1
   

F.D.A. Rejection of Next-Day Pill

 
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:26 am
Au, unless I am missing something, how is this a restriction of a person's freedom? There are many drugs that cannot be purchased OTC. My wife takes depocote. Personally, it is a pain to have to get a new prescription every 6 months from her doctor. But that is not a restriction on my personal freedom.

Now granted, if, and that's a big if at this point, the FDA is only stopping it from being OTC for religious reasons, then I think they are wrong to do so, regardless of my personal views on whether the drug should be allowed or not.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:31 am
CoastalRat
I have no doubt the restriction is part of the religious communities war on abortion.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:34 am
...especially impeding personal freedoms re a drug that must be used with a short time limit to be effective.

Bluesgirl, the IUD birth control method used to be considered abortifacient by theolgians and others discussing this endlessly (back in, what? maybe the sixties) because it physically impeded a fertilized egg from implanting - whereas, as you say, birth control pills were just considered artificially stopping the chance of procreation by keeping ovulation from happening... in contrast to rhythm method, which (I never understood the moral diff, really, given the intent) was not.

I remember this so specifically since it was about the time I got fed up with the whole church thing.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:37 am
I agree au.

I read recently that there is now a vaccine almost ready to be released the would prevent cervical cancer.

The problem is -- it would have to be given before a girl becomes sexually active.

There is a big push to keep this vaccine out as many people seem to think that having the vaccine would give a girl license to have sex.

Apparently, in abstinence only education, cancer is used as the big scare. This vaccine would take away some of their ammunition.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 09:49 am
Freedom and religion are diametrically opposed to each other. Religion in a free society, like the one we used to have, should be kept out of government at all costs.
0 Replies
 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 10:09 am
I usually don't repost articles but today's opinion of the Oregonian's editorial board seemed relevent enough to break my rule:

Quote:
Wednesday, November 16, 2005

At the FDA, the fix against women was in

Compulsive cronyism takes its toll on another agency, as political appointees overrule science and good medicine

F or appearances' sake, President Bush's political appointees running the Food and Drug Administration could have waited for the actual scientists to finish their work before deep-sixing a contraceptive for women.

They didn't bother. The fix was in.

A new report from the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, the watchdog arm of Congress, confirms suspicions that the FDA has been hijacked by politics. The FDA's handling of a request to approve an emergency contraceptive called Plan B for over-the-counter sale was "unusual," the GAO concluded in a report released Monday.

Unusual, yes.

Not to mention infuriating, disheartening and, in these days of compulsive cronyism, utterly unsurprising.

Plan B, also known as the "morning-after pill," has been available by prescription since 1999. It is less reliable than condoms or other readily available forms of contraception. However, Plan B is an excellent backup for couples whose contraception fails, and for girls or women who are sexually assaulted. If the hormone pill is taken with 72 hours of sex, it can reduce the incidence of pregnancy by up to 89 percent.

The efficacy of Plan B makes it an obvious candidate for over-the-counter sale. But some conservative groups are adamantly opposed to the contraceptive, saying it will encourage promiscuity among young women. They also call it the moral equivalent of abortion, since it's designed to prevent ovulation and fertilization.

These opinions seem to carry more weight at the top of the FDA than science or medicine.

Three separate FDA offices and one panel of outside advisers reviewed reams of research on Plan B and concluded that the contraceptive was safe and effective. They recommended the approval of Plan B for over-the-counter sale.

These medical professionals were overruled or outmaneuvered by three of President Bush's appointees. One was former Commissioner Mark B. McClellan, a brother of Bush's press secretary. Another was Dr. Steven Galson, director of the agency's center for drugs. He rejected the first Plan B application. A third was former Commissioner Lester Crawford, the Alabama veterinarian who rejected the revised Plan B application. (Crawford resigned amid speculation that he failed to disclose investments in the drug industry.)

No wonder the FDA is having trouble attracting and retaining good people these days.

"This report is a sad reminder of why I felt compelled to resign," one former midlevel manager told The Washington Post this week. She left her job this summer in protest of the FDA's direction.

It will take years for the FDA to restore its credibility. It will take even longer if President Bush can't figure out how to appoint people based on professional competence rather than politics and proximity.



0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 10:45 am
Well, medically speaking, I can't say I'm impressed with an 89% success rate. I don't like the idea of an OTC contraceptive that is less effective than a condom and is intended only as a backup method or in cases of assault. Still, a contraceptive that is 89% effective is better than none at all but I'm concerned that the 'backup method' message will get lost.

Medical issues aside, the plug was certainly pulled for political reasons which will blow up in their faces just like it did before. It's amazing that the only two times this has happened was for the same drug.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 12:04 pm
J_B wrote:
We've been through all this before. Back in the early 1990s Plan B, then known as RU-486, was approved for use and widely available by prescription in Europe.


Plan B is NOT RU-486.
Quote:
Is Plan B the same as RU486 (abortion pill)?

No, Plan B is not an abortifacient. It is an emergency contraceptive and should not be confused with RU486 or any other abortifacient. Plan B is not effective if a woman is pregnant.



source
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 12:23 pm
That helps clarify, parados. Back in the sixties, in my memory anyway, I think the iud was considered abortifacient.. I'll have to research this and see if my memory is reliable on that. I understood it that it kept the fertilized egg from implanting. (Back later after I check on it).

Therefore I mixed up the plan b pill up with it as maybe being abortifacient as it too can keep the endometrium from accepting implantation.

Abortifacient apparently means a given drug or device will boot out an already implanted fertilized egg...
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 02:49 pm
Thanks for that, Parados. Yesterday when I was searching for the RU-486 case I saw a reference for Plan B, but I can't find it now so I must have misread it.

Considering that 18 lawmakers have already asked the HHS Secretary to investigate possible ideological considerations in the decision, this might not need to go through the courts before being approved.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 02:54 pm
Ok now I am confused....I need to go read about this.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 03:00 pm
Here's where I was confused, both RU-486 and Plan B have been referred to as the "morning after pill". RU-486 will cause a spontaneous abortion when taken up to 49 days after the last menstrual cycle but will prevent implantation when taken within 3-5 days of unprotected sex. Plan B must be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 03:10 pm
So, if it doesn't work if the girl is already pg, what's the point?
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 03:15 pm
Quote:
1. What is emergency contraception?

Emergency contraception is a method of preventing pregnancy to be used after a contraceptive fails or after unprotected sex. It is not for routine use. Drugs used for this purpose are called emergency contraceptive pills, post-coital pills, or morning after pills. Emergency contraceptives contain the hormones estrogen and progestin (levonorgestrel), either separately or in combination. FDA has approved two products for prescription use for emergency contraception - Preven (approved in 1998) and Plan B (approved in 1999).

2. What is Plan B?

Plan B is emergency contraception, a backup method to birth control. It is in the form of two levonorgestrel pills (0.75 mg in each pill) that are taken by mouth after unprotected sex. Levonorgestrel is a synthetic hormone used in birth control pills for over 35 years. Plan B can reduce a woman's risk of pregnancy when taken as directed if she has had unprotected sex. Plan B contains only progestin, levonorgestrel, a synthetic hormone used in birth control pills for over 35 years. It is currently available only by prescription

3. How does Plan B work?

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.


http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/infopage/planB/planBQandA.htm

Further down, the fda source indicates the sponsor requested approval for OTC status for anyone over 16 years of age and prescription for anyone under 16 because of FDA's concerns over adolescent use.

It's still only intended to be a backup plan, not primary birth control.
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 03:17 pm
Hm. It almost seems silly to me.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 03:21 pm
The OTC request was made because it is sometimes difficult to get a prescription written and filled within 72 hours of unprotected sex. It meets the criteria of OTC drugs which means it's safe, when used as directed.

I think OTC status will eventually be granted but kids need to know that it isn't a great method of birth control.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 03:38 pm
Why do you think it seems silly, Bella?
0 Replies
 
Bella Dea
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 03:42 pm
ossobuco wrote:
Why do you think it seems silly, Bella?


Well, if you aren't smart enough to use protection if you're having sex, you probably aren't smart enough to run and get emergency bc.

If you are raped, you might be pregnant and then the pill does nothing so it's worthless. How long does it take an egg to implant, or become fertilized? 5 hours? 24? 48?


I just don't really get the whole deal. Maybe that's it. I'm not usually this dense... Confused
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 03:52 pm
As I remember implantation can occur even after two days (haven't looked that up lately).
A woman or girl who has unplanned/unprotected sex, rape or not, if it is around ovulation time she may be facing serious life changing consequences. Not everyone is unstupid all the time - and rape and followup pregnancy do happen. Preventing implantation is different to some than abortion of a fetus.

I speak from a fully prochoice point of view, but understand that others may have different lines to draw than I might have.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Nov, 2005 03:53 pm
Now if I remember correctly, Plan B has already been held up by Bush admin. political appointees for several years, in spite of the science that says it is safe and effective. When Bush's political appointee to head the FDA was up for approval, this was brought up. As part of the deal for approving him, he agreed to make a decision on it within 60 days. He did make a "decision". He officially decided to delay making a final decision. Is that a new high in sophistry or what?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/16/2024 at 07:50:25