Ever since emergency contraceptives (ECs) have received a go ahead in the Indian pharmaceutical market, myriad advertisements featuring ECs have hit television, the internet and the print media. Out of the various EC advertisements, this particular ad is especially appalling as it sends out entirely misleading messages.

The minute-long ad starts with the wife accusing the husband of having phoned another woman on the morning of their first anniversary. The husband replies that she was just his office colleague. The wife wants to be reassured that her husband still loves her and tells him that she doesn’t want anything to come between them. He reassures her and shows her a condom pack and suggests that they should celebrate their anniversary. The wife looks outraged and reminds him that she doesn’t want “anything” to come between them. Then she opens a drawer and shows him a “feminine utility pack” which contains an emergency contraceptive – L pill. The next visual shows the happy-looking couple, with a background voice saying “L pill, emergency contraceptive, it’s beyond pregnancy”.

I object to this ad on a number of grounds. First, the theme that runs through the ad is itself very misleading. It conveys the message that emergency contraceptive pills can be used as regular contraceptives, essentially in place of condoms. The word “emergency” has been overlooked and after having seen the ad, it seems as if the makers want ECs to be used as a regular method of contraception. There is not much research available on the adverse effects of ECs on prolonged use, but there are definite immediate side effects like nausea, vomiting, headache, diarrhoea, bleeding between menstrual periods (spotting), weight gain, acne, stomach cramps, rash, swelling or bloating, skin spots and breast tenderness, etc. Therefore one should not ignore the harmful effects these pills could have on the body, if they were used as casually as this ad intends to convey.

My second objection to this ad is that it rides on the common myth that a condom is only for preventing pregnancy, and reinforces it. It blatantly undermines the importance of using a condom as a way of staving off sexually transmitted diseases including HIV, especially among the young and the less aware. It weakens the efforts of all those who have steadfastly been working to promote the use of condoms as a way of preventing HIV. “Wanting nothing to come between two partners” is as trivial as an excuse could get to start using emergency contraceptives.

Thirdly, this ad makes no effort to specify the efficacy of the pills, their side effects and the fact that they do not give protection from STDs. These are over-the-counter drugs, needing no prescription, so all the information people get about these drugs is through advertisements. The success rate of the ECs is between 70 and 90% when had within 72 hours of unprotected sex, whereas the success rate of male condoms is about 98% when used correctly. The ad erroneously suggests that pregnancy can be averted with ECs just as well as it can with condoms. Such irresponsible marketing of ECs may end up having the opposite effect of what might have been intended.

To sum up, the ad is seriously flawed and in effect, it does not fall within the realm of ethical and responsible advertising. The media is a great source of knowledge for all sorts of people, young and old, smart and ignorant, secure and vulnerable. The interests of the beneficiaries and potential harms and benefits to them must be kept in mind while designing advertisements, especially if they concern people’s health. Women have the right to know the facts about ECs so that they can take informed decisions, so the approach towards the ad must be candid. The ad must neither conceal any information nor be laced with any misleading information. In essence, the advertisement must follow the principles of beneficence and no deception which are essential to ethical practice.