You can click on the link above to find a PDF of the actual form. Mary has some beefs with the form:
For example, there is no mention of the risk of ectopic pregnancy when using MAPs. The 'morning after pill' is associated with a 10-fold increase in risk of this condition when its use fails to prevent pregnancy. Wouldn't it be the responsible and professional thing to do to let women know about this risk in a clear and unambiguous way ...?
....
No definition of 'pregnancy' is given as in, 'EC will not disrupt an established pregnancy.' Well, if a woman believes that anything after fertilization equals pregnancy or a baby and Safeway believes pregnancy or a baby doesn't begin until implantation then we have what is called in modern parlance a failure to communicate... Instead of explaining to women this critical nuance, they keep repeating the mantra, 'EC is not an abortifacient. EC will not distrupt an established pregnancy. EC is contraception...' Repeat as necessary to convince yourself and others you aren't partaking in an abortion.
If this is the quality of "informed consent" for EC, what is considered adequate informed consent for an abortion?
Which just made me think -- A lot of women visiting Annie and Emily's blog report that they got lots of information about abortion's risks in their "informed consent." But how can they know what the quality of the information is? Only somebody with a real knowledge of the risks could judge the quality of the information given.
No comments:
Post a Comment