Medical Association supports prescription-only morning-after pill
The Medical Association of Malta has come forward in support of the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee and the Medical Council of Malta that the morning-after pill should be made available against a prescription by a medical practitioner
The Medical Association of Malta has come forward in support of the recommendations made by the parliamentary committee and the Medical Council of Malta that the morning-after pill should be made available against a prescription by a medical practitioner.
MPS sitting on the social affairs, health and family committees announced on 5 October that they will recommend to the House that the pill can only be dispensed against a doctor’s prescription.
The Medical Association cited health risks as the reason for supporting the distribution of the morning-after pill by prescription.
“Like most other licensed medicinals, hormones or hormone-like products have their indications and medical contraindications so as to avoid side effects and adverse reactions,” their statement said.
“Drug interactions may also occur in people suffering from other conditions or on other types of medications. Patients are often unaware of these hazards,” the association added.
Insisting on patient safety and standard safe medical practice as their priority, the Medical Association said that that doctor-patient contact often leads to independent information and a knowledgeable decision, reducing the risk of harm to the patient.
The parliamentary committee’s recommendations have garnered criticism by several bodies.
NGOs Integra Foundation, The Critical Institute, Aditus foundation, Platform for Human Rights Organizations Malta, Gender Liberation, Malta Gay Rights Movement and Organisation for Friendship in Diversity said on Wednesday that the recommendation reflects weak governance and “a half-baked approach to human rights, social rights and public health.”
Last week, an online petition was launched by Jelena Bezzina to urge MPs to rethink their proposal, lamblasting it as “deeply detrimental to the well-being of women” and one that “disregards all respect for female bodily autonomy.”