Letter: Menstrual extraction

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