8mm
Posted on 05/28/2007 2:29:12 PM PDT by wagglebee
TORONTO, May 28, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In a recent article in Fertility and Sterility R.T. Mikolajczyk and J.B. Stanford proposed a model experiment that estimated the effectiveness of the disruption of ovulation by Levonorgestrel used as an "emergency contraceptive," based on the prevention of fertilization.
They also demonstrated what was termed the "effectiveness" of levonorgestrel with or without "mechanisms acting after fertilization." If disruption of ovulation were the only significant mechanism of action of levonorgestrel, its "effectiveness" could not be much more than 50% if given immediately after intercourse. With delays in its administration, it would be substantially less.
This finding contrasts sharply with "effectiveness" rates reported in clinical trials, where rates as high as 95% are reported if administered within 24 hours after intercourse.
The authors suggest that mechanisms other than disruption of ovulation contribute to this "reduction of clinical pregnancy." Those mechanisms were said to include inhibition of sperm migration and reduction of sperm capacity for fertilization (both contraceptive mechanisms) and "mechanisms that act after fertilization," that is, prevent implantation of the embryo in the uterus.
That mechanism causes an abortion and does not "reduce clinical pregnancy." Only numbers can be reduced. The pregnancies are aborted, not reduced.
The word "effectiveness" is used by the authors in an ambiguous way. One meaning refers to disruption of ovulation, contraception, and the other refers to reduction in fecundity, but does not indicate whether this was the result of contraception, abortion, or both. This study does, however, provide strong evidence that levonorgestrel administered as an "emergency contraceptive" may act as an abortifacient.
The abstract can be found at:
http://www.fertstert.org/article/PIIS0015028206047327/abstra...
The article doesn’t prove anything - it discusses a mathematical model, using a derived equation and “virtual” women, estimating pregnancy rates. In contrast, there’s good experimental data that the levonorgestrel-only protocol (Plan B) doesn’t act as an abortifacient, at all.
I blogged about this last week:
http://www.lifeethics.org/www.lifeethics.org/2007/05/virtual-science-vs-actual.html
I have the articles, and can email them, if anyone wants to read the evidence.
If you don’t mind, I’ll trust pro-life sources.
Let me put it another way, Bev: let me know when your blog is published with dignity equal to the article quoted above.
I’ll be glad to send you the article in question by the Drs. Mikolajczyk and Stanford, as well as the articles by two other research groups that discuss serial labs, ultrasounds, and biopsies that show why and how the Plan B protocols work.
Truth, as evidence by two separate labs working independently, not to mention animal experimentation, is always pro-life.
? Or, were you implying that I’m not pro-life?
I’m implying that I place my trust where I place it. You yourself admit there’s no evidence Plan B does not act as an abortifacient. You’ll excuse me if I don’t trust a blog called BioEthics.anything or anyone critiquing the nature of Plan B with arguments as facile as yours.
You yourself admit there’s no evidence Plan B does not act as an abortifacient.
Should read:
You yourself admit there’s no PROOF Plan B does not act as an abortifacient.
However, there *is* quite a bit of evidence that Plan B is not abortifacient in ovulating women, not virtual women.
My discussion is not “facile.” I have given the information quite a bit of study and I’ve discussed it with experts. I resigned the AMA for years over their advocacy for making Plan B over the counter. I’ve repeatedly stood to counter other similar medical association advocacy.- before and after we had the current level of evidence. I really don’t like the fact that Plan B is available to men and that there are so many other medical health issues other than pregnancy in the very women to whom this protocol is sold.
The first ethical problem is that recommending Plan B encourages the idea that abortion would be okay if Plan B “fails.” We need to underscore the fact that none of our children are to be killed, then we can discuss avoiding fertilization.
But that doesn’t mean that anyone should try to find “proof” where there isn’t any.
As to the medical decisions, those of us who are pro-life are awaiting even more evidence from more women before we recommend the protocols, but the evidence is strong, with the serial ultrasounds, serum and urine hormone tests, and confirmation of a lack of measurable endometrial effect that could impair implantation.
Proof in medical research is hard to come by. In this case, there can’t be proof until we study the protocol in women who are actually “at risk” of becoming pregnant and in whom fertilization is proven. A research protocol similar to Durand’s would be unethical because the biopsies would place the babies at risk.
The Durand protocol is especially ethical because the group only studied women whose tubes were tied. That study is available for free, online at
http://bvs.insp.mx/temas/pildora/LarreaECinContraception2001v64p227.pdf
A study by Croxatto’s group in South America is problematic in that some of the women used IUD’s, which I believe can themselves be abortifacient and which would affect the endometrium. However, it yields corroborating evidence that the mode of action is interference with ovulation, motility of sperm, or fertilization.
Thanks for the ping!
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.