Science and journalism: Never the two shall meet?
=================================================

* Thuan Nguyen

Since when has the *CMAJ* become Canada's leading tabloid medical journal? At best, your article1 questioning the professionalism of pharmacists relating to the dispensing of emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) is a perfect example of sensationalistic journalism. At worst, the article is inherently biased, poorly researched, grossly misleading and dangerously inflammatory.

According to the article, several women's organizations and privacy experts have raised concerns about the guidelines that pharmacists follow in collecting data, such as “women's names, addresses, and sensitive personal information before dispensing the emergency contraceptive levonorgestrel (Plan B).” Let me explain why such questions are necessary: As a minimum obligation of our profession's standard of practice, pharmacists must attempt to engage in a dialogue with the patient. Pharmacists inquire about the time of the woman's act of unprotected intercourse in order to assess the appropriateness of ECP, and that the window of opportunity to use ECP has not elapsed. Pharmacists inquire about the date of the women's last menstrual period to reasonably rule out pregnancy. How ethical would it be to dispense a medication for which there is no longer a valid indication? The notion that these are highly intimidating questions that frighten women is not validated. From my experience, I have not encountered a woman who has told me that she was outraged by these questions. In a situation where the woman is clearly distressed, I can state with confidence that pharmacists would still dispense the ECP and follow up at a later date.

Most importantly, I would conclude by reminding your readers that long before the introduction of the provincial health privacy legislation (Personal Health Information Protection Act), pharmacists have safeguarded sensitive, confidential personal information with the sanctity of the confessional. For any individual to suggest that patients' privacy is being abused or violated is irresponsible and misleading.

## REFERENCE

1.  1.  Eggertson L, Sibbald B. Privacy issues raised over Plan B: women asked for names, addresses and sexual history. CMAJ 2005;173(12):1435-6.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://www.cmaj.ca/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6NDoiY21haiI7czo1OiJyZXNpZCI7czoxMToiMTczLzEyLzE0MzUiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyMzoiL2NtYWovMTc0LzgvMTEzMi4xLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==)