Central Drug Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) is likely to recommend a ban on the over-the-counter sale of hormonal contraceptive drugs, including emergency oral contraceptive pills or ECPs. Commonly known as morning pills, it is largely used by women to get rid of unwanted pregnancies within 72 hours.
The expert sub-committee is ready to submit the report soon, however, there are speculations that the committee will push the requirement to get a prescription from a doctor before purchasing. They are particularly concerned with the ‘irrational usage’ of these pills, especially the side effects like nausea and irregular bleeding, especially in women with pre-existing gynecological conditions. Amending the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules of 1945, it aims to classify ECPs and hormonal contraceptives as prescription-only drugs. Currently, the prescribed limit of the Levonorgestrel tablets as an emergency contraceptive is 0.75mg without prescriptions.
The news has received different opinions from the medical fraternity and gynecologists. While some of them support the decision citing ‘regularisation is important’, critics are equally worried about the limited access to safer and essential reproductive health services, particularly in rural areas. WHO, in its recent publication, has strongly recommended the availability of over-the-counter emergency pills, especially for vulnerable and marginalized women. Recognizing the challenges faced by health systems and the lack of family planning, it emphasizes the need to make ECPs easily available.
While some intentions may be valid, the potential move by CDSCO, unfortunately, can be a short-sighted and harmful decision, particularly when the Supreme Court has marked marital rape as a gray area of consent. Violating the rights of millions of women, and banning ECPs and contraceptive pills can lead to difficulties in embracing reproductive health and sexual autonomy. Making these drugs prescription-only can create significant barriers in terms of accessibility. For a lot of women in this economy, a doctor’s appointment is both expensive and time-consuming. Add to that the unsolicited social judgment by the regressive doctors and gynecologists, this isn’t the solution.
The ban comes with its own set of problems. The lack of accessibility to pills can lead to unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions. In a patriarchal society that opposes autonomy over body choices, i-pills are a critical safety net. Women, especially rural women, who are victims of forced sex in marriage (marital rape) or unwanted pregnancies turn to locally available i-pills for their rescue. They don’t have the privilege to visit a doctor – let alone a gynecologist and explain their condition.
The recommendation is a reflection of an embedded thought – women’s health should be controlled rather than empowered. Instead of limiting access, educating about the potential side effects and the effective ways to use birth control methods can be a better approach to the concerns of the committees instead of top-down bans. The health and welfare authorities should give thought to providing safe and affordable access to healthcare and support for women and their bodies. Ultimately this decision is not about just medicine- it is about a woman, her body, and autonomy to make decisions.
