You don't need to be signed in to read BMJ Blogs, but you can register here to receive updates about other BMJ products and services via our site.

Juliet Walker: What’s new on bmj.com

30 Dec, 08 | by julietwalker

Juliet Walker‘Should the contraceptive pill be available without prescription?’ is the subject of this week’s head to head. Daniel Grossman argues in favour of this policy, whilst Sarah Jarvis argues that it will not be an effective way of reducing unwanted pregnancies. The debate has received extensive media coverage recently following the news that two primary care trusts in London are to be part of a pilot scheme where pharmacists will be able to provide women with the pill.

Most read:

Festive medical myths
Everything you know is wrong
Coca-Cola douches and contraception
Head and neck injury risks in heavy metal: head bangers stuck between rock and a hard bass
New definition of myocardial infarction

Most commented:

Understanding the role of the doctor
Head and neck injury in heavy metal: head bangers stuck between rock and a hard bass
Rugby (the religion of Wales) and its influence on the Catholic church: should Pope Benedict XVI be worried?
The cult of the conference bag
Left-right discrimination in medicine

BMJ in the news

Pill without prescription ‘will not reduce unwanted pregnancies’, Telegraph.co.uk

Over-the-Counter Contraceptive Pill May Not Work, Consumer Affairs – USA

Evidence For Protective Effect Of Fish Oil Not Conclusive, Science Daily – USA

35001 diet books, but do we really need any of them?, guardian.co.uk

Nibbles: Waist size a good predictor of stroke risk, fishy …, CalorieLab Calorie Counter News – USA

Candy Canes Fight Germs, Settle Stomachs, Discovery Channel – USA

BMJ in blogs:

Public Health Implications of Melamine Exposure

Junkfood Science: Peanutty thoughts for today

Benefits of fish oil supplements questioned

By submitting your comment you agree to adhere to these terms and conditions
  • http://www.semeioticabiofisica.it Sergio Stagnaro MD

    In my opinion, it would be advisable that women could be told by Competent Authority if they are involved by cancer Predispoosition (i.e., Oncological Terrain “and” Inherited Real Risk of malignancy in a biological system (or more), rather than providing them with contraceptive pill, as suggested by http://www.nature.com

  • http://www.medrevise.co.uk Medical Revision

    I think its true that the risks of contraceptive pills are perhaps a little poorly known; but compared to the relative risk of adverse medical events in pregnancy, does it matter so much?

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
BMJ blogs homepage

The BMJ

Helping doctors make better decisions. Visit site



Creative Comms logo

Latest from The BMJ

Latest from The BMJ

Latest from BMJ podcasts

Latest from BMJ podcasts

Blogs linking here

Blogs linking here