quote: Conservative opponents of a rule change that would make the "morning after" contraceptive pill available on drugstore shelves without a prescription are conducting an aggressive campaign to dissuade the Food and Drug Administration from going ahead.
Although an FDA advisory panel recommended the switch to over-the-counter status by a 24 to 3 vote in December, officials acknowledged they are treating the application to change the status of the medication, sold as "Plan B," as a controversial and high-priority matter.
Proponents of the switch said they are very concerned about the progress of the agency review, especially after learning that the final decision will be made in the office of Commissioner Mark McClellan -- rather than by the scientific reviewers who usually rule on such applications. Taking a drug application issue to the commissioner's office is unusual, though not unprecedented.
The FDA has also sent a flurry of last-minute questions to the drug's manufacturer, Barr Laboratories, with many of them involving issues raised last month in a letter sent by 49 members of Congress to President Bush.
The letter, authored by Rep. David Joseph Weldon (R-Fla.), urged the president to keep the morning-after pill's by-prescription-only status because wider use could result in more sexual promiscuity and venereal disease. Advocates of the switch say the science shows nothing of the kind and have said that a vote against the pill would constitute a major FDA capitulation to political pressure.
quote: While acknowledging that wider use of Plan B could reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions, opponents say there is not enough information on how that change would effect the sexual behavior of teenagers. "There is a great potential that the easy availability of Plan B will contribute to unsafe sexual practices and the future spread of [sexually transmitted diseases] and HIV-AIDS among adolescents," Weldon said during a news conference last month.
In other words, there is a segment of the population that appears to believe that the best way to enforce morality is to make sure that the worst possible consequences of your behavior are not prevented. What's next, actually releasing STDs in the water supply?
I also like the use of 'the children' as a way to prevent other adults from having easy access to a prophylactic.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Is it really so terrible that someone might need to go to their doctor to get this? Their not suggesting it be made illegal (well, some are), just that you go to the doctor to get it.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
[edit: possible moral ambiguity in my statement]
I have no problem with people facing the consequences of their actions, but this is absurd. This is forcing the rest of the country to face the consequences of the morality of the few. Banning access to any substance is wrong. This is another reason to abolish the FDA.
[ February 20, 2004, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Except that what if your doctor can't see you in time, or what if teenagers don't want to tell their parents?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I have no moral problem with the morning after pill.
But I DO worry that if it is over the counter, people might try to use them to give themselves an abortion after implantation. I'm no doctor, but I think that COULD have some serious side effects, like severe bleeding.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It induces part of your body to unattach the life that is clinging to it and shed it. We are talking blood and muscle spasms. This is a RETURN to do-it-yourself abortions. Isn't one of the arguments for Roe vs. Wade - that at least such a traumatic event for the body is under the supervision of a doctor?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's a good question, Olivet. What are the effects of the morning after pill on a fetus?
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
I might object if they start selling them in 5-gallon buckets at CostCo.
But I think making them OTC is a good idea. I doubt many women are going to use the pill as a replacement for a condom. Unless they happen to enjoy vomiting.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Kat, as far as I know, that is not true. The morning after pill does not cause abortions.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
The reason I don't have a problem with the morning after pill, is that a large number of fertilized eggs don't implant anyway. Forty percent, if the Nova special I saw when I was pregnant is any indication. If those numbers are correct, I have probably flushed quite a few potential children, without even knowing it. If ever fertilized egg has a soul, then god/nature/the universe is a wastrel.
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
So the morning after pill prevents implantation? It doesn't abort a fetus that has already implanted?
Also, I've heard that taking this pill is similar to taking a large dose of birth control pills. Is that true?
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Of course some teenagers won't tell their parents. Why is that a reason to give teenagers an easier way out?
After all, some teenagers picked up for vandalism and shoplifting may hurt themselves while in police cudtody; should we make those things legal so that teenagers won't hurt themselves?
I'm still pretty new here, but I'm sure the abortion issue has been argued many times. Isn't that what this boils down to? When life begins? The worth of a potential child relative to the convenience of his or her mother?
From what I've read about the morning after pill and other pills like it that are super-doses of hormones (I do apologize, I don't have any online sources), teenegers who don't realize when they're fertile also (surprise) don't know how far along they really are when they're pregnant.
So teenage girls will have a chemically induced abortion without medical supervision. It produces days of cramping and heavy bleeding, and I know at least one teenage girl has died from the effects of a pill like this.
I thought that making abortion legal was to make it safe, to protect women from the dangerous effects of unsafe abortions. Pills like these don't sound very safe or harmless.
Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
It is my understanding that the morning after pill causes a woman to begin her period. Therefore, if unprotected sex happened say, the night before, then a woman, by taking a pill the morning after would take the pill and her period would begin, preventing the possibility of any fertilized egg in her system from remaining and attaching itself to the uterus.
If I am wrong in the above description, please feel free to correct me.
Personally, I feel this is a very interesting debate in that it has the ability to completely replace the abortion issue in society.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Oh. heh. Posted too slow. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
If you don't think some girls are going to get seven of these to last them through spring break, then you don't know girls. Or guys who will give them to girls instead of a condom. If girls are stupid enough to be having sex a the age of 11, 14, and even 17, they are stupid enough to misuse the technology. If it makes them throw up, how are they going to know it was the pill and not the peach schnapps?
P.S. Z, three of some kind of BCP do work. A doctor would help with that before there was a morning after pill.
I think if people are having sex they should be in a relationship with a doctor, to be screened for cervical cancer if nothing else. I can't believe guys aren't more worried about it as well. They can't catch it, but being a carrier and watching every woman you love die slowly and painfully has to be a bummer.
[ February 20, 2004, 10:37 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
From what I understand, pills like these are prescribed for use within two weeks of fertilization, but if taken afterwards, can trigger a miscarraige.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yes, as a matter of fact, some doctors actually had issued prescriptions of birth control pills with instructions on how to take them as a morning-after pill. It's all in the dosage and the timing of taking the hormones.
But the birth control pill is NOT over the counter, even though it is generally much less risky. That's why I don't think it should be over the counter-- it just seems too easy for someone to accidentally bleed to death.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
If you think that killing a fertilized egg is abortion, then I don't know what to tell you. As Olivet mentioned, that's a lot of dead children.
The information that I'm googling indicates that there is either 'no risk' to the fetus or a very small risk.
I don't like weighing the consequences of the morning after pill in terms of teenagers. If that's an issue, we can just make the MAP something you card for. Problem solved.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:If it makes them throw up, how are they going to know it was the pill and not the peach schnapps?
True...but I've yet to buy a brand of peach schnapps that made my private parts bleed.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think you should have to present an ACT or SAT score showing you aren't an idiot, if you want to ID people. Of course, this would have the unfortunate side effect... I'll let you draw your own conclusion.
But anyway, I think people who are old enough to have sex are old enough to be seeing a doctor. That is the message I think would be best for folks. That's my morality (as far as this issue goes) and I don't apologize for foisting on on everyone.
Since I'm last I'll just edit to add that if girls can get in their heads that sex is an important health issue and not just something all animals do, it would be better for them. It's also kind of annoying that women who never have sex are subjected to yearly pap smears even though their risks are much lower (though not non-existent, but every three years would be fine). We have had the lower morality foisted on our bodies long enough.
[ February 20, 2004, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'd need to do some research, but this is not a happily-generally safe drug. It can cause serious damage if used incorrectly and outside the appropriate window. It's a morning after pill, but like Olivia said, if someone used it when they were one month pregnant instead, they could put themselves in serious danger.
If something is safe only when the directions are strictly followed, then that's not safe enough.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
When Slash and I implement our "mandatory aerosolized birth control" plan, we'll give you a job analyzing applications for child bearing, pooka.
Start stocking up on red ink and rubber stamps reading "denied!!!".
The more exclamation points the better.
[edit: Subjected to yearly pap smears? They force you to get them? That's not right.]
[ February 20, 2004, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Frisco ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Kat, I'm not sure how to refute your argument. How do you prevent stupidity? Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
And, incidentally, it wouldn't replace the abortion issue at all.
Even if MAPs were widely available and cheap, there would still be some women who would complain that is wasn't free, it wasn't available enough, etc., etc.
After all, the ease with which a woman can get a first-trimester abortion hasn't nullified the apparent need for and right to late-term abortions and partial-birth abortions.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In other words, there is a segment of the population that appears to believe that the best way to enforce morality is to make sure that the worst possible consequences of your behavior are not prevented.
It DOES sound pretty absurd doesn't it?
But keep in mind - there's a whole philosophy based on that principle: Free market capitalism. It says stuff like "If we ensure that the jobless recieve few benefits, more people will work."
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I don't think anyone is saying it will prevent the abortion issue?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Aerosolized BC? I think universal snippage is much better. Also, the breeding herds wouldn't have to be contained in a separate biosphere. [end dystopian megalomaniac musings]
Yes, a woman who has never had sex will not be believed and will have that which she is saving for marriage be pried into with metal instruments. She is supposed to go to the doctor yearly for this express purpose.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:How do you prevent stupidity?
There should be a branch of law enforcement for this. Only instead of guns, the officers could carry those little gag flowers that pin to your lapel and have them squirt poison.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: How do you prevent stupidity?
A doctor's supervision.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I'm afraid unless you (edit: as in, a person ) have the doctor following you 24/7, that's not going to do much good, Kat.
[ February 20, 2004, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Careful with your choice of pronoun, Stormy.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
quote:Yes, a woman who has never had sex will not be believed and will have that which she is saving for marriage be pried into with metal instruments. She is supposed to go to the doctor yearly for this express purpose.
Uhhh.... yeah. So, why would a woman who's never had sex and feels perfectly healthy have an annual checkup? Is there anything out there that requires one to? I mean, I never had them until I started taking BC, and that is only because they won't give me the meds without it. Otherwise, I just wouldn't go.
Isn't it a woman's choice to have an exam? Of any kind? Or is there a segment of the population that is forced to get checkups regularly?
<--- honestly doesn't know.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: It is my understanding that the morning after pill causes a woman to begin her period. Therefore, if unprotected sex happened say, the night before, then a woman, by taking a pill the morning after would take the pill and her period would begin, preventing the possibility of any fertilized egg in her system from remaining and attaching itself to the uterus.
Yes, and if the egg is already implanted, causing a woman's period to begin will flush the fetus out.
quote: Kat, as far as I know, that is not true. The morning after pill does not cause abortions.
In answer to this I would like to quote a page I found in a link on morningafterpill.org.
quote: Taking it a step further, if one could say that a woman "conceives" only when a "fertilized ovum" implants in her uterine wall, then destruction of the embryo between fertilization and implantation logically could be labeled "contra-ceptive"—at least in a world where semantics trumps reality. And so, obligingly, the leadership of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) redefined conception in 1965. This word play has allowed some to argue that the abortifacient actions of drugs and intrauterine devices (IUDs) before implantation do not cause abortions.
You define abortion as expelling the fetus, I'm guessing. Does it only count as abortion if the fetus has implanted already? What happens between fertilization and implantation that I'm not aware of? Medically, there is no proof that an embryo is somehow more real after implantation. It's just as much an embryo before implantation.
quote: "If we ensure that the jobless recieve few benefits, more people will work."
*sigh of contentment*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
* at Frisco*
Then see a doctor the next morning. Better inconvenienced and awkward than dead. Better pregnant than dead.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
PSI, most people don't normally call a fertilized egg a fetus. No. Again, dunno what to tell people if they think a fertilized egg is a child.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
quote:Isn't it a woman's choice to have an exam? Of any kind? Or is there a segment of the population that is forced to get checkups regularly?
It's standard practice to start having annual check-ups when you become sexually active. Some doctors assume that if you are put on birth control (regardless of the reason for being put on it) you are now going to be sexually active and, therefore, need to have annual exams. I had this problem when I was a teenager. My doctor decided it would be good to put me on birth control to help to regulate my hormones. He sent me to an OB-GYN to do so. The OB-GYN tried to force me to then start having anual exams, even though I made it very clear to her that I was not sexually active and was not going to be for some time. I really had to fight her over it.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
The MAP is stupid.
Stupidity #1: Having sex at random. (See, no preparation involved. Either you didn't care or weren't planning on hooking up. Either way, if you were already in a sexual relationship you would have most likely been using contraception.)
Stupidity #2: Too embarrassed (?) to go to the doctor. Proof you know the action above was stupid.
Therefore, using logic, I have deduced that the OTC MAP is 99% designed for the stupid, or girls who don't want their parents to know they're sleeping around. Sounds like a stupid reason to make something legal.
edit to add:
quote: PSI, most people don't normally call a fertilized egg a fetus. No. Again, dunno what to tell people if they think a fertilized egg is a child.
Most people can be wrong. I'm not talking about the morality of abortion right now. I'm talking about the fact that there is no medical difference WITHIN the embryo ITSELF to prove that there is something more special about an implanted embryo than a non-implanted one. The only difference is that it's getting it's nutrition from the placenta.
[ February 20, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by Book (Member # 5500) on :
Hmm... That's an interesting topic. Anyone want to start a thread on exactly where they think the immortality of the soul begins for humans? Independent of the subject of abortion?
Possibly the reason I'm finding this so interesting is that I've been reading a lot of Darwin and Tennyson recently, and it's been a subject at the fringes of my mind, so to speak.
[ February 20, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Book ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I honestly don't know all that much about the effects of the morning after pill, so maybe I'm off base here, but doesn't it have greater effects and higher risks than most over the counter stuff? I'm not all that interested in the "but then people will have more sex" arguments. I'm a little afraid that people are pushing for this to become freely available are interested in pushing an agenda and not looking t the medical consequences of allowing access to this without consulting a doctor.
Like I said, I really don't know much of anything about the pill itself except that it's like a super-dose of regular birth control pills. I just hope the criteria for making it available over the counter are medically valid.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Ayelar: But some women are way more at risk for serious problems and need to get checked for that anyways or else, you know, live in fear of some kind of unpleasant thing growing on an ovary, or something.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
According to this, there is NO IMPACT on an implanted fetus. If you're too late, you're too late. No impact is defined as:
quote:No increase in Spontaneous Abortion rate No increase in birth defects No increase in Ectopic Pregnancy No Teratogenic or other toxic effects
So, this whole "people will try to use it to abort and inadvertently hurt their fetus" argument is washed up.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Yeah, but if you have no reason to believe that you're in a high-risk category, and you're not sexually active, why do it? pooka makes it sound like all women are forced to, against their will, but that hasn't been my experience at all. But then, I don't go see regular doctors, either. *shrug*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If you're too late, there's no impact on the FETUS. No one in this thread made that argument. However, there possible side effects on the woman:
I'm not worried about people throwing up. It's the bleeding that's scary.
[ February 20, 2004, 11:53 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
But the other method, Yuzpe Method, has no bleeding listed as a side effect. Which one is it?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
(Okay, chart's right. It confusingly lists this as those occurring to less than 5% of patients, but that's incorrect. This is percent of all women who used Plan B) Here we go:
quote: Nausea 23.1
Abdominal pain 17.6
Fatigue 16.9
Headache 16.8
Heavier menstrual bleeding 13.8
Lighter menstrual bleeding 12.5
Dizziness 11.2
Breast tenderness 10.7
Other complaints 9.7
Vomiting 5.6
Diarrhea 5.0
I'm sorry, but I'm just not going to worry about heavier menstral bleeding. Exercising differently in a given month makes me bleed different amounts.
[ February 20, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Plan B, the pill under consideration, is Levongesterel. The above possible side effects are those for Levongesterel.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Suneun, I question (a bit) the slant of the page you linked to. In the Indications it listed unprotected sex LAST, after sexual assault and failure of birth control method, which probably TOGETHER make up a tiny percent of the women who use this method. Why would they do that?
If someone can explain to me how the MAP can flush out the lining of the uterus, and yet present no danger to an implanted fetus, I'd like to hear it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This isn't your opinion, Sunuen. Whether or not something is medically safe when taken in the most likely matter isn't a question of morality.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
When did I say morals?
It's reasonably safe.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Reasonably safe?
[ February 20, 2004, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
You'd think the FDA would have the right to make that assessment.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Suneun, what "people will use it to try to abort and inadvertantly hurt their fetus" arguement? Isn't the point of aborting to hurt your fetus until the fetus dies?
Really, the greatest danger "back-alley" abortions presented to women's physical health was the chance of infection, and that problem was pretty much fixed with the advent of antibiotics.
With pills like these, the argument that abortion is physically safer than pregnancy, and therefore better for a woman's health, is nullified. MAPS sound like a chemical coat hanger.
I agree with PSI Transport-- MAPs would be responsibility avoidance for the stupid and careless.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*shrug* They approved Phen-Fen.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
This is another thing that worries me. It's easy to say that there is no danger to an implanted fetus, when they are telling you to take the pills within five days after intercourse. (At that point there should BE no implanted fetus.) It's possible that when taken as the site tells you to, there will be less danger to everyone concerned.
But making it OTC is begging for some dumb girl to take three or four later in her pregnancy in an attempt to abort the fetus.
Keeping it prescription only would pretty much eliminate that worry.
Why in the world would they legalize the MAP which is essentially the same as another medicine that must be prescribed (BC) but several times stronger? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Kat, none of the links you've provided show that any real harm can occur. You have to provide more proof than 'bleeding', I think. There is a small percentage of people who have extremely adverse reactions to any drug that are not statistically significant. You haven't even shown that these people exist.
As far as PSI's question about howt he pill can do what it does without impacting the fetus, I don't know. I think it's a reasonable question. You would think that if there were significant risks, the approval by the FDA board in the article wouldn't have been so high--27 to 3 is a pretty hefty reccomendation.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The onus is to prove it's safe, not "a risk I'd be willing to take."
[ February 20, 2004, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Sachiko: There was an argument that the pill would be used during the pregnancy, between a few weeks and 9 months. The suggestion was that the pill would hurt the fetus. This is not true.
As far as I know, the Morning After Pill prevents implantation. As Olivet mentioned, many fertilized eggs are naturally refused implantation.
In the FDA report they list 0 deaths due to the morning after pill, Plan B.
Also, "The inclusion of pregnancy as a contraindication in the Plan B label is related not to safety, but to inform the consumer that the product will not interrupt an established pregnancy."
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yeah, it couldn't have anything to do with public opinion, bias, slant, or any other political agenda.
Besides, the FDA approves stupid stuff all the time.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Without proof of any such thing, PSI, you're right. It's just conjecture. (edit: directed at first point. Not second.)
[ February 20, 2004, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: As far as I know, the Morning After Pill prevents implantation. As Olivet mentioned, many fertilized eggs are naturally refused implantation
Please, please!!!! Do you know how implantation is prevented? By thinning the lining of the uterus, which would effectively loosen and remove any "products of conception".
I don't care what site says it's safe. You can't thin out the lining of the uterus without ejecting what is already there!
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
glad to see you're simply disagreeing with all the information I've come across.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Ayelar: No, no one can _force_ you to go, if you really don't want to. In fact, there are also ways to get around the whole "no birth control without an exam" thing, for those of us who want to take it and still don't plan on becoming sexually active. But it's still something that you generally _should_ do, like going to get a checkup every year or something.
Not that I'm one to talk. I refuse to go. Under any circumstances. Metal tongs just need to stay away from my body in general.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
What, am I the only one in favor of letting stupid people do stupid things to get themselves killed and/or possibly sterilized?
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I need to make a quick point here that is somewhat unrelated.
I make a lot of comments about not trusting one faction or the other because of political agenda. Although it seems to only come up in left-wing bashing, I need to point out that I have every reason to believe that left- and right- wingers do it equally. I trust almost nothing that has any political raison d'etre.
I will almost never agree with something if you say "well, this government group or that one" says it's okay because all of them have a reason to tell us exactly what they want us to know. I'm not worried about conspiracy as much as them just working for their own well-being.
/rant
quote: glad to see you're simply disagreeing with all the information I've come across.
Hmmm. Welcome to the art of discussion. Should I let you make all your points and pretend I agree? I guess that would make you feel better, but...
I just wanted to make sure that you knew what all those phrases you were using actually meant.
"preventing implantation"...you used that one. Did you know that it meant removing the lining of the uterus so that nothing could implant, and in effect removing anything that was already there? I've said this several times mainly because you seem more interested in quoting links that you agree with without actually considering what is really meant by each statement.
[ February 20, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> The onus is to prove it's safe, not "a risk I'd be willing to take." << (kat)
Do you drive? Fly? Walk anywhere, ever?
Everything is a "risk you're willing to take."
Edit: I realize this post can be read snarkily. Please believe I don't mean it like that, it's just that the "every new drug must be absolutely safe" argument really doesn't wash with me. Absolute safety doesn't exist.
[ February 20, 2004, 12:28 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Twinky, these are publicly-approved drugs. I'm serious about the Phen-Fen. If something is approved for political or economic reasons, then our government has failed.
[ February 20, 2004, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Okay, lets take a moment here.
Have you read the FDA report?
I said that as far as I know, it's a question of preventing implantation. However, the studies aren't exactly sure about the mechanism for all preventions by using Plan B.
Lets take this:
quote:The approved ECPs have been shown to inhibit ovulation depending on when in the menstrual cycle they are taken. It is believed that they may also interfere with the actual process of fertilization by interfering with transport of the egg or sperm or with the necessary changes that the sperm must undergo to be able to fertilize an egg. Levonorgestrel, depending on dose and the time it is administered in the menstrual cycle, does alter the endometrium, but there is little direct evidence that interference with implantation is the principal mechanism of action
-Inhibit Ovulation : Check. Not a problem when ovulation in pregnancy has already happened. -Interfere with Transport of Sperm/Egg: Check. Not a problem when the sperm and egg have already done their thing. -Alter Endometrium: Questionable evidence that this is how "preventing implantation" occurs. In fact, no evidence that this affects the fetus. All studies I have come across agree that the fetus is unaffected by a dose of Plan B.
Overdose? I've looked. They don't know, because there haven't really been cases of overdose. The FDA Report believes that overdoses won't happen due to expense and the fact that the pills are packaged in 1-use amounts.
----
Sachiko, I welcome discussion. But I can hardly take it as a serious concern that you Really Believe something bad will happen, when I have found nothing to justify that belief.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Yes.
But "proving it's absolutely safe" simply isn't a criterion for assessment.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Yet some people are willing to take more risk than others, but for the FDA to say "Hey this is perfectly safe!" would not be fairly informing people who may NOT be willing to take that risk.
Example:
I don't fly at all. I won't take that risk.
I drive, but I will only let one other person drive ME. I'm not willing to let most people risk my life.
I walk, because the percentage of people who got severly hurt solely by walking last year is almost negligably small.
So I choose to be rather "safe". I might not like it if I suddenly found out that I was bleeding to death by use of an FDA approved drug.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What are the standards for approving a drug? This is so certainly an argument that has been hashed out before. I don't think we have enough information.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Couple of quick notes on some semantic errors here that are Driving Me Nuts, because I'm a Stickler for Accuracy.
A fertilized Egg is generally NOT called a fetus. It is called a Zygote. I'm fairly certain it isn't called a fetus until it actually resembles a human being. The Zygote is unicellular. I believe the technical term for it between those stages is embryo (anything from two cells to the time it is obviously human in form.
Dictionary .com says:
quote:fe·tus 1.The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2.In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo
{deleted incorrect info, per rivka. *waves* }
Number two: I had to have an exam and pap smear and all sorts of blood tests and stuff LONG before I ever became sexually active. I had maybe one after that, as a part of my college entrance physical, but then none until just before I got married.
It's not a bad idea to do it, but I don't see why it would need to be yearly under the circumstances described here.
Edit: Thanks rivka
[ February 20, 2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Yet some people are willing to take more risk than others, but for the FDA to say "Hey this is perfectly safe!" would not be fairly informing people who may NOT be willing to take that risk. <<
Where has this been said? As far as I can tell, the possible side effects are documented. I'd say it's reasonable to assume that the packaging will be labelled with the possible side effects.
>> So I choose to be rather "safe". I might not like it if I suddenly found out that I was bleeding to death by use of an FDA approved drug. <<
If I was a woman and I knew that "death by bleeding" was a possible side effect of the drug, then I definitely wouldn't take it.
There have been myriad accusations in this thread about the approval of drugs for political reasons and/or without proper testing, but I have a question. Are there any cirucmstances under which you opponents of this switch to over-the-counter would change your stance? Say, for instance, that Plan B underwent extensive clinical trials and it was shown conclusively that in 99.9999999% of all cases there are no side effects, and in 0.00000001% of cases the patient had a mild headache for a short period of time. Would it then be okay? Or no? If not, why?
Edit: Psssst, Olivia, I don't think "semantical" is a word...
[ February 20, 2004, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
I think the distinction between an implanted embryo and an unimplanted one is immaterial to me because I find both human entities equally worthy of life. I believe life begins at conception; I'm not sure about it, but I'd rather err on the side of life. That's why I'm ethically opposed to using an IUD as a form of birth control. MAPs deny life to a child.
Of course, that line of reasoning would be considered an imposition of personal morality on others, so I'm sticking with the argument that MAPs are way too dangerous to use, especially because the people using them weren't able to follow instructions sufficient to use condoms or birth control pills.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
deleted because my dang computer is crap and posted my thing while I was still typing it.
[ February 20, 2004, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: So the morning after pill prevents implantation? It doesn't abort a fetus that has already implanted?
Also, I've heard that taking this pill is similar to taking a large dose of birth control pills. Is that true?
Correct; and not similar to but the same as.
quote: But the birth control pill is NOT over the counter, even though it is generally much less risky.
Perhaps it SHOULD be!
quote: After all, the ease with which a woman can get a first-trimester abortion hasn't nullified the apparent need for and right to late-term abortions and partial-birth abortions.
To be fair, many (most?) late-term abortions ('partial-birth' or otherwise) are because of medical issues that only arise late in the pregnancy.
PSI, you are wrong about two medical points. One, there IS a big difference between a fertilized egg and an implanted fetus (at least in a medical/biological sense). A fertilized egg rapidly becomes a clump of undifferentiated cells -- any one of which could theoretically became a fetus (hence identical twinning). At about the time implantation occurs, differentiation into the three cells layers occurs, which begins to make each cell specialized and part of a larger whole.
Not coincidentally, further differentiation parallels the degree of implantation. It takes 40 days past fertilization for the placenta to be fully established. As the degree of implantation increases, the risks to the fetus -- from MAP pills, any medical conditions of the mother that tend to cause early miscarriages (miscarriages later in the first trimester are more commonly linked to genetic abnormalities in the fetus or a flawed placenta), physical trauma to the mother (severe falls, etc.) -- decrease quickly.
The MAP does not pose a risk to an established pregnancy because a (healthy) placenta is pretty difficult to dislodge. I personally know several women who had SEVERE bleeding during the late first/ early second trimester and had healthy children.
And I thought my kids got stubborn AFTER they were born.
And flying is SAFER than driving.
Olivet, a zygote (one cell) DOES begin to divide before implantation -- in fact, within a few hours of fertilization. Differentiation (separating into different layers) which turns the zygote into a blastocyst, occurs at about day 5. Implantation generally occurs somewhere between day 4 and day 6. Once implantation occurs, it is called an embryo. At the end of the first trimester -- when head, torso, and limbs are distinguishable -- it is called a fetus.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Twink: If it was completely safe? Yes, I think so. It would bug the crap out of me because it would be taken as a political victory and all the back-patting would annoy me, and considering the FDA's record with drugs such as Phen-Fen, it's still taking your life in hands because you're stupid, but yes. If it was as safe as Tylenol and would not affect negatively either an implanted fetus nor the woman taking it, I'd agree.
And...semantical is so a word. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
They really don't KNOW how it affects the endometrium? That's kind of scary in itself.
I'm not trying to be snarky, I just think it's obvious that they say what we want to hear, and leave out or claim not to know how something works if we don't want to hear it.
For example, where on your list of possible side effects is death? And yet that is a possiblity for users of the pill, which MAP is, in a stronger dose. It's even listed on the drug info you get with the pill.
And when I ask, how does it affect the endometrium without affecting the fetus, they say, "Umm, we don't actually know, but rest assured it's very safe."
And you can't really use the "one-dose package" as proof they won't OD...making it OTC would allow them to buy as many as they wanted. . . . I give up on this stupid.....grrr I can't link anything and nothing is working when I try to post. Out of sheer consternation at my computer I'm going to give it up.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
PSI: I find arguing "death" as a side effect very misleading, since no person who has used Plan B has died from it.
Aside: This has no bearing on the current argument, but medicine and pharmacology is chock full of "we don't know."
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
posted too slow again! Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Neither do they know exactly how it works.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Suneun: but at least the pill mentions it as a possiblity.
quote: At about the time implantation occurs, differentiation into the three cells layers occurs, which begins to make each cell specialized and part of a larger whole.
To use your method of argument: At about the same time does not mean the same thing as "because".
quote: It takes 40 days past fertilization for the placenta to be fully established
and yet...
quote: The MAP does not pose a risk to an established pregnancy because a (healthy) placenta is pretty difficult to dislodge.
What happens to the fetus directly after implantation? If the placenta takes that long to be fully astablished, it wouldn't seem like a very good "lifejacket" for the fetus before then.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sunueun, I'm done with this erista. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Thanks rivka!
I suppose my point, which I think is still valid, is that many embryos don't become pregnancies, all on their own. THAT is a big reason I don't think it has a 'soul' if there is such a thing. I just don't want to accept that God would send out a soul just to shrivel and go swirling. But if you want to believe that, no skin off my nose.
PSI... you really, really never fly? Or let anybody except that one, special person drive you? Do you step on cracks? Besides, I don't see how personal risk assessment applies here, anyway. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't want flying to be illegal, just because you wouldn't do it yourself?
I'm uneasy about this being over-the-counter, but if it is proven reasonably safe, I suppose I would not oppose it. People kill themselves and irrevocably damage their livers on Tylenol, after all. People are stupid that way.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Good Lord, Kat. Would it take more than a moment to actually figure out how to spell my handle correctly and do it?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:The letter, authored by Rep. David Joseph Weldon (R-Fla.), urged the president to keep the morning-after pill's by-prescription-only status because wider use could result in more sexual promiscuity and venereal disease. Advocates of the switch say the science shows nothing of the kind and have said that a vote against the pill would constitute a major FDA capitulation to political pressure.
Dave Weldon is the biggest horses ass that Florida has sent to Congress in a long time. I can't stand the guy. He's an MD, but seems to know absolutely NO science. He sponsored the bill to ban ALL cloning research without any look at what it would affect and whether there were alternatives. He's a big proponent of the anti-flag-burning thing. He's just a GOP tool on most votes.
Can't stand him.
As for the morning after pill regimen, if the normal processes of the FDA would result in it being available over the counter, then anything that interferes with that is just politics. Let's not be fooled here people...the GOP is pandering to a particular group, trying to paint itself as the protectors of sexual morality in America. It's an easy target because people will take the viewpoint (as many here have done) that says "well, people's rights aren't at stake, you can still get the medication..."
But what you are failing to notice, and this is the BIG take home lesson, is that the "get government out of your lives" party is once again meddling where government normally does not. And why would they do that? Because they have a moral or ethical stance on the issue? I think not.
It's because this issue can be painted to look like the kind of thing that conservative voters would latch onto and say "good job!"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sun: Can I help you? You seem to have a concern.
[ February 20, 2004, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I find it disheartening that you seem continually misspell my handle for no good reason at all. And I figure, instead of leaving it be, I might as well remind you that you misspelled it.
It would be a gesture of good will for you to edit the spelling to reflect the actual spelling of my handle.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I want you to say how smart and lovely I am first.
--
*laugh* It isn't on purpose. Truth is, I'm a little lazy when I type quickly. And here I thought I was being so cool in remembering there was an N at the end.
But I'd still welcome the smart and lovely comment. *hopeful*
[ February 20, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
*buries head in hands*
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
* Wants people to note how I tried to point out the incorrect spelling in a neutral manner about four or five times by now *
You are a spiteful person, Kat.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Are you deliberately trying to be.... witchy, kat? There's no reason to be so snarky here.
And, while you're at it, I'd like to remind you that I don't particularly like having my handle spelled ALR. I find it jarring, and I've mentioned before that I don't appreciate it.
[/tangent]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh good grief.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Yeah, we sure are being unreasonable, huh?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
While I agree that this whole handle thing is kinda silly, I'm not sure we should assume it's malicious or spiteful. She just might have been trying to be playful, and lighten the mood.
Maybe not the place for it, but is it really that IMPORTANT?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:
quote:At about the time implantation occurs, differentiation into the three cells layers occurs, which begins to make each cell specialized and part of a larger whole.
To use your method of argument: At about the same time does not mean the same thing as "because".
Well, there is some evidence that implantation triggers blastocyst formation, but you're right, it is not a proven cause. So? My point was that the two are distinctly different, not what causes the difference.
The term "established pregnancy" does NOT mean directly after implantation. It is not a specific medical term, but it seems to mostly be used to refer to a pregnancy that has made it past the point at which menstruation was expected (so about 10-16 days post fertilization).
quote: If the placenta takes that long to be fully established, it wouldn't seem like a very good "lifejacket" for the fetus before then.
It's not. That's why most of the really worrisome exposure to carcinogens/tetratogens occurs before a woman actually knows she is pregnant -- and why a woman of childbearing years (who could conceivably become pregnant) should be careful about getting enough folate and limit exposure to potential dangers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What handle thing? Misspelling her name?
Jeez, I really DID think I was being cool for remembering to put the N at the end. In fact, it was probably the result of stressing over the ending letter that screwed up the middle.
Suneun and Ayelar, I'm not that subtle. If I was trying to insult you, I'd be much more direct.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
quote:
To be fair, many (most?) late-term abortions ('partial-birth' or otherwise) are because of medical issues that only arise late in the pregnancy.
quote:
Well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I disagree witht hat; if a mother can make it to birth with a pregnancy, a partial-birth abortion only increases risks to her health. And the only instance I can think of where "health risks" warrant the abortion of a late-term fetus (especially one past viability enough to survive in intensive care) is where the baby has possible physical or chromosomal abnormalities that the mother doesn't want to have to deal with.
But back to the original topic: I don't think it would matter to those who support the MAP (and also the RU-486, not to mention abortion on demand) how safe it is for women.
Abortion still isn't a very healthy thing to do to one's body, and women still suffer complications and die for abortion (from internal trauma, I understand, not from post-operative infection, though that's still a concern with women who aren't under adequate medical supervision), but there are many people who consider abortion a right.
More clearly, I think that, to the people who want make these and other drugs legal and easy to get, health risks are beside the point. I think is is about political victory.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Kat, I think you're really lovely and purty and I would love to get greasy with you, you big ol' love sponge!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Ah Stormy, you're such a romantic. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's a Hatrack trip to Vegas! *shoots guns in air* Load up the dogs and set out the cat, mama, I'm a gettin' hitched!
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I don't buy it, kat. I really feel like you pull out ALR whenever you're being particularly dismissive of me, because in the back of your mind somewhere you remember that I don't like it. And I think that, if it was an honest mistake, even after Suneun had mentioned it to you several times before, that you would have gone back and edited the "typo" as she requested. But you haven't, which leads me to believe that you don't give a darn about how she feels about it.
Prove me wrong?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So setting aside safety concerns to the woman if taken incorrectly, I'm amazed that in two pages the subject of rape hasn't come up. I think making this OTC will reduce the already unerreported crime of rape. Which will cement the paternalistic idea that if you are violated, you should be ashamed and just deal with it as privately as possible. Don't go to a doctor. Don't file a report.
And I think the argument that this is a more potent form of a drug that is not OTC was not rebutted.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh my stars, proposals at first meeting even on Hatrack.
---
I can't help what you think. I know I'm not doing it on purpose. If I'm doing it unconciously, then I'll try to avoid for the good of Hatrack. I have no memory of you objecting to it, and I WAS trying to spell Sun's name right.
But if you think I'm being subtle and sly in attacking, then you have to be projecting. I simply don't do that, and I'm not going to start. If you have been doing that, please stop.
[ February 20, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Eh? I've known you for a million years on Hatrack.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Good point, pooka.
I'd like to hear what our Hatrack Doctors have to say.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
I'm still not buying it. You were in the process of pulling yet another "Fine, I'm not going to play anymore!!" move with her. She's asked you, as she says, about 5 times to spell her name correctly. And yet, you still won't go back and fix it? This looks really passive-agressive, and just saying "I'm not the kind of person who does those things" ain't gonna do much for me. Not that I think you care.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K. In all seriousness, and not because I'm trying to get into Kat's virtual pants or anything, but I think you guys are pushing this a little far. She's apologized and said she wouldn't do it again.
Man. Y'all are harsh.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Pooka, as far as the under reporting rape question... I don't know. I think it would be hard to answer that question.
I know that some of the proponents of the OTC EPC suggest that since many cases of unprotected sex occur over the weekend, it is beneficial for Plan B to be OTC because many doctors are unavailable on the weekend. The efficiacy of the drug decreases, the longer you wait.
As far as birth control pills not being OTC, lets see. The argument I can come up with without researching is a question of Ease of Overdose. The argument for Plan B being difficult to overdose is cost and quantity in a package. Plan B only contains 1 regimen per package at $25-$30. It could be roughly equivalent to 4 or 5 of the BC bills, depending on what brand. But a BC pack contains 21 active pills. The likelihood of attempting to overdose on BC pills is higher.
(Though in my un-researched opinion, BC pills are probably safe enough to be OTC, but are having problems with politics. I'm poking around fda's site right now)
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Hopefully kat will make an effort to spell the name correctly from now on, but going back and fixing past misspellings is pointless.
Posted by Ayelar (Member # 183) on :
Just to get things straight, kat has, in fact, NOT apologized at all. She has dismissed both Sun and I, and implied that we are both ridiculous for caring, but she has not apologized. To the contrary, I find each one of her last few posts on this thread to be highly condescending.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know how it actually works, but I wish there were better services for rape victims then having to go to the police. But I think that is where folks should go, and that the MAP would be offered them there as a public service. But I imagine the way it works is for the woman to be sent to her doctor to deal further with it.
I just don't know how rape defense attorneys would use the information that the woman purchased MAP over the counter instead of going to the Police/ER.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Ditto on the dont-know.
There's a rape-kit that many ER's use. I've seen it, though I can't remember exactly what it entails. You could probably find out, if you were interested enough.
The problem is, lots of people don't report rape. And many people don't report rape until long after the fact. I just don't know if keeping MAP prescription-only is a suitable way to help fight that fight.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Going by what I've read, standard treatment at ERs (at least in some states?) includes offering MAPs to rape victims -- right then and there.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:dismisses everyone:
That's right. Dismissed.
Get on outta here.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Rivka, birth control can't be made OTC because there are many different combinations of the chemicals. It usually requires a doctor and some testing phases to determine an adequate mix.
This morning-after thing seems to be made differently, but I'm curious, even after reading about it, how it handles people of different, well, 'consistencies' and other variables with such plumbing. How do they account for such efficiency without making the chemical process rather hard on the more timid of systems (and, thus, high risk)? As a caveat: I am not a biochemist, so there could be stuff I'm missing. My understanding of human chemistry is rudimentary, especially so with areas that I do not have myself (that's right, no ovaries or uterus).
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. I disagree witht hat; if a mother can make it to birth with a pregnancy, a partial-birth abortion only increases risks to her health. And the only instance I can think of where "health risks" warrant the abortion of a late-term fetus (especially one past viability enough to survive in intensive care) is where the baby has possible physical or chromosomal abnormalities that the mother doesn't want to have to deal with.
From what my mom, who is a nurse, has told me, partial-birth and other late term abortions are done before the fetus is viable. If the fetus is viable, the doctor would just deliver it as soon as possible.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI... you really, really never fly? Or let anybody except that one, special person drive you?
Actually I have control issues. I resent that you are implying that I'm neurotic or...err...wait I AM neurotic.
But really that bears no relevance. Why attack me? Who cares why I do this stuff? The point is supposed to be that everyone has different levels of concern and different people are willing to take different risks. Yours is not to question why or to be snarky about it. I just don't think saying "Life is taking chances", is a very good reason to not be as safe as POSSIBLE.
What if I went to the doctor and he said "This pill may make you bleed, but hey! Life is dangerous!" C'mon.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That's not entirely correct, John. It's not usually so much a question of finding the "mix" that works as the brand that causes a woman the fewest side effects and takes into account other issues (age, whether she is breastfeeding an infant). The amount of the two hormones (or one, if using the 'mini-pill') is pretty standard.
Different cold pills are more/less effective for different people, as are various other birth-control products, like sponges and jellies. They're still OTC.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
[off-topic]
Don't feel too bad if your user name gets mispelled. My own family doesn't get mine right. And nobody abbreviates it correctly: it should be "Yozh" (ends in sound "ZH"), not "Yo" or "Yozi" or "Yohz".
[/off-topic]
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Also, the morning after pill is a one shot large dose. It's pretty easy to determine how much is required to get the desired effect in most people without an adverse reaction. The body can tolerate a lot for short periods of time, so overshooting isn't a big deal. Birth control pills, on the other hand, introduce a level of chemicals in your body and keep them there for a long time. Constant medium/high stress levels have a greater potential for damage than very short, sudden spikes. Which is way you need to go to the doctor once a year if you're taking BCP but don't need to see one after you've taken a MAP.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
PSI no drug out there ever has been nor ever will be completely safe. All drugs are toxic and it always comes down to whether or not the risks associated with taking them are acceptable. To expect anything else is foolish. The FDA has a pretty good system in place. Yes, things accidentally get through but it's impossible to test a drug on the entire human population before release. You're always playing a game of averages. Usually you win, sometimes you lose.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Even water can kill you, if you drink too much.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
What's the difference between what I said and what you said about birth control, rivka? One would think irregular/heavy bleeding and effects on emotional chemistry are what keep it prescription. There are OTC cold medicines that should very well have stayed prescription, mostly because of danger or—more importantly—the ease of accessibility of chemicals that can cause other "side effects." Most OTC drugs that have been OTC for a long period of time are there because they are simple in approach. The newer ones being made so are mostly due to politics.
And if this new drug is more simple in approach, I don't see why it shouldn't be OTC. Making it okay just because of silly political pressure would be stupid.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Wait, are you agreeing with me or disagreeing? *blink*
How many hours before the weekend starts? Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: PSI no drug out there ever has been nor ever will be completely safe. All drugs are toxic and it always comes down to whether or not the risks associated with taking them are acceptable
I don't expect anything to be perfectly safe. I just want to make sure the FDA does a fair job describing the risks.
What is happening? This is about the fifth time this week that someone has argued a point with me that I didn't even make. What's wrong with me wanting the FDA to do everything they can to make something safe, and then educated people about all possible side effects, and if necessary, make something that's not extremely safe remain prescription?
[ February 20, 2004, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Agreeing, BtL. I'm no DHMO-banner!
John, I think we are disagreeing more about what makes a drug safe for OTC use then. *shrug*
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Okay....I probably shouldn't be posting in this thread, because reading it has made me very, very angry. It's not the snippiness that's going on, or even particular points. It's the language being used.
So....I'm going to apologize in advance if I offend anyone. I'm sure I'd like you if I met you in person and you had a chance to explain yourself to my face. Or maybe I wouldn't, who knows.
Moving on.
quote:Therefore, using logic, I have deduced that the OTC MAP is 99% designed for the stupid, or girls who don't want their parents to know they're sleeping around. Sounds like a stupid reason to make something legal.
PSI, did you even stop to think about the implications of this statement??? Did you even REALIZE how blatantly sexist this is? "Girls who don't want their parents to know they're sleeping around." First of all, who ever said they're sleeping around?!?! Maybe they're in a loving, committed relationship, and are having responsible sex.....except maybe the condom broke. Second of all, I'd like you to think for a second about the inherent sexism in your statement. Try turning it around: "GUYS who don't want their parents to know they're sleeping around." It sounds a little more ridiculous that way, doesn't it? Now I know you're going to tell me that you mean it both ways and that there's no moral difference between a man and a woman being sexually active or promiscuous. But take a second and just think about the deeper, underlying assumption you're making and society's judgments of the differences between a man and a woman.
It is without a doubt more shameful for a woman to "sleep around" than it is for a man. Men, after all, are pimps, and get lauded for their Escalades and their bling-bling. Women are whores. It's a terrible, degrading double standard that we have, and I think women in this country need to commit themselves to removing that double standard.
You have absolutely embodied that stereotype and double standard in your post about this drug, and for that you should be ashamed. "Sleeping around".....UGH.
Maybe part of the reason I'm so offended by this thread is because I have *taken* the morning after pill. (For the record, I experienced *no* adverse side effects -- I was expecting to feel nauseous/throw up, but I didn't). Yeah, I was young (17). I am young (18). But guess what? My mom knew I was having sex. Having this medicine available over the counter would have been a godsend -- this happened over the weekend, like someone mentioned before, and no doctor was available. The hospital was incredibly unforgiving and was going to charge us $200 for a visit and a prescrition. I was waiting to see the OB/GYN for the first time, as first-time appointments are ridiculously hard to make, so they couldn't phone one in for me. And my normal physician, for some reason, wasn't allowed to do it.
We ended up having to go to Planned Parenthood, which my mother was *not* happy about (I'm still not sure why), and we had to wait until they opened on Monday. Like someone said, the longer you wait the less effective it is.
I remember my mom, at the time, wishing it was available OTC.
My point is that all girls and women who use this drug are not "sleeping around," are not trying to hide anything, and are making every effort to eliminate its necessity.
And I'm hesitant about the "will cause more teenage sex" argument for a couple of reasons, but mostly because I know the availability of this drug didn't have any influence on my personal decisions. Maybe that's not much of an argument, but that's why I feel the way I do.
*sigh*
Just stick to talking about the medical facts, will you? Don't call people who use this drug sluts or whores, because they're not. And oh wait....the man plays a small role in this too. Or is he just a hot playa making his latest conquest?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That statement bugged me, too, Kasie.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What Kasie said.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:John, I think we are disagreeing more about what makes a drug safe for OTC use then. *shrug*
Well, yeah. That was kinda what I was getting at to begin with. "Acceptable risk" is hardly the reasoning behind a great deal of the OTC drugs made so over the last decade, and anyone who uses them in a debate is being a bit disingenuous by just saying, "see? This is OTC." Just watch TV for an hour, and see how many drug commercials you see. Not accepting that many risky OTC drugs are OTC now because of political palm-greasing is extremely sloppy logic.
Like I said, if this drug has a simple explanation for the variations in human chemistry, then it seems sensible to make it OTC. If "acceptable risk because other acceptable risks exist" is the only argument for making it OTC, then I reject it. The thing is, none of the explanations I've seen on this stuff has given details on how it addresses this. In fact, it seems to assume all females have a similar enough chemistry that it's universal. Considering the evidence to the contrary with other drugs that deal with that part of the body's chemistry, I'm a bit suspect. Just a bit, though. Caution and (the better part of) valor, and all that rot.
[ February 20, 2004, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: John L ]
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
quote:If you don't think some girls are going to get seven of these to last them through spring break, then you don't know girls. Or guys who will give them to girls instead of a condom. If girls are stupid enough to be having sex a the age of 11, 14, and even 17, they are stupid enough to misuse the technology. If it makes them throw up, how are they going to know it was the pill and not the peach schnapps?
At least this one suggests that the drug could be abused by men as well as women.
And I really appreciate the blanket assumption of my (and my peers') stupidity. Honestly, how can you even presume to understand this decision? You don't understand me -- my intelligence, my decision-making skills, my personhood, my *self* -- and yet you are judging me.
If it's the Bible you're using as a basis for this stupidity, think again. I think you might've just committed a worse sin than I have.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Wait, I missed something. Let me take the first sentence of the statment I quoted above:
quote:If you don't think some girls are going to get seven of these to last them through spring break, then you don't know girls.
*incredulous*
I can't believe I thought the first thing I talked about was sexist, because in comparison to this it was chauvinist!
How did we get three pages into this thread without someone else pointing this out??
I.....wow. I'm almost at a loss as to what to say to this. Is MTV your only exposure to the world today? Cause I'm telling you right now that's not what normal people do.
Jesus Christ. Maybe someone else knows how to respond to this better than I do.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It's a pretty foolish statement, as well, because the MAP makes you violently ill for a period of hours. I don't think women are going to be popping them like candy.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Everyone knows I'm rabidly pro-life.
However, I've come to do a lot of praying and soul searching on the abortion issue, and I do think it's murder to remove an implanted embryo or fetus. But, as Olivet pointed out, many, many eggs never implant. Therefore, I can handle the morning after pill much better than I can an abortion procedure. It's not ideal, I myself would never take a morning after pill, but if it reduces the incidence of abortions, I'm for it.
I guess the way I see this is that there is no question in my mind an implanted embryo or fetus is alive. It's sending chemical signals through the mother's bloodstream, it's not just a group of cells, it's a living being. As for whether or not an egg that has just been fertilized but not implanted is alive - that's an area where I'm unsure. I don't think I'll ever resolve that uncertainty until I can ask God what he thinks in person.
So, that's my personal line in the sand on abortion - once it's implanted, it's a done deal, that is a living baby and removing it is killing. Before it's implanted, gray area. I myself would not do it, but I can understand why some others have no problem with it.
I think having morning after pill treatments available for rape victims is a great idea. Taking this would remove any chance (more than likely, of course no method is fool proof) that you would conceive a child from the incident, and set the victim's mind at ease.
While I'm not really for unlimited access without prescriptions, I think it would be a great idea for rape crisis centers to have information on this treatment they could give out to victims, and perhaps a list of doctors who would be willing to provide a prescription for anyone referred by the crisis center, no questions asked?
That's not that unreasonable, is it?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Plan B's cost about $25 each.
If you think the average girl would spend almost $200 for these pills for "a week of fun," you're crazy.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Plan B's cost about $25 each.
If you think the average girl would spend almost $200 for these pills for "a week of fun," you're crazy.
Not if they're spending mommy and daddy's money.
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Where do you people meet these slutty, spoiled, irresponsible, promiscous teenage whores?
Seriously. I'd like to meet one someday.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Ohmydearlord.
_I'm_ going to take offense at that one, seeing as I'm one of those oh-so-hated girls who doesn't have the worry about student loans and gets a nice monthly check from Mommy and Daddy for things I might want to buy. How _dare_ I.
Why is it that girls are so often portrayed as money-wasting, irresponsible skanks? I mean, the fact that they _can_ spend the money on the pills doesn't mean they _would_. I can think of much better uses for two hundred bucks.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Kasie, the difference between you and me is that I can look back and see that thinking I was in a committed relationship when I wasn't married was stupid.
Not seeing something as stupid just because it applies to you is... what? Kids O.D. on all kinds of drugs that are over $20 a dose.
And I'm not basing my argument on the bible. I'm basing in on men and women needing to be more responsible. But I never really posted to that premarital sex thread, so if there may be a bunch of subtext I'm missing. But the minor sex end of this was already kind of dropped. Besides, I was never a minor having sex.
Edit for typo
[ February 20, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
btw I know someone asked about "Hatrack Doctors" before and I would like to point out that while not a full MD, Suneun is in her second year of medical school. It may not mean she's a fully qualified expert but it does mean in general, she's going to know a heck more about the technical information on the subject than I am.
Kat, I do think you should take extra care to spell Suneun's name right, since she has specified several times that the misspelling bothers her. It is courtesy and good manners, nothing else. If you can't be bothered with that much courtesy when typing then maybe you shouldn't be typing.
AJ
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I also find it interesting how its considered stupid to be having sex at 17, when there are people even today who get married at seventeen, many, many people who get married at eighteen (does some magical change happen in that one year?), and not all that many decades ago it was reasonably common for girls to get married at 16.
Presumably most of these girls who got married had sex upon doing so; are they included in the assessment of stupid?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Nice try fuge, but that's not going to convince any of the 17-year olds here to sleep with you. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
pooka,
I just don't buy that.
Maybe I'll look back and say it was stupid. But maybe I won't. And I bet there are a lot of intelligent women out there who look back on similar experiences and don't think they were stupid.
I guess a big part of my point is that "stupid" is a very relative term. What's stupid for me might not be stupid for you, and it's erroneous judgment to apply your definiton of the word to everyone. Which is essentially what the politicos in the FDA are trying to do with this drug.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Where do you people meet these slutty, spoiled, irresponsible, promiscous teenage whores?
Seriously. I'd like to meet one someday.
while i know it's a gross generalization, there are many girls that are like this. I went to a pretty expensive college and there were a whole lot of "Daddy's girls" there driving around in their new SUVs having never worked a day in their lives, and blowing all of their parents money on completely frivilous things. it happens all the time.
Sure you can't lump everyone into that category, but if you've never met any, I can introduce you to plenty.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
My understanding on women's papsmears, is that you need to have one before you are sexually active or around age 20, in order to establish a "baseline" of data, so that later on they can refer to it to see if things went wrong.
I've had a 21 year old non-sexually active friend have pre-cancerous polyps removed from her cervix, and a 19 year old non-sexually active friend have ovarian cancer. (They had to remove one ovary so far and do chemo.) If they hadn't been checked things could have been far worse.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Instead of non-sexually active, should it be sexually inactive?
AJ
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Where do you people meet these slutty, spoiled, irresponsible, promiscous teenage whores?
Seriously. I'd like to meet one someday.
Go to NY, N`awlins, Orlando, or many other places durin Spring Break and even on many weekends. They exist.
Conversely, the paranoia of the "kids must be protected" crowd is also excessive.
Both sides are being stupid here: the restrictive and the approving. This isn't an issue about just sexualized teenagers and college kids. This isn't just about convenience and the moral issue of whether sex is right or not. It's about actual viability over just pushing it through because it's popular and the FDA is adequately paid off.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Kasie...I'm sorry you got offended...
...correction...I'm sorry I offended you.
Here's the point.
No GUY can buy the MAP and force his girlfriend to take it...that would be very unlikely.
Taking the MAP is almost always the responsibility of the girl.
I'm a woman and I got pregnant out of wedlock. I feel like I am in the perfect boat to say that I was very, very stupid to have sex when I did, without birth control. Luckily it turned out well for our family.
While it takes two to get pregnant, allow me to make a statement regarding personal responsibility.
If you are a woman, it is extremely irresponsible to have sex without birth control. We're not talking about placing BLAME here, I'm talking about taking care of yourself. If you have sex without BC, it's: YOU that could get pregant, YOU that has to decide whether to use MAP, YOU that will have to choose to keep, abort, or put the child up for adoption, and, if you choose to keep it, YOU who will have the responsibility for the care, because it's very hard to make a man pay child support if he doesn't want to, and almost impossible to get him to spend personal time with your child (if he doesn't want to).
I refered to women in the post because it is impossible for a man to take MAP and therefore can't be his responsibility.
I still believe that being in a position of needing the MAP is an irresponsible place to find yourself. Do you disagree with this?
But I certainly shouldn't have used the word stupid and I apologize for it. You have no reason to be sorry for being angry at me and I hope you'll forgive me. I still haven't learned alot of tact...gimme another chance. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't think so, AJ. Do they keep your first one? Because I've seen several doctors since then . . .
I think it has more to do with the fact that cervical cancer almost never shows up in women younger than 20 unless they are sexually active. So (AFAIK), the recommendation is annually, beginning when becoming sexually active or turning 20, whichever comes first.
But yeah, there are exceptions, of course, and family history is important too.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
All your medical records are around for nearly forever by law. If it was actually needed, you could go back and get it from the doctor you saw then.
I really should get all of my medical records from everywhere transferred to my current GP so they are all in one place, now that I think about it!
AJ
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
My doctor said, "Get one when you're eighteen or become sexually active."
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
PSI,
You're right about personal responsibility....and thank you for the apology. I'm sorry if I overreacted.
Like I said, it was less the actual position you take and more of the words you used to express it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Yes, they may have lowered the age to 18. I'm certainly glad my friend got one then because they caught the cancer! As far as I know she had no family history either.
AJ
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
Oh, and:
quote:Ohmydearlord.
_I'm_ going to take offense at that one, seeing as I'm one of those oh-so-hated girls who doesn't have the worry about student loans and gets a nice monthly check from Mommy and Daddy for things I might want to buy. How _dare_ I.
Why is it that girls are so often portrayed as money-wasting, irresponsible skanks? I mean, the fact that they _can_ spend the money on the pills doesn't mean they _would_. I can think of much better uses for two hundred bucks.
Good, that last sentence means you're probably not spoiled. However, the truth is there are a great many who are, up to and including those who still need loans, whose parents still have debt, and who don't come from families that have a whole lot. The point isn't what tax bracket the parents are in, it's about the way a lot of people in America look at financial responsibility before their late 20's nowadays. It's an issue of malformed priorities, not picking on any subculture or social group.
And since I just jumped into the social aspect with both feet, it's worth noting that even the idea of this "morning after" pill is a symptom of the bigger problem of addressing the world with consequences as an afterthought. Sure, it's somewhat (not really, for the determined) prohibitively expensive, but if something goes OTC, expect mass-production, which leads to lower prices, which leads to higher demand, which leads to more production, etc., etc. (keep an eye on prices of other OTCs that have gone on the shelf in the last five years). There are still instances where uninformed people think taking extra birth control after missing a few days "catches things up." I know of at least one who thought they could make a positive pregnancy test go away. This patchwork mentality is no good for society, so unless there is going to be just as much spent on teaching proper usage—something not done with current birth control measures—I don't see the sense in making more options available to an overly-ignorant general population. People aren't stupid, but if the info isn't there and easily accessible (meaning you don't need internet-search skills or a qualified professional friend), then how the hell are people going to understand their options?
They're not.
I'm not saying people are stupid, and I'm not even saying whether it should or shouldn't be put over-the-counter. I'm saying I don't have enough info to make it clear one way or the other, and most of the arguments I've seen on this thread have way too much emotionally invested on both sides.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Records, yes. But do they keep images from paps? I really thought each one was looked at individually, not compared to earlier ones. Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
As far as I know about the HIPAA regulations, the images would have to be saved for at least seven years, rivka, while the readings would more likely be what is accessible indefinitely.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
Kasie:
I don't think you overreacted...actually I was just really confused. The first thing I saw was your post in the catfight thread (I hadn't been around for a while) and I was like "Oh crud, what did I miss? Did I insult somebody again? And didn't she mean bi&$@, not ba&@#$*?"
One thing I'm learning since having been at Hatrack is no matter what the situation is, someone around here has been there. Like you said, you can't NOT put your opinions because someone will be hurt, but you can always try to be a little nicer about it.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Condom breakage is a legitimate problem that could happen to a lot of couples, married or no. That's why I support the MAP being available by prescription. I also support the abortion pill being available by prescription because if I had a daughter who were raped I wouldn't want her to be further traumatized by a surgical abortion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Ok, but it's been more than seven years in my case, and it was pre-HIPAA.
In any case, do they really look at prior paps? I was under the impression that it was not a comparative thing (except to a theoretical 'good'/''bad').
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
I dunno, I'm probably imposing my engineering logic on a medical issue. They may not. But they might want to know how many years of "good" paps you had and when they were before your "bad" pap.
AJ
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
That I can't answer, rivka. I just handle the technology side for some medical offices, which is why I knew about the storage issues.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: I'm probably imposing my engineering logic on a medical issue.
This made me giggle. No idea why . . .
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:I also support the abortion pill being available by prescription because if I had a daughter who were raped I wouldn't want her to be further traumatized by a surgical abortion.
It would still be tramatic and it would take much longer. The abortion pill is hard on the body, worse the further along the pregnancy. It also isn't particularly effective when taken by itself. Recommended use includes the application of prostaglandin, which I can tell you from personal experience is very much no picnic.
This info is just incase you thought that RU486 was gentler than a surgical abortion...they are both hard on the body and require time in a clinic.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
*Warning: Probably really offensive to some people*
The idea of a married couple accidentally getting pregnant and using the MAP, not to mention other kinds of chemical abortificants, really bothers me.
I mean, they're married.
btw, PSI, (is calling you that considered a misspelling? dangit) that is, PSI Transport, I was pregnant before I got married too. That experience underscores how I feel about this and the premarital sex issue--I know what it's like, and how stupid it was of me to engage in that kind of behavior. (Sorry, Kasie, that's how I feel. )
The concept of someone in a loving, committed relationship needing the MAP, well...that makes that relationship look less loving and committed, to my eyes. If pregnancy is such a tragedy for a relationship, maybe it's not such a nice relationship?
After all, I imagine many guys would be very happy if this drug were made OTC, because it oculd get them out of a lot of messes.
*ducks*
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Interesting, Jeniwren, though if (hopefully not) it ever happened, I would hope we'd be looking at the MAP instead.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote: But really that bears no relevance. Why attack me? Who cares why I do this stuff? The point is supposed to be that everyone has different levels of concern and different people are willing to take different risks. Yours is not to question why or to be snarky about it. I just don't think saying "Life is taking chances", is a very good reason to not be as safe as POSSIBLE.
What if I went to the doctor and he said "This pill may make you bleed, but hey! Life is dangerous!" C'mon.
PSI, I wasn't trying to attack your neuroses, I was just trying to point out that they are not relevant. Just because YOU don't fly because of your personal risk assessment, it doesn't mean that the GOVERNMENT should not allow planes to fly because of that risk.
I'm uncomfortable with the Government being in the position of protecting us from ourselves. It just sets off alarms, for me.
I DO find it amusing that you're pissed at me, though, since I have spent this whole thread more-or-less on YOUR side, which is one of not being comfortable with it being over-the-counter.
I wasn't meaning to use your own argument against you, just pointing out that maybe using your own behaviors as an analogy would not be the most helpful argument, all things considered.
Sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't post with malicious intent. I was just playing around and I didn't mean to be insensitive or hit a sore spot.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
A scenario where I would at least discuss it with my husband: We currently have a 9 month old, a 4 year old, and a 7 year old. More of a problem than the 9 month old is that the 4 year old is not fully potty trained. If we had condom breakage and I was likely to be fertile, I might rather make my uterus a hostile environment than enter into another pregnancy at this time. Because I have had post-partum psychosis (not the blues, but full on delusional out of it-ness) in the past, such a stressor could spell danger of abuse, especially for the 4 year old. edit: made more sense with a but
[ February 20, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I meant, to clarify, that there is a difference between "Being as safe as possible" and legislating impossible standards for safety.
It PISSES ME OFF every time I read some stupid disclaimer that 'Coffee May Be Hot' Or 'Misuse of Toothpicks May Cause Injury'. Like the governmet should be baby-proofing our lives. Oy.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I'm not really ticked off or anything...I guess we were both making the same point!
You think my personal experience isn't relevant because that's not what the government should consider when making choices.
I think my personal experience shouldn't matter to anyone, i just figure I want to be well informed. I never said they should stop selling something because I'm neurotic, just that I should know all risks so that I can make a decision. I don't want to hear "Life happens" or anything. I want to hear as much info as I can, and I'm not happy with "I don't know".
Plus, it doesn't really matter how much on "my side" you've been, getting snarky about someone personally will almost always get you, at the least, an eye-brow raise.
Where is a white-flag smily?
[ February 20, 2004, 04:31 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Sachiko, I'm with you on that -- my first husband initially wanted me to abort when I got pregnant four years into our marriage. To be honest, I was so shocked I didn't even get mad -- I just said absolutely not, no way, not even. Our son is almost 11 now.
I've read stories, however, of married women who have opted for abortion instead of having a "johnny come lately" child. I could see feeling that way, if I was looking at my teenager kids and suddenly discovered that I was pregnant at 46. (I still couldn't abort, but I could certainly see *wanting* to, despite being happily married.)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
pooka! That honestly terrifies me, too. I had the most awful post-partum depression after baby #2. My husband and I would both rather lose vital organs than face that again. My Doctor thinks the pregnancy may have reset my hormones permanently. Plus, the risk of it happeneing again is high.
If I found out I WAS pregnant, I'd probably make sure I had extra-close mood monitoring and stuff. But if we had a condom failure or something, I think I might consider MAP, too. I think my husband would actually lean that direction, too. Because he doesn't want his wife and children's mother in a rubber room.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Okay, Pooka..I'm trying to tread very, very lightly here.
I know what it is to have postpartum depression; I am also trying to potty train a four year old. I have three in diapers, and I've been pregnant annually since 1999. I'm jsut telling you this so I know a little bit about what your situation feels like.
But...if you and your husband are so adverse to the idea of having another baby, to the point that you would take the MAP (a drug which I believe ends a life), then maybe it is irresponsible to get to that point in the first place.
I know I sound judgemental, and I'm sensitive to it too, because I've had people tell ME that I should get sterilized because we're poor, and because my kids are all so close together.
But if you know you feel that way about getting pregnant, then maybe more extreme measures are required to prevent the problem pregnancy in the first place.
*sigh* I think I should back out of this thread, I'm only going to offend people, I think.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Because he doesn't want his wife and children's mother in a rubber room.
But wouldn't it be the height of irony if the room broke and you got out?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
John: You know, I feel it necesary to point out that I _live_ in New Orleans, and when I'm not here, I'm a forty-five minute drive from Orlando. I find it extremely offensive that girls who are born into families that have money or who have parents who don't make them get jobs in high school/college are suddenly viewed as too frivolous or somehow stupid. Do I deserve it? I'm not even getting into that. My father's goal from a young age was essentially to have four children and to provide for them very well. Am I spoiled? Absolutely. Does that mean that I'm unintelligent or lack common sense? Absolutely not.
Guess what? All of those girls driving around in their brand-new SUVs are the ones I went to school with before I came here, and once I got here, I found it almost inconceivable that there are people whose parents refuse to contribute anything to their college educations because in my family (and extended family on the sides of both parents), it's considered the parents' _duty_ to provide for their children through college/grad school.
I just find it very irriating that girls are so often portrayed as gold-diggers simply because they're female and their parents buy them things. The same applies to women who date men with money, as well. God forbid they actually have an appreciation for the man's character or personality; they're obviously just using him for his money. Why? Because they're women, and that's just what women do.
/rant
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Pooka, have you tried Toilet Training In Less Than A Day with your 4 year old? My son was full on 4 years old when I used the techniques to get him potty trained. It was the only thing that worked. You have my sympathies...I remember that time as very very frustrating.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I felt that way too Jeni. There was a moment in time where abortion looked alot less scary than telling my future parents-in-law that I was pregnant. Yikes.
But we're glad we had him, and I don't think I could have terminated him.
When he got up from his nap, he sat in the floor and started crying and said in a barely understandable voice,
"I don't want the bubbles!"
Whatever that meant...it was pretty funny though.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think I clarified that it was more than depression. I had to be hospitalized and tried to kill myself several times. This was before I had other children. I am pro-life but can think of scenarios where a lot of things could be necessary. But I also don't want to go Andrea Yates on my kids.
edit: I think we'll have to start a potty training thread.
[ February 20, 2004, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
*has a reply but is biting tongue*
because I really like you guys and I hate to have you hate me. Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Sachiko, you have your opinion. Just consider that married couples who choose not to have children are making a personal decision that says nothing about their love for each other.
There are manypeople in loving relationships that do not want children.
Unfortunately, there is no 100% effective method for a sexually active couple to prevent egg/sperm fertilization. Even male sterilization has a 0.15% result of pregnancy per year.
(Corrected link) Edit again: by "sexually active couple" I am referring to a man and a woman engaging in activities including your average, run-of-the-mill sex. Lets just clarify that married gay couples will likely avoid all risks of pregnancy, since there are a couple thousand gay, married couples right now.
[ February 20, 2004, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
After severe depression with my two pregnancies, I opted for a tubal ligation. As soon as I can afford it, I will adopt, hopefully. Can't wait!
That's not to say that's the best choice for every woman, but it has worked out well for me.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I wonder what the stats are for couples where the man has had a visectomy and the woman has had a tubal ligation?
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
PSI, if you think that was snarky, you don't know me very well.
40% of all fertilized eggs DO NOT RESULT IN PREGNANCY. If all those fertilized eggs have immortal souls, well, that's one heck of a waste of immortal souls. MAP is one of the few abortion-like treatments I would have no personal problem with using myself, under certain circumstances.
I don't think I would use it unless I was raped or something, but I think my husband would rather avoid more children because of stuff I've already gone over.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: it's worth noting that even the idea of this "morning after" pill is a symptom of the bigger problem of addressing the world with consequences as an afterthought.
Its equally worthy to note that the MAP removes one of the consequences. Apply this same logic to another situation. Driving a car reduces the amount of gas in the tank. Should people avoid re-filling their gas tanks because such consequences become afterthoughts?
quote: This patchwork mentality is no good for society, so unless there is going to be just as much spent on teaching proper usage—something not done with current birth control measures—I don't see the sense in making more options available to an overly-ignorant general population.
This government enforced nanny-ism is really getting out of hand. If you think teaching people how to use the MAP will aleviate even a few of the problems that could arise, you are mistaken. Look at driving. The government requires that you pass their competancy test before you are allowed to drive, yet thousands still die every year as a result of care-less mistakes and unfamiliarity with the best driving techniques. The point is, the gov. cannot protect people from themselve, and should never try to do so.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Olivet, do you know how they figure out that so many fertilized eggs fail to implant? I'm curious about it, becuase it sounds like such an impossible thing to know for sure.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Issues such as this in married relationships are why I got myself fixed years back.
And yes, the cliches are right. I just get fatter and lazier every year...
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
pH, take a very deep breath. I didn't say that being born into money automagically makes you a spoiled rotten slut. In fact, of the spoiled rotten kids I know, very few of them got that way because of money. It doesn't take money to have a spoiled view on financial dependence. In fact, I didn't even say that kids who have trust funds or parents who can afford paying for their kids is even a bad thing. However, it's irresponsible to take the advantage of parents who are able to do that for granted, and even more to use it to get yourself out of trouble that could have been avoided by either being better prepared or taking proper measures ahead of time.
In case I didn't make it clear, I was talking about the tendency of society in general, not just college kids (and definitely not just girls), to handle problems in an "after-the-fact" manner. This is why I'll not just accept arguments for the pill on the matter of convenience. Of course, I won't accept arguments to the contrary because I can understand the practicality of the drug. The problems I see have to do with the way the actual drug works on the human body, in more ways than just preventing a zygote from attaching or not. You see, the practicality works both ways.
I'm not insulting teenagers, college girls or boys, or women in general. I'm saying that approaching the issue from an emotionally involved position on both sides makes the arguments for and against weaker and illogical. Just the same as "my faith says it's a sin," the "I'm someone who wants to use it" is just as biased.
And just so you know, I don't have anything against people who have money.
I do have a problem with people who think they can use money to solve their problems, and I do know many more people who think money will solve their problems. The thing is, people who are usually like that don't have gobs of it.
It's a mentality that is pervasive not just in younger people, but in the media in general, in politics, and even in parenting. And I'm supposed to just agree to allow even more of this irresponsible approach because it's assumed to be safe? It sure as hell isn't going to be because it's going to be prohibitively expensive, as I already explained (increase demand, and watch availability grow). It sure as hell isn't going to make people avoid instances where STDs can be transmitted (and whether it'll do the opposite is debatable, but not my point). It isn't even explained in any link how this is somehow a panacea that will affect all different body types the same, even though there is no other medicine that messes with a female's reproductive system's chemistry that affects all others the same (or, in some cases, safely).
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Its equally worthy to note that the MAP removes one of the consequences. Apply this same logic to another situation. Driving a car reduces the amount of gas in the tank. Should people avoid re-filling their gas tanks because such consequences become afterthoughts?
Robes, it doesn't remove the consequence, it removes having to consider it. If it works properly, it stops a fertilized zygote from attaching to a uterus. It doesn't stop the egg from being fertilized. That's not quite as tricky a moral argument as abortion, but it's just addressing the possibility of pregnancy after the fact.
And your analogy royally sucked. A better one is would you take a sledgehammer to your car before you drive it, since there is a possibility that you will wreck it?
quote:This government enforced nanny-ism is really getting out of hand.
Care to elaborate? Since I'm not arguing for it, I'm curious where this situation already exists, because I would also fight against it. Instead, what I see are special interest drug companies who are paying off legislators to legalize the highest bidder, often regardless of circumstance, until something bad happens or something better comes along.
quote:If you think teaching people how to use the MAP will aleviate even a few of the problems that could arise, you are mistaken.
Since I never said that, I'm not mistaken. Reading is fundemental—I said education, not about just morning-after pills. There are more myths about sex, pregnancy, conception, and contraception techniques than maybe you're willing to admit. Of course, I fully expect you're one of those types who thinks "normal people are stupid" as well.
quote:Look at driving. The government requires that you pass their competancy test before you are allowed to drive, yet thousands still die every year as a result of care-less mistakes and unfamiliarity with the best driving techniques.
But not you, right? You're a great driver, right?
And thanks for affirming my "normal people are stupid" message coming from you. Also, the driving analogy is once again horrible. If more people had better education, in a non-accusatory manner, about how operation of a car affects other operators, there would be more consideration during incidents that normally lead to accidents.
quote:The point is, the gov. cannot protect people from themselve, and should never try to do so.
You're preaching to the choir. Since I didn't say the government should, your argument doesn't make much sense when addressed to me.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
LOL! John L. Rubber room! very funny *snort*
Jeniwren, that was my reaction when I saw it on NOVA, but evidently it just has to do with the time of the month and where the egg is. If it is in the uterus when the sperm hits it, it usually doesn't have time to implant because it's too close to the period already.
But, yeah. I'd also be curious as to how they figured that out. I've heard it quoted as as high as 50%, and I've heard doctors say that most pregnancies end in a period. Every time I hear it, I wonder how they figger that.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
: grabs a sickle and a torch : well I hate the rich! Especially that couple with the collie and the matching Harley Davidsons! Burn! Burn! Burn!
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Care to elaborate? Since I'm not arguing for it, I'm curious where this situation already exists, because I would also fight against it.
Well for one, the FDA. Then we can move onto Social Security, Welfare, Foodstamps, FAA, and the FCC. There are hundereds of examples of government nanny-ism.
quote: Instead, what I see are special interest drug companies who are paying off legislators to legalize the highest bidder, often regardless of circumstance, until something bad happens or something better comes along.
There is no question that those with political pull are using it to demand favors of the government. However, what do you mean by "legalize the highest bidder"? What does circumstance have to do with a business tansaction?
quote: There are more myths about sex, pregnancy, conception, and contraception techniques than maybe you're willing to admit.
And who's responsibility is it to dispell those myths? Is the government ment to bestow the label of true and untrue on every idea that goes around?
quote: Of course, I fully expect you're one of those types who thinks "normal people are stupid" as well.
Your expectation is noted.
quote: Also, the driving analogy is once again horrible. If more people had better education, in a non-accusatory manner, about how operation of a car affects other operators, there would be more consideration during incidents that normally lead to accidents.
Well then, if more education is the solution, why haven't we educated outselves into safety at the expense of taxpayers? And what the hell do you mean by "in a non-accusatory manner"?
quote: The point is, the gov. cannot protect people from themselve, and should never try to do so. ------------------------------------ You're preaching to the choir. Since I didn't say the government should, your argument doesn't make much sense when addressed to me.
Then you would agree that the above mentioned programs are good examples of government trying to protect people from themselves?
[edited for spellink]
[ February 20, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Robespierre ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:Well for one, the FDA. Then we can move onto Social Security, Welfare, Foodstamps, FAA, and the FCC. There are hundereds of examples of government nanny-ism.
Uh huh, so this is about SS, welfare, and such? I think the 1880's to the 1940's shows how well a laizes faire policy works out.
quote:There is no question that those with political pull are using it to demand favors of the government. However, what do you mean by "legalize the highest bidder"? What does circumstance have to do with a business tansaction?
Perhaps you should ask the drug companies who exist almost solely as beneficiaries of government grants, and then put money right back into "contributions" when they get the legislators who push their product past the FDA without lengthy testing. Unless you're advocating total hands-off with regard to making drugs available to the public—which would be a totally different (and more insane) argument—you're playing intentionally ignorant to how these drug companies are paying the government to let their products get to the shelves to begin with. I hole the same disdain for the insurance companies, who pay government to let them make our decisions for us. I'm all for putting the power to decide back to the people, but advocacy of all drugs, whether medical or not, isn't the way to handle the problem.
quote:And who's responsibility is it to dispell those myths? Is the government ment to bestow the label of true and untrue on every idea that goes around?
Can you make one argument against me without twisting what I said to something I didn't say? I never said the government should do the teaching, since they have equally vested interests.
quote:Well then, if more education is the solution, why haven't we educated outselves into safety at the expense of taxpayers? And what the hell do you mean by "in a non-accusatory manner"?
You've never studied a driving course? "Don't do this" is not informative, it's accusatory. And we haven't "educated ourselves into safety" because I didn't say that. However, when people are kept intentionally ignorant of options—as is the current state—adding more variables without information is just stupid.
quote:Then you would agree that the above mentioned programs are good examples of government trying to protect people from themselves?
As opposed to the "let god sort `em out" method?
And no, I don't agree. I agree that your Libertarian ideals have taken every possible position to its utmost extreme, and if the world really were black and white, you would have a point. Since the world doesn't really work that way, all you're doing is digging a logical hole for yourself by placing everything I say as one side or the other. I'm ambivalent on the issue of whether it should be OTC or not. However, I have pointed out how emotionally charging your case makes it less effective. Playing the liberty card isn't going to sway my opinion, since I have, to date, not made one. Trying to appeal to me emotionally isn't going to fly, either, so this "government nanny" crap is pretty useless.
If anyone can find me info on how this drug actually affects different chemical makeups, including different emotional chemistries, I'll be happy to look at them. All the data shown so far has concentrated on "worked / not worked" and "side effects like nausea." I want more meat than that. I also want more meat than moral arguments one way or the other. Make it practical, or at least be honest about your bias.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Unless you're advocating total hands-off with regard to making drugs available to the public
Believe it or not, John, I believe this is Robes POV. If no one trusts the drug companies, they might try harder not to kill so many of us. I don't always agree with Robes, but when it comes to drug companies I happen to.
Edit to add: Where's the man who said this?
quote: I'm saying that approaching the issue from an emotionally involved position on both sides makes the arguments for and against weaker and illogical.
[ February 20, 2004, 06:16 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I've known people who died because of the drugs they were taking. Not their own illness, but brought on by the drugs that had not been adequetly tested.
In an unregulated market, some people lose their jobs in the search for equilibrium. In an unregulated drug trade, people die.
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unless you're advocating total hands-off with regard to making drugs available to the public --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Believe it or not, John, I believe this is Robes POV.
Which is, as I said, unrealistic.
quote:I've known people who died because of the drugs they were taking. Not their own illness, but brought on by the drugs that had not been adequetly tested.
This includes prescription drugs, not just OTC. And to get a little personal with it, my aunt just died because of "oversights" like that, even though she was in otherwise adequate health.
I'm not making an issue about whether the government should be bigger or smaller, because that's not going to be some automagic fix to all of life's problems. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either running for office, indoctrinated by those running for office, or outright lying (which could also include running for office).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:This includes prescription drugs, not just OTC. And to get a little personal with it, my aunt just died because of "oversights" like that, even though she was in otherwise adequate health.
Yes, it definitely includes prescription drugs. That's one of the things that contributed to my mother dying.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Properly prescribed Rx drugs are like the third or fourth biggest cause of death in the US. Granted some of these people would die from something else if not for the drug, but it's gotten to a point where there isn't a lot of room for that argument. Though the only relatives I've lost to drugs were due to prescription errors.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've known people who died because of the drugs they were taking. Not their own illness, but brought on by the drugs that had not been adequetly tested. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This includes prescription drugs, not just OTC. And to get a little personal with it, my aunt just died because of "oversights" like that, even though she was in otherwise adequate health.
I blame non-regulated homeopathic snake-oils for a significant chunk of my mother's self-destruction. The idea of removing all regulation from drug manufacturers seems like a pretty awful idea to me. In the interim before the free market fixed all of the world's ills, a lot more people would die.
Robespierre, if you're a real person and not just somebody playing Locke or Demosthenes with us, can you tell us what actual events in your life have led you to your particular brand of libertarianism? Because I always see you make pronouncements on what is just or who creates wealth, but I can't think of a time I have ever seen you post something that is not rhetorical. I'm sorry if I am being insulting . . . I'm just having a hard time getting a handle on you as a real person--you are such a single issue poster here. When you suggest something like doing away with building inspectors because builders whose buildings collapse will simply not get as many jobs, I wonder how you can be okay with all the people who will die in the meantime. (To say nothing of the fact that, rather than go belly up, incompetent builders will simply relocate and undercut their more established competition.) Same goes for this issue. I can't think of another poster with your level of monomania, and honestly, I just wish I could understand you better.
[ February 21, 2004, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: lcarus ]
Posted by John L (Member # 6005) on :
quote:I blame non-regulated homeopathic snake-oils for a significant chunk of my mother's self-destruction. The idea of removing all regulation from drug manufacturers seems like a pretty awful idea to me. In the interim before the free market fixed all of the world's ills, a lot more people would die.
It's something a bit off-topic, but there's no such thing as a true "free trade." Not even in a barter system. Eventually, monopolies or trusts form in at least one sector and start choking the others. The biggest problem with regulations today is that they sometimes behave like those monopolies or trusts. Another problem is that some people who are in control of these regulations are getting incredible "contributions" (read: payoffs) by the very things they are in power to regulate. All in all, it winds up working out like a mafia protection ring, where the groups who can afford to pay get taken care of. And it's not just the chemical companies, it's also the packaging companies (like Johnson & Johnson).
The thing is, some vast revolution or upheaval isn't going to set things right and save lives. Cleaning house and reforming procedure will. The down side is that it will cost more money—forget that most of the cost will come from the lack of payoffs.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
) have the doctor following you 24/7, that's not going to do much good, Kat.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Besides, I don't see how personal risk assessment applies here, anyway. I mean, I'm sure you wouldn't want flying to be illegal, just because you wouldn't do it yourself? ![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)