Posted on 04/04/2002 9:01:40 PM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Signed the petition:
Not sure about indexing a form.
Pinging Seamole for superior indexing services!
Just fyi, this was written by a good friend, Dr. Chris Kahlenborn, and published in The Annals of Pharmacotherapy in March (my small contribution--I collaborated on writing the press release for the article for The Annals.)
Postfertilization Effect of Hormonal Emergency Contraception
Chris Kahlenborn, Joseph B. Stanford, Walter L. Larimore
OBJECTIVE: To assess the possibility of a postfertilization effect in regard to the most common types of hormonal emergency contraception used in the US and to explore the ethical impact of this possibility.
DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTON: A MEDLINE search from 1966 through November, 2001 was done to identify all pertinent English-language journal articles. A review of reference sections of the major review articles was performed to identify additional articles.
DATA SYNTHESIS: The two most common types of hormonal emergency contraception used in the US are the Yuzpe regimen (high-dose ethinyl estradiol with high-dose levonorgestrel) and Plan B (high-dose levonorgestrel alone). Although both methods sometimes stop ovulation, they may also act by reducing the probability of implantation, due to their adverse effect on the endometrium (a postfertilization effect). The available evidence for a postfertilization effect is moderately strong, whether hormonal EC is used in the pre-ovulatory, ovulatory or post-ovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle.
CONCLUSIONS: Based upon the present theoretical and empirical evidence, both the Yuzpe regimen and Plan B likely act at times by causing a postfertilization effect, regardless of when in the menstrual cycle they are used. These findings have potential implications in such areas as informed consent, emergency room protocols, and conscience clauses.
see the web site for the body of the paper at http://phth.allenpress.com/images/Morning_afterpill.pdf
Summary and Implications
The evidence to date supports the contention that use of EC does not always inhibit ovulation even if used in the pre-ovulatory phase, and that it may unfavorably alter the endometrial lining regardless of when in the cycle it is used, with the effect persisting for days. The reduced rates of observable pregnancy compared to the expected rates in women who use hormonal EC in the pre-ovulatory, ovulatory or post-ovulatory phase are consistent with a postfertilization effect, which may occur when hormonal EC is used in any of these three menstrual phases.
This interpretation of the cited literature has important ramifications given the polarizing opinions about EC use. For example, many state laws contain conscience clauses in which medical personnel (eg, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, etc.) cannot be forced to participate in, or refer for, any surgical or drug-induced abortions. Therefore, evidence in favor of a postfertilization effect may have legal implications for health-care providers who either prescribe or have objections to prescribing these agents.
Emergency room protocols could also be impacted by evidence of a postfertilization effect. For example, emergency rooms of Catholic Hospitals usually allow either no use of hormonal EC in their rape protocols or limited use (ie, pre-ovulatory use of hormonal EC).40 Those Catholic hospitals that do allow hormonal EC use prior to ovulation may wish to reassess their policies given the findings that EC use does not consistently stop ovulation and has the potential of causing a postfertilization effect even when used prior to ovulation. Most large secular hospitals have fewer limitations on the use of hormonal EC as part of their rape protocols. Nevertheless, evidence of a postfertilization effect from use of hormonal EC is important to physicians who must make a moral decision about prescribing or referring for a drug which can cause an early abortion.
There are potential limitations in our conclusions. Because no controlled trials have been done on women using EC, our conclusions are based on the existing data of case series with historical controls. However, this is the best available data for hormonal EC use. In addition, we have assumed, based upon our discussions with physicians and lay people across the country, that a significant number of physicians and patients would be concerned about a possible postfertilization effect. Although some evidence does exist to support our assumption40,41 further research is needed. Nevertheless, the principle of informed consent would state that it is important to inform women who may use hormonal EC about this possible effect so that they can choose based on the best available information. Regardless of the personal beliefs of the physician or provider about the mechanism of hormonal EC use, it is important that patients have information relevant to their own beliefs and value systems. It has been suggested to us by some that postfertilization loss attributed to hormonal EC use would not need to be included in informed consent until it is either definitely proven to exist or proven to be a common event. However, rare but important events are an essential part of other informed consent discussions in medicine, primarily when the rare possibility would be judged by the patient to be important. For example, anesthesia-related deaths are rare for elective surgery; nevertheless, it is considered appropriate and legally necessary to discuss this rare possibility with patients before such surgery because the possibility of death is so important. Therefore, for women to whom the induced death of a zygote/embryo is important, failure to discuss the possibility of this loss, even if the possibility is judged to be remote, would be a failure of informed consent. Further, based on the data reviewed in this paper, it seems that a postfertilization effect is probably a more common event than is recognized by most physicians or patients. This is particularly true because in the studies done to date, women have been more likely to request treatment after intercourse that occurred near the time of ovulation than after intercourse that occurred earlier in the cycle.39
Some have suggested to us that an overemphasis of possible postfertilization effects might make women choose not to use EC and therefore increase the incidence of unplanned pregnancy. Both of these views fail to acknowledge the value of a woman's right to make decisions based on informed consent. During informed consent discussions, overemphasis of any single possible risk may not result in appropriate informed consent; however, failing to mention a possible risk would be a failure of adequate informed consent. Therefore, discussion of a potential postfertilization risk should occur and should be kept within the perspective of the available medical evidence. Proper informed consent requires patient and physician comprehension of information, the disclosure of that information, and the sharing of interpretations. If a postfertilization mechanism of hormonal EC use violates the morals of any particular woman, the failure of the physician or care provider to disclose that information would effectively eliminate the likelihood that the woman's consent was truly informed.
Finally, there is in our view a potential for negative psychological impact on women who value human life from conception onward, and have not been given informed consent about hormonal EC use, and later learn of the potential postfertilization effects. Their responses could include disappointment, guilt, sadness, anger, rage, depression, or a sense of having been violated by the provider. To assume that all patients will not care about a postfertilization effect is not supported by the literature.40,42,43,44
What a terrible violation of medical laws and what a terrible place to put a pharmicist in!
I agree that the abortion issue is a bigger issue. I just want to see some well versed Catholic Bishop/Cardinal take Davis head on for being the abortion queen of Kalifornia! Then Simon is not involved, it will be a Bishop or Cardinal saying enough is enough Davis. If you advocate and push abortions to be available like the air we breathe, then you are no longer a Catholic!
Amen. Says it all. Yet, I fear that the Church pilloring graydavis on abortion will make a martyr
out of him. Davis will play the part to the hilt.....the issue he needs to reinvent himself, I'm afraid.
Do we know that use of this hormonal abortion agent will not cause more breast cancer in women?
No we don't as it has not been studied even with retrospective studies.
The perverts of the Rat party who hate all religion will still vote for Davis and so will their sheeple/diversity voting cults.
However, there is a huge Mexican American Population out there, who are very pro life. They might not say anything in public as being anti Gray due to his abortion policy. They will just vote against him like they voted against bilingual education. They waited until they voted to say what they really meant on 187!
As long as Simon stays out of this issue and leaves it to the rest of us, he will be fine.
However, Seamole is the king of freeper indexing!
Agreed. Surrogates doing the heavy lifting while the candidate remains above the fray is a good strategy.
LOL!
We got some savvy posters on FR these days. Thanks and dumble BUMP.
This putz Davis can't even do that. Can you see him as Hillary Clinton's running mate?
Clinton / Davis: "We did it to California. Now we're going to do it to the whole country."
Who cares what they say or do.
Clinton / Davis: "We did it to California. Now we're going to do it to the whole country."
Truly scary!
Keep up the good fight.
Black Jade and Shermy do a great job with their special interests, and there are others. We know that Ernest does a great job, and Ernest and I have a lot of the same interests so that is a big help.
There is just too much good data to keep track of what is happening on Free Republic by yourself. This is why you and the other great indexes really give added value to Free Republic. You provide the indexes to help us to keep up or to find past data posted here.
This is one of those cultural war issues that are best fought by us and not our candidates nor our guys/gals in a political office.
The Tactic taken by the good Doctor is how we must fight the leftist re the culture wars/battles. GW nor Simon should be expected to fight our cultural wars for us. We are the ones who have to live in the culture created by the leftists. As conservatives, we should be the ones fight these cultural wars and not depend on political leaders to fight our battle.
Dr. Brian Kopp has laid out a template for us to use in fighting the cultural battles with the ins of the leftists. We can then support this template of action by signing the petition and in other ways.
That way Simon is out of this battle. It is our battle to correct this leftist world in California for our children and grand children.
Kudos to Dr. Brian Kopp for this action and the one re the morning after pill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.