| Author |
Message |
    
Buttercup
Citizen
Username: Buttercup
Post Number: 83
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 1:03 am: | 
|
There's talk about making the "morning-after" pill an over-the-counter drug. Thoughts?
_________________________________
'Morning-after' pill reconsidered
FDA says it will take new look at ban on over-counter sales
By Judith Graham
Tribune staff reporter
Published July 31, 2006, 11:00 PM CDT
After almost a year's delay, the Food and Drug Administration said Monday that it would reconsider a highly controversial proposal to make the "morning-after" pill available over the counter.
The agency said it would resume talks with the drug's manufacturer, Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc., in the next week and hoped to agree on an approval process "in a matter of weeks" if the talks went well.
(Remainder of article located at www.chicagotribune.com)
|
Mayor McCheese
Supporter
Username: Mayor_mccheese
Post Number: 2022
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 1:10 am: |
|
Unprotected sex in celebration seems like a good idea!
|
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 2192
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 9:10 am: |
|
Considering it's "emergency" contraception, what would be the purpose of a prescription? |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3653
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
Only time will tell if this will result in more unprotected sex among people not trying to conceive (bad), or solely a reduction in undesired pregnancies (good). Even if this drug has been available OTC elsewhere (has it?), it would be a bad idea to assume that America would respond to its availability in the same way. My gut-level reaction to this is that it's better to have the drug available OTC than not.
Some people think that terminating a pregnancy at any time after a sperm has fertilized an egg is "abortion" and that any abortion is murder. I do not feel that way. Due to the relatively tiny amount of development the zygote/embryo would have undergone by the time this drug is ingested, I would not consider using it to be an abortion, nor do I consider all abortions to be murder. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4794
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
|
What it is, is birth control pills. THe dose is high enough that the body reacts the same way as if the person had been taking birth control pills on a regular basis. Birth control pills cause a condition in the uterus where by a fertilized egg will not implant in the uterus.
Plan B is the same thing as birth control pills. So for people to say that they are against Plan B, but are not against birth control pills, then youknow that they don't know what they are talking about. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1209
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 1:03 pm: |
|
Is the Plan B pill as safe as the oral contraceptives currently on the market?
Is it as dangerous?
Can it be taken by women of any age?
Does the woman's health condition have any impact upon whether the Plan B pill is suitable for them?
Is it free of interactions with other medications? Alcohol? Drugs?
Are the adverse effects, if any, exacerbated by repeated use? If so, at what rate of consumption?
Will there be a central database tracking consumption, so that some fool doesn't harm herself by using Plan B on an excessive basis?
Just some of the things that have occurred to me. I'm working under the assumption that the same questions have occurred to Barr Pharmaceuticals and the FDA.
TomR |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3669
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 4:11 pm: |
|
This is a ploy, IMHO. It will never pass the FDA if the new FDA head that the administration nominated is put in place.
I agree with TomR and... by entension, why is this drug safe to provide over the counter, and birth control pills are still only by prescription? If it is essentially the same as birth control pills, why ren't they available over the counter as well? |
Nashira
Citizen
Username: Nashira
Post Number: 68
Registered: 7-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 5:56 pm: |
|
FFOF,
Even though plan B may be the same as the birth control pill in preventing pregnancy, it is not under a doctor's surveillance. When taking the pill, you need to see your doctor on a regular basis, at which time they examine you and do Pap smears and can potentially pick up an STD and help treat it before it becomes lifethreatening.
With an over-the-counter pill you do not have this and young woman especially run the risk of contracting something like chlamydia that can be easily treated if caught early enough, if not caught early it can cause serious problems.
I think this is reason enough to be "for" birth control pills and "against" Plan B. |
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 2203
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 6:26 pm: |
|
I don't think that BC pills are unsafe over the counter, but in my opinion it's preferable to have it as a prescription so insurance will cover it (not all do, but mine does).
It's like when they started selling Clariton OTC - that used to require a prescription, but now it doesn't. There are probably many prescriptions that become OTC, why not this one?
Nashira - does having an STD affect your ability to take BC? I just don't see what one has to do with the other. (I'm not being belligerent, I really just have never heard that and wondered).
|
Nashira
Citizen
Username: Nashira
Post Number: 69
Registered: 7-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 6:41 pm: |
|
LilLB
No, an STD does not affect your ability to take birth control and I do not think you are being belligerant. I am sorry I was not clear. In order to get birth control pills, you have to go to the doctor to be examined and therefore they can pick up on and treat STDs. Some doctors require twice a year visits and others yearly visits.
If there is an over-the-counter Plan B pill, that will eliminate the necessity of having that yearly/bi-yearly exam and can potentially lead to many STDs not being discovered and treated.
Does this make sense now? If not, maybe someone else could try to state this in a different way? |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4797
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 7:42 pm: |
|
I don't get the connnection between having Plan B available OTC would eliminate the need of visiting your doctor. That just doesn't make sense.
|
ess
Citizen
Username: Ess
Post Number: 2911
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 8:22 pm: |
|
Plan B is, by definition, emergency contraception. It's a remedy to an "oops" moment. BC pills, on the other hand, if taken regularly reduce and nearly eliminate the oops moments.
One would hope that Plan B will not eliminate physician visits. I don't believe it eliminates the need to see a doctor; annual or twice annual exams are still necessary.
TomR raises some very valid points. While I am completely in favor of having emergency contraception -- and this is very clearly contraception, NOT abortion -- available OTC, these issues, particularly those surrounding repeated use and drug interactions, need answers. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1211
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 8:27 pm: |
|
fickle,
If you don't need a prescription for the Plan B pill, there is no need to see a physician to get the Plan B pill.
TomR |
Michaela
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 234
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 9:01 pm: |
|
I believe that taking plan B contraception is a pretty unpleasant experience, and probably a motivation to be careful in itself. So, I would not imagine that women would be resorting to it frequently.
Also, it's not clear whether Plan B prevents a fertilized egg from implanting on the uterus. It may be that it only prevents it from being fertilize -- that's still a matter of medical debate, I believe.
It does not abort a pregnancy (as defined as a fertilized egg that has implanted itself in the uterus). It would only be available to women 18 and older and would be kept behind the pharmacy counter.
TR, it seems to me that tracking its consumption could pose some serious concerns for women's privacy. Were that info to get in the wrong hands -- and that's not beyond possibility given recent breaches of veterans' data -- it could be a tough situation. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4799
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 9:01 pm: |
|
so what? Like ess said, you still see your physician for a regular exam, so what's the complaint? |
Jersey_Boy
Citizen
Username: Jersey_boy
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 9:17 pm: |
|
One of the benefits of Plan B being prescribed by a doctor is it should instigate a conversation about getting a prescription for Birth Control Pills. So you don't need Plan B "next time."
Also, if you were using a condom and it failed, it failed to do two things: prevent pregnancy and prevent STDs. Plan B only solves one of those problems.
Calling a doctor for Plan B should also instigate a conversation about screening for what STDs might have been acquired during the "accident."
|
Michaela
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 236
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 9:35 pm: |
|
Plan B is only useful during the first 72 hours. The time it takes and the discomfort one might feel in that brief period of time could easily preclude a woman from using it, and result in an unwanted pregnancy. What's the use in worrying about "next time" when "this time" could have such dire consequences?
Accidents are unlikely to occur Monday through Friday between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., and have you ever tried to get a last minute appointment at a doctor? Especially a specialist? Good luck to you!
Also, keep in mind that a woman can easily have an "accident" with a partner she reasonably doesn't expect to get an STD from, her husband perhaps. A warning label could easily instruct women who take Part B to see their physicians re. STDs, etc., and preventing further mishaps -- without the possible effect of discouraging them from taking it.
Why do we address the question of making Part B available in the light of pure irresponsibility? Sure, it may result from an error, but it's a genuine and less-than-pleasant attempt to correct the mistake as much as possible. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1213
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 9:39 pm: |
|
Fickle,
When we first crossed paths years ago, you demonstrated an unwillingness, if not an inability, to read.
Your penultimate post in this thread demonstrates a similar unwillingness, or perhaps inability, to write cogently.
I obviously misunderstood the question you were trying to pose.
What was it?
Tomr |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 3673
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 11:10 pm: |
|
If I may be so bold as to inject myself into the conversation, TomR, I believe what ffof is trying to say is that you (women) should go to your doctor (gynecologist) periodically anyway. It should not be simply to refill a birth control prescription.
I believe ffof was responding to this particular line in Nashira's post:
"If there is an over-the-counter Plan B pill, that will eliminate the necessity of having that yearly/bi-yearly exam..."
It's all about context  |
Jersey_Boy
Citizen
Username: Jersey_boy
Post Number: 1588
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 1, 2006 - 11:15 pm: |
|
Michaela,
In your post you seem to suggest that 72 hours is inadequate for a woman to resolve her "discomfort" with seeking a physician's prescription.
Then, you ask "Why do we address the question of making Part B available in the light of pure irresponsibility?'
Women come in all ages and degrees of responsibility. One may be uncomfortable asking a physician for the prescription. Surely this is not the same woman who is in a monogamous relationship and has no risk of STD exposure.
The laws surrounding this medication should protect the least organized woman who would use it. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1757
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 8:38 am: |
|
If the pill has health risks that cant be understood and managed by the people who would use it, or the pill has side effects that could be potentially harmful to the user, or the pill can be co-opted and used in a different and illegal way then the pill should be for prescription only.
If, however, the pill can be managed and understood by the people who would use it with a simply instruction leaflet and the pill does not cause harmful side effects then there is no reason why this should not be generally available over the counter at any drugstore. |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 716
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 9:14 am: |
|
Generally, the FDA follows the advice of its advisory panels. These panels consist of experts in the subject area who can review data from all clinical trials and make reasonable judgements as to how the drug ought to be handled.
The advisory panel long ago recommended that Plan B be made available without a prescription. It's political issues, not safety issues, that has kept this from happening.
No drug is free from side effects, so those that believe the pill is immoral will undoubtedly try to inflate the risks associated with Plan B to criticize the advisory panel and claim the risks to women are too high to make it available OTC. Nevertheless, the data is there and has been analyzed by outside experts and a judgement was made but not followed (but perhaps now it will be). |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4800
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 9:25 am: |
|
Wow, TomR, that's some old stick you still got up your behind. |
Michaela
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 239
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 12:04 pm: |
|
JB, what do you mean when you say the laws should protect the least organized women?
I suppose what this debate comes down to is what protecting women entails. Is protecting them ensuring they don't have future mistakes or taking care of this one?
Regarding other posts, it strikes me as paternalistic to predict what women will and will not do. There are lots of drugs available over the counter that have potentially harmful side effects (tylenol, sleeping pills, etc.).
And the argument that its availability over the counter would preclude women from seeing their doctors is just plain wrong -- it relies on the logic that women might see their doctor *only* to get plan b, and that's a stretch. |
LilLB
Citizen
Username: Lillb
Post Number: 2211
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Thanks for the clarification Nashira.
I know LOTS of women now who do not use Birth Control (other than the OTC kind) and they go for regular exams. I don't see how making Plan B available would prevent women from going for their exams, and if they're foolish enough to think they don't need one, well....I can't do anything about that.
It seems odd that Plan B would ever be a prescription in the first place - that kind of implies that you'd have a need to take it on an ongoing basis. It's not that at all though - it should only be taken on an emergency basis.
Plan B doesn't sound like someone would want to use on a regular basis either.
|
Nashira
Citizen
Username: Nashira
Post Number: 70
Registered: 7-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 1:50 pm: |
|
Michaela,
You would be surprised how many adults only see a doctor when they are ill or need something. I have worked in the health-care field for 20+ years and it still amazes me. I used to believe that most people kept yearly appointments.
For some people, the reason is the expense of seeing a physician on a yearly basis because of the dismal amounts many insurance companies pay or the restrictions put upon people by their insurance companies. Some people have a great insurance plan that makes it easy for them to see a "good" doctor. Others do not have that luxary and get "stuck" with doctors they are not too happy with.
For some people, it is the unavailablity of many physicians to see people other than during "usual" work hours. People can justify missing work and going to the doctor when they are not feeling well, but to have to take one or two days personal days a year for a "check-up" or "routine tests" does not seem a necessity for many people. Some jobs allow people to juggle their hours to accommodate these visits, others do not.
There are plenty of healthy young women who only go to their OB/GYN because of their need for contraceptives, whether for the pill or another device.
I think if you ask around, you will find people around you who have not gone for a yearly "physical" in over a year mainly for the reasons stated above. Or hear "I was planning to, I just haven't gotten around to it. Plus, I feel well so there is no need to rush".
I am lucky that I have a good insurance plan and that I realize the imporance of a yearly check-up.
My response is no indication of whether I am for or against Plan B or BCP, it was just a response to someone's question as to why some people may find BCP acceptable, but not Plan B, and the medical implications of this being sold over-the counter.
|
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1217
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 6:26 pm: |
|
Rastro,
You read Fickle's "question" one way; I read it a different way. I think we can agree that the "question" was less than clear. I asked her to clarify what information she was seeking. She has chosen not to do so., as is her perogative.
Was my response to what I percieved to be her dismissive response harsh? Yeah, it was. Unreasonable; I think not. Its a serious issue and deserves to be treated seriously.
Should everyone see a physician regularly. Yeah!
Do they? No!
Should the dispencing of the Plan B pill be subject to the same regulation as other oral contraceptives? I dunno.
My initial post on this thread was only meant to be food for thought.
I can't remember when in the last few years that I've read anything about the risks and/or safety of the Plan B pill.
Lately, the media covers the issue only in terms of its political impact.
I, for one, think its a disservice to us all.
Alas, I ramble on far too long. I'm sure you have better things to do than read my musings. But thanks for trying to put the Finger's comments in context, and giving me the attitude check.
TomR |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 4801
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 - 10:11 pm: |
|
You never asked me to clarify anything. You initially responded in a flippant manner. ANd then you came in with venom. At least Rastro was following the conversation.
Does that old stick cause pain and swelling? You should see a physician about that. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1219
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 10:22 am: |
|
Fickle,
No venom. No stick.
We obviously are just not communicating well.
have a nice day.
TomR |
mjh
Supporter
Username: Mjh
Post Number: 724
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2006 - 11:52 am: |
|
".........the media covers the issue only in terms of its political impact"
Well, TomR, I would expect the media to cover the politics of the situation, since politics is what is driving the situation.
Risks and benefits are generally evaluated by scientists selected by the FDA for their expertise. For individual use, members of the public can evaluate and weigh the risk/benefit ratio, but it's not the job of the general public to make these decisions otherwise. The public does not usually decide what drugs are approved by the FDA, and neither does the media. If that's what we allow to happen, then avoiding the political implications is pretty much impossible.
PS: The information on risks and benefits of Plan B is widely available to those who choose to look. It's not a story.........until politics interupts the normal procedures governing drug approval at the FDA.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page