Understandings of the ‘natural’ body: a comparison of the views of users and providers of emergency contraception

Abstract

Background: ‘Natural’ is a pervasive discourse with mixed meanings in contemporary society. I was interested in how users and providers of emergency contraception conceptualised the ‘natural’ body in contraceptive decision making. Method: Thirty-two users and 19 providexxrs of emergency contraception from three sites in metropolitan Melbourne were interviewed, or participated in focus groups, about emergency contraceptive use, contraceptive decision making and perceptions of risk. The qualitative data were transcribed and coded to identify the key ways that both users and providers perceived the ‘natural’ body. Results: Providers and users adopted different frameworks for interpreting the discourse of the ‘natural’ body. Thirteen of the 32 users identified the ‘natural’ body as a factor in their decision making. They identified a ‘natural’ body as a body experiencing no interruption with ovulation, and/or free from unwanted side effects. Six of the 13 women who discussed the ‘natural’ body used a contraceptive that allowed them to preserve their natural body (e.g. condoms). The remaining seven women identified it as an ideal that they could not achieve. Providers in general discredited the idea of a ‘natural’ body and instead conceptualised contraceptive decision making as a ‘simple’ risk–benefit analysis. Conclusions: The differences between the two groups can be understood in a number of different ways. The important conclusion however, is that the different perspectives present a potential barrier to effective communication in the contraceptive consultation, and may be able to be resolved through the development of an embodied risk–benefit analysis that may be meaningful to both groups.