that some pharmacists, for moral or ethical reasons, would not be willing to supply in any circumstance.
I. Grace
Dewsbury, West Yorkshire