| Abstrakt: |
The relatively short history of hormonal contraception has been marked by a series of 'pill scares', all of which--after creating panic among users--were proven to be unfounded in terms of public health impact. The latest pill scare, provoked by regulatory action in the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany in response to the publication of a series of articles indicating a doubling of risk of deep venous thrombosis in users of oral contraceptives containing third-generation progestins, seems finally settled: both the British and the German Drug Regulatory Authorities have now reverted their verdict. The damage unfortunately stays: hundreds of thousands of women have been compelled to abandon the pill of their choice, often deciding to drop contraception altogether, thereby exposing themselves to unwanted pregnancy and--in a number of cases--to pregnancy termination. This latest episode should be turned into something positive: we need to learn that, in the case of drugs in widespread use, before restrictive action is taken--and except for very rare and specific instances--the scientific community must carry out an exhaustive debate on the reality and importance of the observed effects. Although the public should, in each instance, be properly informed, it is only after this process has been completed that restrictive action should be taken. It is hoped that, after this last episode, all concerned have learned this simple principle and will accept being guided by it from now on. |
