In comes the White House, out goes the science...

[IglooDame]

Actually it sure is my concern, and it should be all our concerns if we approve a drug that will potentially increase peoples exposure to STDs. Does the government fund HIV research? Well, if my tax dollars are going for that it makes it my concern as well. Look, all we are talking about here is having the prescription as a basis to get the drug and the only answer that can be provided as to why that is a bad thing is that a store might not be open on the weekend? Come on that is a pretty weak arguement by any standard. Give me a better reason why the drug shouldnt have a prescription required?

Can you give me a better reason why the drug should have a prescription required than "people will be stupid with it"? Surely the default should be that medication is more freely available, and then make it prescription-only if there's a good reason to (like substantial side effects or addictiveness). "People won't use anti-STD contraceptives as much" or "people might not read the warning labels" doesn't strike me as a good reason, and I think the burden fairly rests on the side advocating greater restriction.

 

[McManus]

No, but that is not your concern. People should still be able to use it. Consider a couple who's primary method of birth control is the condom. One breaks. In comes plan B. Very effective.

Exactly.

This is the biggest reason, I think, and I do have firsthand experiences. (two have broken.) And when you really don't have any money to spare, going to a GP ain't an option.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Actually it sure is my concern, and it should be all our concerns if we approve a drug that will potentially increase peoples exposure to STDs. Does the government fund HIV research? Well, if my tax dollars are going for that it makes it my concern as well. Look, all we are talking about here is having the prescription as a basis to get the drug and the only answer that can be provided as to why that is a bad thing is that a store might not be open on the weekend? Come on that is a pretty weak arguement by any standard. Give me a better reason why the drug shouldnt have a prescription required?

The drug has to be taken within 72 hours or it doesn't work. Can you get a doctor's appointment and a prescription with 72 hours notice? I doubt it. This is the reason for making it over-the-counter. The drug is nothing more than oral contraceptive in higher doses and for a short course. Its only adverse effect is nausea, so there is virtually no risk to take it.

There is no evidence that making it available over-the-counter will change people's sexual practices. There have actually been studies done that show that when it was available on-demand, it didn't change sexual practices, or even the frequency of use of the drug. It also didn't change the incidence of STDs.

I have heard this argument exclusively from the religious right and I find the argument pretty stupid. It suggests that people will suddenly become hornier and go out having more sex just because another means exists to prevent pregnancy. If that were really true, you should ban oral contraceptives, since they also prevent pregnancy, as well as condoms, diaphragms, depo-provera, and coitus interruptus.

Religious people seem to be obsessed with the idea that people are wantonly having sex, right behind them, and if given half a chance, will have more, with decadent outcomes.

What is this obsession with sex?

 

[Kayak]

What is this obsession with sex?

AHAHAHAHAHAH! hahaha...(wipes eyes) chortle.

 

[MobBoss]

Can you give me a better reason why the drug should have a prescription required than "people will be stupid with it"?

Well, you didnt answer my question as to why is should not require a prescription outside of the "I cant find a pharmacy on the weekend" issue, but Sure.

1. Considering the drugs effectiveness window and "final option" ideology, this could potentially increase abuse of the drug by users. I want to know what happens if some silly person decides to take 3x, 4x, 5x or even 10x the recommended dose cause they think it will help them not be pregnant even more.

2. I think there is a big question on the issue of STDs. Drugs like this are often just put out on the market without any thought to the social ramifications and how it could change our culture. Much like how no one could have predicted how over-the-counter ephedrine has increased methamphedamine use exponentially. So now those drugs are tracked more carefully. We have been trying to decrease STDs and unwanted pregnancy and here comes this drug. You can argue that this is none of my business all you like, but it is a concern.

3. As with any birth control product the whole idea has been responsibility, responsibility, responsibility. Have it prior to having sex and there is no problem. In my mind, I see someone displaying the behaviour of having to search for an open pharmacy on a weekend afte sex as being HUGELY irresponsible and I am old enough to know that this drug will not make someone who is irresponsible to begin with any more apt to be careful when it comes to their sex life.

Folks, I am not saying this drug should not be sold. I am not saying that it should be pulled off the market and neither am I saying this drug is a bad drug...but I am saying I dont have an issue with it requireing a prescription in order to be used.

Surely the default should be that medication is more freely available, and then make it prescription-only if there's a good reason to (like substantial side effects or addictiveness).

Actually a more responsible procedure would be just the opposite - have it require a prescription at first and if there are no issues of the drugs use, THEN offer it freely over the counter at a later date.

"People won't use anti-STD contraceptives as much" or "people might not read the warning labels" doesn't strike me as a good reason, and I think the burden fairly rests on the side advocating greater restriction.

Considering our litigous society and the lawsuits that come from such issues, yeah, I think all those issues need to be taken into account - good reasons or no. Since when has an "open drug culture policy" ever been a good thing? There could be side effects to this thing that might not show for years down the road.

This is kind of an odd analogy, but it may fit. In the CIV 4 general thread there are many posts about how CIV 4 wont work on someones particular PC. It works on the vast majority of PCs out there, but as there is no way during testing that they can cover all the different variations of PCs out there problems witll emerge. The same exact thing goes for drugs. I am sure this drug has been tested throughly, however, there is just no way in hell to cover all your bases and the current news has plenty of stories of lawsuits involving drug side effects. This drug is messing with a woman's piping and that is a very complex systems to say the least. I dont think it is unreasonable to have a prescription for it at least now during the beginning of its distribution.

 

[MobBoss]

I have heard this argument exclusively from the religious right and I find the argument pretty stupid. It suggests that people will suddenly become hornier and go out having more sex just because another means exists to prevent pregnancy. If that were really true, you should ban oral contraceptives, since they also prevent pregnancy, as well as condoms, diaphragms, depo-provera, and coitus interruptus.

Let me ask you a question. during the 70s and 80s when the push from planned parenthood was to advocate more contraceptive use in the public, did the pregnancy rates rise or fall?

Teen pregnancy rates are finally falling and have reached a 20 year low. But I can tell you its not from bith control awareness that this has happened, its from parents being more involved in their kids lives that has done it period. Say what you want about the religious right, but not everything that comes from that sector is necessarliy a bad thing.

What is this obsession with sex?

If you gotta ask that then maybe you dont really have a clue what people are doing to "get their freak on".

 

[Masquerouge]

Let me ask you a question. during the 70s and 80s when the push from planned parenthood was to advocate more contraceptive use in the public, did the pregnancy rates rise or fall?

I'm pretty sure the baby-boom was not due to planned parenthood pushing contraceptive use, but had more to do with a global shift in morals. Planned parenthood advocating contraceptives is a collateral effect of this shift.

Teen pregnancy rates are finally falling and have reached a 20 year low. But I can tell you its not from bith control awareness that this has happened, its from parents being more involved in their kids lives that has done it period. Say what you want about the religious right, but not everything that comes from that sector is necessarliy a bad thing.

I would not be so sure. Teen pregnancy is way more linked to poverty and education (or lack of) than to religious upbringing.

 

[MobBoss]

I'm pretty sure the baby-boom was not due to planned parenthood pushing contraceptive use, but had more to do with a global shift in morals. Planned parenthood advocating contraceptives is a collateral effect of this shift.

The baby boom was before the 70s.

I would not be so sure. Teen pregnancy is way more linked to poverty and education (or lack of) than to religious upbringing

When I mentioned that parents are being more involved I wasnt only talking about religous parents, but all families in general. Look, kids are irresponsible and they make mistakes..that what kids do to learn. However, when you make a mistake with a contraceptive..you get pregnant...thus, contraceptive use has never equated to lower teen pregnancy rates in the US. By the way, kids brought up in a religous setting have a far lower teen pregnancy rate than any group. Thats a good thing.

 

[Blasphemous]

People who think govt policy should be a-moral are the really scary people ... they are similar to Hitler

How awfully...stupid? Yes, stupid. No offense, but you have to be pretty blind to think that Hitler believed in lack of morality. Like most really bad people, he just had a very twisted moral code which made him act immoral. He was not against the idea of morality.

Anyhoo, this is the kind of thing that makes me no longer want to live in the States... I seriously intended to live in America for most of my life, but the social conservatives have made me scared ****less of the idea.
I won't bother to even rebut the religious right people here, you guys have made such ridiculous arguments that I feel my joining in would be a waste of time. Religious conviction is hard enough to break without the convinced also abandoning the ideas of logical consistency and reason. When those are abandoned, there is little I can do to change your mind. Have fun stewing in your own juices.

 

[betazed]

ooohhh... This just keeps getting better.

Now if you are not satisfied with all this why not just change the very definition of science so that it can include all supernatural phenomenon? Well, you want it you got it.

The old definition reads in part, "Science is the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us." The new one calls science "a systematic method of continuing investigation that uses observation, hypothesis testing, measurement, experimentation, logical argument and theory building to lead to more adequate explanations of natural phenomena."

...

The authors of these changes say that presuming the laws of science can explain all natural phenomena promotes materialism, secular humanism, atheism and leads to the idea that life is accidental. Indeed, they say in material online at kansasscience2005.com, it may even be unconstitutional to promulgate that attitude in a classroom because it is not ideologically "neutral."

emphasis mine.

use bugmenot.com if you have no nytimes login and if you want to read the full article.

 

[MobBoss]

Anyhoo, this is the kind of thing that makes me no longer want to live in the States...

Having to get a prescription for a day after pill would do that? ROFL you need to learn how to relax.

I won't bother to even rebut the religious right people here, you guys have made such ridiculous arguments that I feel my joining in would be a waste of time.

I personally dont think my arguements have been ridiculous at all. And I dont think the issue is a religious one at all, but rather one of government control. In this instance I dont think its a big deal.

 

[Rik Meleet]

In my country you can get the Morning-after-pill online.

It's not an abortive because it works in a different way than abortive "medication". How? I don't know; I just read it on some medical websites.

Edit:corrected link

 

[MobBoss]

In my country you can get the Morning-after-pill online.

Well hell folks, end of arguement....just order it online right now! hehe.

 

[Little Raven]

I personally dont think my arguements have been ridiculous at all. And I dont think the issue is a religious one at all, but rather one of government control. In this instance I dont think its a big deal.

And this, of course, is what it comes down to. A difference in philosophy about what government should be used for.

Personally, I think government should be involved in the lives of its citizens as little as possible. I do not believe it is the role of government to prevent me from skinning my knee, or to pick me up and brush me off when I fall down. The government is not my nanny, and it should not presume to judge me for what I choose to do in the privacy of my home. If I want someone to lecture me on how I'm being bad, I can always go to church. There's no need for government to fill that role.

You, apparently, feel differently, and that's fine. From the arguments you've put forth, you seem to feel that government should act as a parent to its citizens, and gently (or not so gently) guide them on the path to living a "good life." One can only assume that you support things like mandatory gun registration; after all, if you're willing to require a person to get a prescription to get a medication that causes no significant harmful effects just because there's a chance they will misuse it, you surely have no problems with allowing the government to monitor a product that is directly involved in over 10,000 deaths a year. I disagree with this philosophy, but I must concede that yours is clearly the view of the majority of the country at this particular moment.

Reagan would be so proud.

EDIT - 2000 posts! Oh my God!

I've been hanging out here way, way, WAY too long! I don't think I've ever even broken 4 digits on any other message board. Eek.

 

[Blasphemous]

Having to get a prescription for a day after pill would do that? ROFL you need to learn how to relax.

It's not this alone that does it, it's the kind of attitude displayed by the US gov't and by people who support this kind of policy. I can't stand this type of stupid "let's ram the country into the wall so we can drop into a dark age" thinking.
Specifically, this is a case of gov't intervention for all the wrong reasons. Stupid irresponsible people will do stupid irresponsible things. They will find a way, it's impossible to stop them. Making it harder to do it in one way will not make much of a difference. Making the day after pill a prescription drug is wrong, if for no other reason, then because it adds avoidable suffering onto the already-horrible burden of rape. Can you justify making rape victims go through more of an ordeal that they already do? Not to me you can't.

I personally dont think my arguements have been ridiculous at all.

Oh, nobody thinks their arguments are ridiculous. If I think an argument of mine is ridiculous it may be called funny but not ridiculous, because it is in itself ridicule.
In this thread you and Cierdan specifically have been arguing on completely unrelated levels, producing ridiculous arguments. Sophie says that avoiding pregnancy requires more urgency than fighting STDs, and you answer that STDs are a bigger threat. Ridiculous.
I have a show to watch and some sleep to catch, I'll continue this tomorrow.

 

[MobBoss]

Personally, I think government should be involved in the lives of its citizens as little as possible. I do not believe it is the role of government to prevent me from skinning my knee, or to pick me up and brush me off when I fall down. The government is not my nanny, and it should not presume to judge me for what I choose to do in the privacy of my home. If I want someone to lecture me on how I'm being bad, I can always go to church. There's no need for government to fill that role.

Here, here very well said and in truth I believe the same way, honestly. I will explain my positon further after your next quote here.

You, apparently, feel differently, and that's fine. From the arguments you've put forth, you seem to feel that government should act as a parent to its citizens, and gently (or not so gently) guide them on the path to living a "good life." One can only assume that you support things like mandatory gun registration; after all, if you're willing to require a person to get a prescription to get a medication that causes no significant harmful effects just because there's a chance they will misuse it, you surely have no problems with allowing the government to monitor a product that is directly involved in over 10,000 deaths a year. I disagree with this philosophy, but I must concede that yours is clearly the view of the majority of the country at this particular moment.

I dont believe in the nanny state at all either, however, I do think the government does have some roll in these type of issues. Yes, I think having people register their guns is a good thing as opposed to letting just anyone buy a gun over the counter. Convicted Felons have no business buying a gun, period and should not be allowed to. That system keeps track of that.

The point that you seem to miss is that having a check and balance for the use of a product in no way is restricting your freedom to use that product. Anyone without a criminal record can purchase a firearm and anyone with a prescription can use plan b. The nanny state is more like an election issue we just had in Washington State. There was an initiative on the ballot to ban smoking in all bars, taverns restaurants, and bowling alleys as opposed to letting the owners make that decision and letting the public choose between smoking or non-smoking establishments. I voted against the ban, but it still passed.

Way more than 10,000 people are killed each year in auto-accidents; would you advocate not requiring a drivers license in order to operate a vehicle for the sake of "less" government involvement in your life?

Reagan would be so proud.

I have no problem with that.

 

[MobBoss]

It's not this alone that does it, it's the kind of attitude displayed by the US gov't and by people who support this kind of policy. I can't stand this type of stupid "let's ram the country into the wall so we can drop into a dark age" thinking.

Well, I think your description of the situation is extreme to say the least. Having someone get a prescription for a drug is hardly ramming the country into the wall.

Making the day after pill a prescription drug is wrong, if for no other reason, then because it adds avoidable suffering onto the already-horrible burden of rape. Can you justify making rape victims go through more of an ordeal that they already do? Not to me you can't.

I have an answer to this. Actually, this drug would probably be BAD for rape victims and here is why. Rape victims already experience a large measure of misplaced shame over their situation...many, many do not ever report it. Dont you think this drug, would encourage the non-reporting of rape even further? I can certainly see where it would promote a "just take the pill and forget it ever happened" attitude. And just like any other prescription drug, if a rape victim goes to a hospital for treatment after a rape, they should give her plan b as part of the treatment - I advocate that 100%. But I certainly would hope that rape victims would go to the hospitals and police and get more rapists convicted instead of just taking a plan b and forgetting it ever happened.

Sophie says that avoiding pregnancy requires more urgency than fighting STDs, and you answer that STDs are a bigger threat. Ridiculous.

You dont think avoiding HIV and STDs are more of an issue than avoiding pregnancy? While I may not agree with it, but with an unwanted pregnancy you can get an abortion....once you have HIV well...thats it your done. Thats not ridiculous, thats friggin common sense.

 

[Little Raven]

The point that you seem to miss is that having a check and balance for the use of a product in no way is restricting your freedom to use that product. Anyone without a criminal record can purchase a firearm and anyone with a prescription can use plan b. The nanny state is more like an election issue we just had in Washington State. There was an initiative on the ballot to ban smoking in all bars, taverns restaurants, and bowling alleys as opposed to letting the owners make that decision and letting the public choose between smoking or non-smoking establishments. I voted against the ban, but it still passed.

But in the case of Plan B, making it prescription only really is a restriction on my (hypothetical) ability to use the product, because of the time pressures involved. I notice that you never provided an answer to my case of a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for Plan B because on religious grounds. In that case, the pharmacist even tore up the prescription, preventing the woman from taking it to another pharmacy. How can you argue that her ability to use the product has not been compromised in that case?

Besides, by your logic, nobody in Washington State is being deprived of their ability to use cigarette products. They just have to walk a few feet in order to do it. You're perfectly happy making girls wait for medication that could potentially save them from one of the most stressful decisions any person ever has to make. Why the heck would you object to making a guy walk 25 feet to light up?

Way more than 10,000 people are killed each year in auto-accidents; would you advocate not requiring a drivers license in order to operate a vehicle for the sake of "less" government involvement in your life?

I'm a (cautious) advocate of government involvement when the potential harm of an action expands beyond the individual in question. By letting you drive a car, the government is entrusting you with a 2000 pound hunk of metal that can be accelerated to 80 miles per hour. The potential harm is obvious, as is the demonstrated harm. Government licensing is an unfortunate necessity.

I fail to see such harm in Plan B. At most, the individual in question is hurting themselves, or, in the utterly extreme case, their sexual partners. Such limited harm does not justify government involvement. The harm from second-hand smoke is demonstrably much greater, and yet you object to smoking bans. I cannot fathom why.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Let me ask you a question. during the 70s and 80s when the push from planned parenthood was to advocate more contraceptive use in the public, did the pregnancy rates rise or fall?

1. What difference does the rate of pregnancy make? Are you suggesting that because it was high, that there should be even FEWER ways of preventing it?

2. I don't know where you get your statistics from, because the highest rate of teen pregnancy was in the 1950's, BEFORE oral contraception was invented. (it was invented in the early 1960's) The rate began to fall in the 1990's.

3. This has never been an issue of teen pregnancy, so don't try to change the subject. A pharmaceutical company wants to sell its drug over the counter and presented scientific data to the FDA justifying this. There was no scientific refutation of the data. Instead, the FDA committee decided to act on political grounds.

Teen pregnancy rates are finally falling and have reached a 20 year low. But I can tell you its not from bith control awareness that this has happened, its from parents being more involved in their kids lives that has done it period. Say what you want about the religious right, but not everything that comes from that sector is necessarliy a bad thing.

Show me studies that demonstrate that teens whose parents are more involved in their lives have fewer pregnancies than teens whose parents are less involved. Otherwise, you're blowing it out your rear.

If you gotta ask that then maybe you dont really have a clue what people are doing to "get their freak on".

Would you be one of those people?

 

[MobBoss]

But in the case of Plan B, making it prescription only really is a restriction on my (hypothetical) ability to use the product, because of the time pressures involved.

Thats a very weak arguement and entirely controllable by YOU the consumer. Be responsible, get a 6 month supply and keep it handy.

I notice that you never provided an answer to my case of a pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription for Plan B because on religious grounds.

Sure I did. I stand by any pharmicist for their right to not sell whatever to whomever for whatever reason they deem fit.

In that case, the pharmacist even tore up the prescription, preventing the woman from taking it to another pharmacy.

Well, now thats wrong and I wouldnt advocate that.

How can you argue that her ability to use the product has not been compromised in that case?

Well, in the case of the guy being a butthole sure he compromised it, but not anymore than if someone had stolen her purse the the pills were in her purse compromised it.

Besides, by your logic, nobody in Washington State is being deprived of their ability to use cigarette products.

Thats true..whats being deprived are the owners of those establishments being able to make a choice about thier private property.

They just have to walk a few feet in order to do it. You're perfectly happy making girls wait for medication that could potentially save them from one of the most stressful decisions any person ever has to make. Why the heck would you object to making a guy walk 25 feet to light up?

Thats cause you misinterpreted my reason for opposing the bill. Hell, I dont smoke and if I wanted to vote selfishly, I would have voted for it.

I'm a (cautious) advocate of government involvement when the potential harm of an action expands beyond the individual in question. By letting you drive a car, the government is entrusting you with a 2000 pound hunk of metal that can be accelerated to 80 miles per hour. The potential harm is obvious, as is the demonstrated harm. Government licensing is an unfortunate necessity.

Which is why I dont think it unreasonable to upgrade it to over the counter status if it looks like things are going ok...considering the amount of lawsuits we have right now over drugs that were rushed out the public I am willing to err on the side of caution.

The harm from second-hand smoke is demonstrably much greater, and yet you object to smoking bans. I cannot fathom why

Because it was an issue of property rights...and I am certainly willing to debate on whether the harm from second-hand smoke outweighs the harm of HIV, aids and the other STDs out there.