Return to home page
The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 263 No 7073 p860
November 27, 1999 Letters

Emergency contraception

Deficiencies of logic

From Mr R. B. A. Johns, MRPharmS

SIR,—One needs neither to agree nor disagree with Mr Bernard Whittaker to perceive the deficiencies of logic in his letter (PJ, November 20, p817).
It is ludicrous to compare a chip pan fire resulting from a momentary and entirely involuntary lapse of concentration and possibly leading, if not dealt with urgently, to injury and death of others in addition to the "careless adult", with the possible (not certain, be it noted) unwanted pregnancy consequent upon a deliberate and (at least when I was young) somewhat protracted act pursued solely for pleasure and regardless of the outcome.
In declining to aid and abet an individual in escaping the consequences of such an act, a pharmacist cannot be accused of imposing his or her own moral code; that would require a lecture on the morality of the act and/or the intended means of dealing with its sequelae.
"Do we want teenage mums?" Of course not, but logic does not demand chemical abortion as the only means of reducing their numbers. After all, we now seem to be creating a climate in which a girl of any age may obtain free contraception from her GP, with little fear that her parents will be informed, even assuming that they care enough to worry.
Mr Whittaker asserts that society is changing and lists a number of aspects of that society which "we have to recognise". But recognition is not synonymous with toleration and, if paedophilia and child abuse are to be set alongside divorce as equivalent in their social consequences, then I fear very greatly the society to which those changes are leading. Perhaps the gentleman should read the history of the Greek and Roman civilisations to learn a little about the causes of their downfall.
In the same paragraph he refers to child brides in the Third World, a totally different culture from ours, as those for whom his "sympathy is reserved". Does he really see so many such in Keighley?
And if his sympathy is so selective, to whom is the rest of his letter referring?

R. B. A. Johns
Boston, Lincolnshire