posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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)
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hopefully kat will make an effort to spell the name correctly from now on, but going back and fixing past misspellings is pointless.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2220 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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).
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1658 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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]
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
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?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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 ]
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
If you think the average girl would spend almost $200 for these pills for "a week of fun," you're crazy.
Posts: 1892 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
_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.
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
posted
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?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice try fuge, but that's not going to convince any of the 17-year olds here to sleep with you. Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
