“The unfounded adherence to a prescription requirement for the ‘morning-after pill’ increases the risk of unwanted pregnancies and curtails women’s rights in an unacceptable way,” explained Ines Scheibe from the executive committee of the Humanist Association of Germany on Friday. “There is no reason for a prescription-free issue to continue to be blocked.”
The background to this is the failure of a proposal by the health authorities in Bremen to make the so-called “morning-after pill” available without a prescription. The Federal Association of Gynaecologists and the German Society for Gynaecology and Obstetrics had spoken out against this. Over-the-counter distribution is already permitted in 28 European countries. Experts from the Federal Office for Drugs and Medical Devices had already issued a recommendation for over-the-counter distribution in 2004. It is also considered safe by the World Health Organization (WHO). “Reproductive health is a central women’s right for humanists,” emphasized Ines Scheibe. The issues associated with this right must not be a plaything for particular interests, whether of a financial, structural or denominational nature. “Of course, competent advice for women from all age groups on how to deal with contraception and pregnancy is also an important service to which gynecologists can contribute. However, the obligation for doctors to provide advice and prescriptions for the morning-after pill, as is now to continue, restricts women’s self-determination without convincing reasons and increases the risk of unwanted pregnancies.” This levonorgestrel-based pill (LNG) for emergency contraception delays or blocks ovulation and thus the development of a pregnancy after unprotected intercourse or failure of other contraceptives. Scheibe: “The earlier it is used, the more effective it is. The continued prescription requirement represents an unnecessary barrier to access that cannot be ethically justified.” Finally, Ines Scheibe also pointed out that the debate on this and related topics in Germany is still often dominated by men. “People with a secular, humanistic point of view should no longer accept this so easily. Of course, men can also contribute their expertise and get involved in women’s health. But the fact that committees predominantly made up of men continue to make the binding decisions in such central areas is an archaic relic whose consequences are too often still at the expense of women’s individual and collective rights.”
