Plan “B” gets the green light

[Don Corleone]

I don't know how anyone can say increased irresponsiblity and increased numbers of abortions is a great thing, unless increasing aborted embryos in and of itself is a goal for some of you.

I also don't like the fact that you cannot raise the possible health consequences and side affects without being branded a bible-thumping idealogue. The fact is the jury's still out on it's impact on a small number of women's health.

As for 14, come on Louis... maybe we should give them out to Kindergarteners while we're at it. American students under the age of 18 can get expelled for bringing cough syrup or an aspirin to school (zero-tolerance) but you want to allow pre-teens to perform self-abortions over the counter? Don't you think that's a bit medically irresponsible? What about when said 14 year old has an adverse reaction and nobody knows why. Do you want to explain to her mother it's a noble sacrafice for progressivism? When did parents become the enemy?

It's this all or none extremism on the pro-choice side that drives me nuts (and yes, I know, pro-lifers are even more so, but we're talking about you for a moment...). At some point, wouldn't improving youth's behavior to the point where such measures are unnecessary be a better thing? If kids are too irresponsbile to use proper contraception, should they be having sex in the first place? Nope. We gotta abort as many embryos and fetuses as we can...

I agree that access to the morning-after pill is important, and if it's been proven to be free of side effects and the rumors of a small minority of women having averse, even fatal reactions have been disproven, then fine. But the idea of prescriptions is to monitor potentially harmful medications, not to slap shackles on people. Am I being denied my liberties because I need a prescription for Ambien when I travel to China? I think we should let the medical community, not the legal one and certainly not the political one determine whether the pill should require a prescription. But then, I'm just one of those knuckle-dragging cavemen that wants to enslave all women.

[yesdachi]

We gotta abort as many embryos and fetuses as we can...

It is my understanding that there is no “abort” to it.

When a woman takes the pills within 72 hours of unprotected sex, they can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If she already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.

[Don Corleone]

It prevents the attachment of a fertilized egg, I believe. I'm not saying I'm opposed to the techonolgy. I'm saying we shouldn't be dancing in the streets patting ourselves on the back, telling ourselves how enlightened we are and start putting them next to the Flintstones vitamin in our daughters' lunchboxes. At the end of the day, it's a testimony to our inability to neither control our libidos or plan responsibly. I'm not going to applaud that.

[yesdachi]

At the end of the day, it's a testimony to our inability to neither control our libidos or plan responsibly. I'm not going to applaud that.

And I would never ask you to. I personally think self control is one thing most people are seriously lacking.

[doc_bean]

wouldn't improving youth's behavior to the point where such measures are unnecessary be a better thing?

This is just unrealistic, it goes against human nature and 'normal' behaviour. We are here to reproduce, our hormones command us, our mind may be able to hold us back, but the flesh is weak, as they say.

I'm not saying the morning after pill is a good method of birth control (I've even said I have my doubts about the health impacts of the common birth control pill in a thread once), but there are far worse ones (abortion for one), and sometimes, this is 'the only' choice (after a condom breaks for instance).

[Don Corleone]

See, DocB, I like you, so please don't take this the wrong way.... but what you just said is utter BS in my book. We are not apes at the zoo. We CAN control our impulses. If an attractive woman at my company comes in wearing a low cut blouse and tight capri pants showing a thong outline, the men don't immediately unzip their flies and relieve themselves of sexual tension. Saying 'we just can't control ourselves' is a copout, and one that works equally well for rapists or child molesters as it does for irresponsible sexually active folks of all ages. "I just can't help myself" is no excuse at all.

[Devastatin Dave]

If an attractive woman at my company comes in wearing a low cut blouse and tight capri pants showing a thong outline, the men don't immediately unzip their flies and relieve themselves of sexual tension.

You don't think I'm going to lose my job over that do you? Uh oh, time to update the resume!!!

[Vladimir]

You don't think I'm going to lose my job over that do you? Uh oh, time to update the resume!!!

Wash your hands first. You know how annoying sticky keyboards are.

[Devastatin Dave]

Wash your hands first. You know how annoying sticky keyboards are.

I wiped them on her blouse, I guess that's a no no as well... damn!!!

[doc_bean]

See, DocB, I like you, so please don't take this the wrong way.... but what you just said is utter BS in my book. We are not apes at the zoo. We CAN control our impulses. If an attractive woman at my company comes in wearing a low cut blouse and tight capri pants showing a thong outline, the men don't immediately unzip their flies and relieve themselves of sexual tension. Saying 'we just can't control ourselves' is a copout, and one that works equally well for rapists or child molesters as it does for irresponsible sexually active folks of all ages. "I just can't help myself" is no excuse at all.

While you are right in saying that we SHOULD be able to control ourselves, how realistic does it seem to you to have a world where no one has sex before 18 ? Which society has achieved that ? How can it be done ?

I'd like to think we're still in control of ourselves, but I guess some people just don't want to be in control, just like some people don't give a damn about the environment, work, family and whatever else, some just don't give a damn about the risks of sex and decided that all they want is to activate the pleasure switch. There will always be people like this. We can never create an ideal society were everybody lives according to a certain moral code.

I admit my response wasn't formulated in the best possible way, but we are for a large part slaves to our genes, and they just want to make lots of copies, as soon as possible. Sure, we've evolved up to the point were it is often better to postpone the whole reproduction thing so we can create a better environment for our children, but whether this is a priority or not depends on the person.

[Don Corleone]

I didn't say arbitrarily that people under 18 shouldn't be having sex. That would make me a hypocrite. I said we should expect adolescents to be responsible about it. Just as we don't let 14 year olds drive, because they most likely won't handle it properly, we shouldn't be having an anything goes approach to sexuality. Handled irresponsibly, it can cause a lot more problems than just pregnancy.

My father actually had a pretty progressive attitude towards sexuality when I was 14/15. When he gleaned from conversations and certain reluctance to answer certain questions, he dragged me right off to the pharmacy and made me purchase condoms (I didn't actually need them yet, but he was making a valid point). He basically told me he thought I was way too young and that for me to have sex would be a mistake. He also said he knew that there wasn't much he could do about it. So, he said I can't get angry at you for your personal life, but I certainly can, and will get angry at you for being irresponsible. As it turned out, the first time I ever had unprotected sex was with my wife, and that was well into our engagement period. I'm not boasting, I'm trying to explain that it IS reasonable to teach our youth how to be responsible and them expect them to be.

[doc_bean]

I didn't say arbitrarily that people under 18 shouldn't be having sex. That would make me a hypocrite. I said we should expect adolescents to be responsible about it. Just as we don't let 14 year olds drive, because they most likely won't handle it properly, we shouldn't be having an anything goes approach to sexuality. Handled irresponsibly, it can cause a lot more problems than just pregnancy.

Well the morning after pill is more like car insurrance than a license to drive (err..does this analogy still work ? ). It's not meant as common contraception, hence the name 'Plan B'. It's a hormonal bomb dropped in the body and while it might not cause permanent harm, I wouldn't advice using it regularly (and neither would any trained physician I'd go to).

It's really only meant for a couple of rare occasions:

1. Rape
2. Failed contraceptives (ripped ondom, forgot to take the pill,...)
3. Drunken, unprotected screwing

Now I know a lot of people have a problem with point 3 (allthough, if it's not their kid, I don't see how it's their business, and even if it is...) but it's use in either of the first two cases (certainly the first) is a big plus and certainly a reason why medicine such as this should be readily available, no questions asked.

[Vladimir]

This is just unrealistic, it goes against human nature and 'normal' behaviour. We are here to reproduce, our hormones command us, our mind may be able to hold us back, but the flesh is weak, as they say.

My hormones command me to visit the Backroom daily.

[Ser Clegane]

Don, I really have some problems following your points here.

You seem to accuse those who applaud this decision of an "all or non extremism" while at the same time you are (repeatedly) referring to something as "abortion" that has nothing to do with abortion (do you generally condemn contraceptives? if yes, why? if not - why this one?), which seems to show that you are approaching this issue not witha lot of objectiveness.

I agree that access to the morning-after pill is important, and if it's been proven to be free of side effects and the rumors of a small minority of women having averse, even fatal reactions have been disproven, then fine. But the idea of prescriptions is to monitor potentially harmful medications, not to slap shackles on people.

What is it you want here?
There have been medical tests, this product already is on the market and is available without prescription in 9 states of the US.
According to Barr's website Plan B has been available without subscription in Canada since April 2005 and Canada is the 34th (!) country to make this drug available without prescription.

There is always a risk that side effects of a drug are only discovered after it has been on the market for years, but how much testing do you think is appropriate?
Are you questioning the whole procedure for drug approval or is this a very special case?

[Don Corleone]

I said if there's evidence that the drug is safe, that's fine. It would appear there is. But honestly Ser, how many drugs are safer that DO require a presription? Where's the outcry over these?

I would also like some consistency when it comes to distributing drugs and performing medical procedures on youth with or without parental notification and/or consent. I find it the height of hypocricy that a school nurse cannot give a 17 year old female a Pamprin, but her 12 year old sister can go get a 2nd trimester abortion without her parents ever even being told, let alone consenting to it. If we really believe kids can make that kind of decision for themselves, why don't we set the age of majority to 12 and have done with it? What's so special about abortion that kids seem to have better judgement with it then they would with tobacco, alcohol, firearms, voting gambling or any other age restricted behviors? Hell, let's sign them all up for selective service (the draft pool, but not necessarily drafted) while we're at it.

As for the choice of the term abortion versus contraception... the morning after pill, as I understand it, doesn't prevent fertilization. It prevents the attachement of the egg to the uterine lining after fertilization. I'm not opposing it on these grounds, I'm not even opposed to abortion in the first 10 weeks, but I don't consider that to be contraception, strictly speaking.

[Ser Clegane]

As for the choice of the term abortion versus contraception... the morning after pill, as I understand it, doesn't prevent fertilization. It prevents the attachement of the egg to the uterine lining after fertilization.

According to information provided by Barr (pdf-document), the principal effects of Plan B are prevention of ovulation or fertilization (which would clearly qualify it as contraceptive to my knowledge), and the inhibition of implantation is only a secondary effect (I do not have the sufficient knowledge but my assumption would be, that which effect dominates depends on when within the 72h you use the drug)
Of course you can always doubt the statements of the pharma company (especially as for marketing on the North American market Barr certainly is very keen on emphasizing the contraceptive nature of the drug), but I will use this information as a basis for discussion as it is 11pm and I do not have the time to look for more independent reports

But honestly Ser, how many drugs are safer that DO require a presription? Where's the outcry over these?

Do you have any specific cases in mind or is this a hypothesis?
Don't get me wrong - I have no doubt that every pharma company wants to play down risks and hopes to get drugs on the market without prescription - but so far I have no indication that this specific drug is treated differently than others - do you have more information?

I find it the height of hypocricy that a school nurse cannot give a 17 year old female a Pamprin, but her 12 year old sister can go get a 2nd trimester abortion without her parents ever even being told, let alone consenting to it. If we really believe kids can make that kind of decision for themselves, why don't we set the age of majority to 12 and have done with it? What's so special about abortion that kids seem to have better judgement with it then they would with tobacco, alcohol, firearms, voting gambling or any other age restricted behviors? Hell, let's sign them all up for selective service (the draft pool, but not necessarily drafted) while we're at it.

And here I can only agree. That's why I think that the decsioon is a good compromise. I would oppose allowing a teenager to have an abortion without at least having to consult her parents or legal guardian (of course it is another issue who can finally make the decision - I also would have a problem with parents being able to force their daughter to deliver a baby, but that's another discussion).
I think below 18 a girl should either need a prescription or the consent of her parents (due to the rather tight 72h time frame I would prefer to leave open the choice between the two options instead of prescription being the only option)

[Don Corleone]

Well, I didn't know that the morning after pill prevented fertilization of the egg. In that case, I am certainly in the wrong and even by my defintion, it would qualify as a form of contraception. Please allow me to extricate my size 10 loafer from my jaws.

Please understand, when it comes to teenage abortions my agitation comes from a position of parental rights, not anti-aborition.

I still stand by my statement that the elimination of the need (not the legality) of the procedure should be our ultimate goal as a society.

Curses, Red Baron! I've been foiled by you again!

[doc_bean]

parental rights

When talking about teenagers, this notion seems rather absurd to me. You actually think you can control the average teenager ? Most could have virtual financial independency, kicking them out is a hell of lot of trouble (at least over here) and everything you forbid they'll just do behind your back, the more you'll rant against it the more they'll want to do it. Not to mention most will be on the exact opposite political spectrum as their parents, just because...

Seriously, when it comes to teenagers, I'd say prayer is your best option. and I'm an agnostic.

[Xiahou]

Well, I didn't know that the morning after pill prevented fertilization of the egg. In that case, I am certainly in the wrong and even by my defintion, it would qualify as a form of contraception. Please allow me to extricate my size 10 loafer from my jaws.

From the FDA

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.

Im not doctor- but here's how I understand it.... Ok, it can prevent ovulation. How will that do any good "the morning after"? It wont- if the woman has already ovulated it does no good on that front. It may prevent union of sperm and egg. They dont sound real confident on that part- and I wouldnt be either if you're taking it "the morning after", which is how the drug is marketed. This leaves preventing attachment- no doubt the drug makers like to minimize this to try and avoid controversy, but this aspect seems like it has to be a big part of how the drug works seeing as how it's taken after the fact.

I voted bad. Is it really such a bad thing to ask a woman to see her doctor if she has just had or is planning to engage in unprotected sex? It's not that hard to get a prescription.