• Home

• What is it?
• How it works
• Risks
• Stories

• What is it?
• How it works
• In-depth Research
• When does life begin?
• Risks
• When it fails
• What pharmacists think

Advanced Provision of the MAP

Undoubtedly one of the strongest arguments present by the pro-MAP lobby when advocating for the de-scheduling of the MAP from prescription-only to non-prescription status was the assertion that ready, easy, no-fuss availability would of course reduce the number of women requesting an abortion. (1) (2)

It is a claim that appears logical and attractive - even irrefutable.

Yet the hard clinical evidence - as opposed to supposition and ideology - has clearly shown that the advanced provision of the MAP does not reduce the rate of pregnancy or abortion in sexually active women.

In extensive studies conducted in Scotland,(3) China (4) and California(5) it was shown that the easy access to the MAP without recourse to a doctor, even the free advanced provision of the MAP and condoms, made no impact on the number of pregnancies or of women seeking a surgical abortion.

Obviously the central tenant of the push to make the MAP a non-prescription item - a reduction in the abortion rate - is wrong. Three large studies, totalling more than 20,000 women, have shown that easy, early supply of the MAP does not reduce the incidence of unexpected pregnancy. According to a May 2004 report in The Guardian newspaper, Britain's teenage pregnancy rate is the highest in Europe.(6) Also, easy access to the MAP has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in the incidence of sexually transmitted infections.(7) (8)

Glasier's comments are a clear distillation of these three research projects: "... the strategy did not produce the public health breakthrough hoped for. The prospect of reducing abortion rates by widening access to (the MAP) EC through health services seems somewhat diminished by the findings of this study."

Back to Index