To the Editors of The Crimson:

Early this fall an article appeared in The Crimson discussing what many consider to be the shockingly high rate of pregnancy among women in the Harvard-Radcliffe community. One might suppose that this is due to misinformation, irresponsibility, or sheer laziness on the part of sexually active women. However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that the University itself is contributing by its negligence. An example, though perhaps unrepresentative, clearly demonstrates the need for greater responsibility by the University and UHS.

An undergraduate, seeking safe contraceptives, called UHS for an appointment to be fitted for a diaphragm. She was told that the earliest appointment was six weeks away--she made an appointment, having little choice: After waiting five weeks and six days, she received an anxious call from UHS. It seems that there was some sort of "emergency" requiring that her appointment be cancelled. The nurse then rescheduled the appointment, another month and a half later.

One can certainly understand that occasionally there are scheduling difficulties and appointments have to be changed. But to tell someone who has waited one and a half months for contraceptive care that she must wait another month and a half is totally unreasonable and irresponsible. The vast majority of women at Harvard-Radcliffe who use contraceptives from UHS have chosen diaphragms. This year UHS discontinued its practice of allowing nurse-practitioners to do the initial fitting of diaphragms, a step which relieved a burden from the overworked gynecologists. There may well be sound medical reasons why UHS decided to allow only trained doctors to do the fitting, yet if the demand is so great that appointments must be scheduled six weeks in advance, there is clearly a need for more trained doctors available for contraceptive consultation.

I am not for a minute suggesting that UHS does not face serious questions of allocation of personnel. However, pregnancy is a very serious matter. For the student, it is inconvenient at best, and potentially tragic that the University is responding so sluggishly to the need for adequate contraceptive care. If delays of the sort cited here are oversights, they should be corrected: If they reflect a policy decision by UHS, that decision should be publicly discussed. Yet it seems clear that this chronic underservice is unacceptable. The University cannot force students to be sexually responsible, yet it can do whatever possible to aid those who are demonstrating that responsibility. UHS was formed to meet the needs of the University community, and in this instance it is dangerously failing to do so. Elizabeth Henderson'80-3