Letters to the Editor
- The recent article on emergency contraception1 and another procontraception article published earlier in the Proceedings2 justify contraception because of the incidence of “unintended” pregnancies, and both cite the same article in support.3 However, the authors do not mention that the article by Finer and Zolna3 clearly documents that the rate of unintended pregnancies actually increased between the years 2001 and 2006 despite years of massive and well-orchestrated promotion of contraception and an 89% user rate.
- The recent review article by Marnach et al1 asserts that contraception is a public health need because of the high rate of unintended pregnancies and the high rate of such pregnancies ending through abortion. This assertion is misleading on several fronts. First, “unintended” implies accidental, yet procreative potential is an essential element of the sexual act, not an accidental by-product. It is a disservice to the understanding and volitional capacity of most people who engage in an act inherently procreative to imply that they do not understand the nature of the act or do not exercise free choice when deciding whether or not to engage in it.
- We thank Dr Keller for his thoughtful letter that has provided a basis for further discussion within our group. In certain circumstances some of us take the approach Dr Keller outlined. However, we are more inclined to favor escitalopram as a choice for initial treatment than as an agent to switch to once cardiac safety concerns have become a factor in patients taking citalopram.
- To the Editor: In the commentary by Guenin1 in the June 2004 issue of the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, the author explained cogently why 6 arguments in support of using human embryos in research and therapy do not work. Fortunately, his “argument from nonenablement” also does not work.