Abstract
<h3>To the Editor.—</h3> The COMMENTARY on menstrual extraction (228:849, 1974) is gravely in error in fact, opinion, and judgment on virtually every count. The authors appear to speak for what now could be termed "institutionalized abortion" and appear to feel threatened. It is a travesty of current medical philosophy that anyone<i>could</i>attempt to argue positive virtues for abortion in face of innovative, simpler means to rational fertility control. The new terms appeared in response to the clear need for nomenclature to distinguish the idea "menses induction as early as possible as fertility control" from both abortion and contraception. Some terminological confusion appeared from press accounts in mid 1972. It is intriguing to see the confusion perpetuated in mainstream medicine two years later. Menstrual<i>extraction</i>is vacuum curettage, usually self-employed, at or about due date of onset to avert<i>menstruation;</i>in this use fertility control is a spin-off benefit. The term
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
