I would like to thank Drs Terplan and Zuckerman for their comments1 on the recently published position statement,2 which myself and the other cosignatory authors take very seriously.

If I may summarise Drs Terplan and Zuckerman‘s argument. It starts with the assumption that there is now clear evidence proving that levonorgestel (LNG)- and norethisterone acetate (NETA)-containing combined oral contraceptives (COCs) have half the risk of all other combined hormonal contraceptives (oral, transdermal, transvaginal) containing four ‘newer’ progestogens, namely desogestrel, gestodene, drospirenone and cyproterone acetate. Following this statement Drs Terplan and Zuckerman argue that the public health conclusion has to be that the use of the newer preparations has to be limited to special indications and that the older preparations provide health care professionals and women with enough possibilities to protect women against unwanted pregnancies. Drs Terplan and Zuckerman argue that due to the fact that millions of women take COCs it is a public health duty to establish this policy of prescription to save many women’s lives, and that statements like ours are based primarily on opinion rather than scientific facts and that the authors of the statement2 …