Did the Vatican sow "unnecessary confusion" about Plan B?

A reader responds to this post defending the Vatican's analysis of Plan B:

To Rob's reader who offers a partial defense of the CDF's treatment of Plan B contraception, perhaps there is still some lingering uncertainty in the scientific literature (as there usually is) about the effect of so-called Plan B contraception and the possibility (at most, and rarely) that it prevents implantation of a fertilized ovum. From that, however, the reader draws the conclusion that "if you take the position of the CDF (namely, that every innocent developing human organism is entitled not to be killed), caution regarding Plan B is in order." I'm not sure how "caution" translates to clinical practice, but I fail to see how the premises of the argument entail that conclusion. As Daniel Sulmasy, OFM, pointed out in a 2004 article on Plan B in the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, "If we are morally bound never to act whenever we risk indirectly causing human deaths, then most medical procedures would need to be banned." Indeed, in many contexts moral reasoning (under the principle of double effect) leads us to the conclusion that the risk of indirectly causing harm is justified--prosecution of a just war and the risk of civilian deaths is a common example, but, as Sulmasy suggests, everyday medical practice would look very different if the mere prospect of causing indirect harm required "caution." If it is (as most Catholic moral theologians hold) permissible to administer emergency contraception in cases of sexual assault, then use of Plan B (even if it poses some very, very slight risk of preventing implantation of a fertilized ovum) would seem morally licit unless we are prepared to ride roughshod over the traditional analysis of direct/indirect action and intention. In cases apart from sexual assault, furthermore, the moral permissibility of Plan B should rise or fall with one's views of the adequacy of the Church's teaching on artificial contraception (not abortion). In a document that helpfully clarifies the Church's teaching on a range of questions and draws several important distinctions for bioethical analysis, the Holy See's treatment of Plan B sows unnecessary confusion.

Another reader points out that there does not appear to be a translation problem with the "is certainly present" language in the Vatican document:

The Vatican document on the morning after pill contains the following sentence:  "È vero che non sempre si dispone di una conoscenza completa del meccanismo di azione dei diversi farmaci usati, ma gli studi sperimentali dimostrano che l'effetto di impedire l'impianto è certamente presente, anche se questo non significa che gli intercettivi provochino un aborto ogni volta che vengono assunti, anche perché non sempre dopo il rapporto sessuale avviene la fecondazione."  [Italics in original]

 

This is the same sentence that in the English version reads:  "It is true that there is not always complete knowledge of the way that different pharmaceuticals operate, but scientific studies indicate that the effect of inhibiting implantation is certainly present, even if this does not mean that such interceptives cause an abortion every time they are used, also because conception does not occur after every act of sexual intercourse."

 

There is no mistranslation from one to the other.  They both make the same claim that Plan B has the ability to prevent implantation even if that is not how Plan B works every time.