I refer to the article on the morning-after pill (October 14) and I must correct any wrongideas gathered by the journalist who asked for my opinion.

I have been approached by members of my association who, like me, felt uncomfortable withthe reporting.

I did not “express similar views” to Pierre Mallia’s. In fact, our views are diametrically opposite. Mallia is quoted to have asserted “that it would not be prudent for a doctor to go against recommended practice and refuse to prescribe the contraceptive, especially if there were evidence that it would not harm an embryo. He also noted that this would not stand up in a court of law”.

As for the last point, I would say: try me. A doctor can actually refuse to see a patient unless in a life-threatening situation.

Our agreement is solely on the issue as to whether it should be a prescription only item (POM) or and over the counter dispensing (OTC). And there is the sense of my point saying that, going by the Hippocratic oath, we are bound to first do no harm.

It is our impression that decisions regarding the MAP had already been taken long before “consultations” took place.

I have also read comments in the online blog. Accusing us of wanting to earn a few more euros for prescriptions is a base accusation. There is a free general practitioner service where such little-minded people can go to. I know, however, that family doctors manning government health centres also have high ethical standards.