The Food and Drug Administration has recently again tried to push through a change in the status of emergency contraception (levonorgestrel), also known as the “morning-after pill,” from a prescription drug to an instruction drug.
Eight years ago, it was suspended following a debate between pharmacists and physicians. Although both sides said they argued for women’s health and rights, the public might see it as a competition for benefits. The morning-after pill can now be purchased at pharmacies without a prescription.
The government should consider women’s health, needs and the importance of safe sex, instead of being trapped in the fight between physicians and pharmacists.
Taiwan Women’s Link last month conducted an online survey to find out whether the public supports the change in the status of the morning-after pill.
About 50 percent of respondents are unaware that it is a prescription drug, while more than 65 percent of respondents support the change.
Those who oppose the change are worried about possible drug abuse and the lack of health education. Meanwhile, those who support the change think it could enhance the accessibility of the drug and women’s autonomy.
According to the WHO and medical scientific evidence, the pill does not affect women’s health in the long term, but it does have side effects. Women’s menstrual cycle could become irregular, because of hormonal changes. It could be difficult to predict ovulation and increase the risk of unplanned pregnancy.
The pill is also not 100 percent effective. If women who take the pill are not aware of these facts, it could cause physical and psychological harm. Therefore, health education is crucial.
The morning-after pill can be taken within 72 hours after sexual intercourse as an emergency contraceptive measure. The sooner it is taken, the more probable it is to prevent pregnancy. Therefore, accessibility, convenience and cost of the drug matters.
To get a prescription, a woman has to visit a doctor, spending time registering and waiting at a clinic. The threshold is much higher than purchasing it at a pharmacy. A woman could miss the optimal time for taking the pill. Therefore, a change in the drug’s status can make things easier for women in need.
There are concerns about possible drug abuse and access for underage teenagers, or about men being more reluctant to use condoms. Women would then be the only ones who bear the responsibility for birth control.
The status of emergency contraception has pros and cons. The government should consider women’s health, accessibility of the pill, health education and women’s right to know. There should be measures in place to cater to women’s needs, regardless of whether the “status quo” is maintained or not.
If it is to remain a prescription drug, the government should enact a law regarding it.
The authorities should also look into lowering the threshold of getting a prescription for the pill and improving health education to make sure that the purpose of the legislation is achieved.
If it is to become an instruction drug, authorities must ensure that the pill is provided by a pharmacist who provides concise and readable health information. The government should also consider establishing an age limit and promoting education on the importance of safe sex.
That would minimize the negative impacts of the pill on women and promote public health and education on safe sex.
Huang Shu-ing is chairperson of Taiwan Women’s Link. Chen Yi-hsuan is executive secretary of Taiwan Women’s Link.
Translated by Fion Khan
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS