Page 35 of 46 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 455

Thread: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

  1. #341
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    It is about being able to get the medication over the counter.
    We can buy Prilosec over the counter now also.
    As long as the FDA feels a drug is a safe it can be sold over the counter.
    Do you think it is a good move to allow 11 and 12-year-old girls to make decisions regarding their sexuality? If the answer is yes, then what about consent laws? Are you for doing away with age of consent laws? What about sexual abuse?

    I'm sorry, this should not be allowed without parental permission. It's not just about the potential for a young child to perhaps abuse this medication, but this is just opening up a Pandora's box when it comes to sexual abuse, age of consent, all kinds of things.

    It's quite disturbing that anyone would be okay with "girls of ANY age" having unlimited access to this drug for a variety of reasons.

  2. #342
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,186

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    The hypothetical young girl access furore is a strawman. In this scenario, an 11 year old has sex, and next morning, worried she might be pregnant, the 11 year old decides that emergency contraception is the way to go. She checks in her Hello Kitty purse to make sure she has the $50 to pay for the drug, and the pharmacist simply supplies it without noticing her tender years.
    Does that sound anything like reality?

    The reason anyone seeks emergency contraception with the "morning after" pill, is because of what already happened "the night before"! In the disastrous and criminal event that such a young girl has had sex, then delaying access to contraception can only compound an already appalling situation.

    The original law included the young girls as a political excuse to limit an otherwise safe drug to prescription only issue, as a sop to the religious. This artificial obstruction to free access by women of all ages, has been removed, and now the argument "think of the children" is being used. Those same children can already buy more dangerous drugs than the "morning after" pill OTC.
    Last edited by Manc Skipper; 04-09-13 at 11:03 AM.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  3. #343
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    The hypothetical young girl access furore is a strawman. In this scenario, an 11 year old has sex, and next morning, worried she might be pregnant, the 11 year old decides that emergency contraception is the way to go. She checks in her Hello Kitty purse to make sure she has the $50 to pay for the drug, and the pharmacist simply supplies it without noticing her tender years.
    Does that sound anything like reality?

    The reason anyone seeks emergency contraception with the "morning after" pill, is because of what already happened "the night before"! In the disastrous and criminal event that such a young girl has had sex, then delaying access to contraception can only compound an already appalling situation.

    The original law included the young girls as a political excuse to limit an otherwise safe drug to prescription only issue, as a sop to the religious. This artificial obstruction to free access by women of all ages, has been removed, and now the argument "think of the children" is being used.
    Who's to say her 18 or 20-year-old BF won't pay for it? Think that doesn't happen? Think again.

  4. #344
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,186

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Who's to say it will ever happen? Who's to say that it will happen often enough to justify denying free access by women of all ages?
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  5. #345
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,942

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    From the FDA Information for consumers:

    <SNIP>

    The 700-plus products are now available without a prescription because the FDA, in cooperation with panels of outside experts, determined they could be used safely and effectively without a doctor's supervision.
    The FDA has given OTC approval to drugs with such household names as Children's Advil and Children's Motrin (ibuprofen), Orudis KT and Actron (ketoprofen), and Aleve (naproxen sodium) for pain relief and fever reduction; Femstat 3 (butoconazole nitrate) for vaginal yeast infection; Pepcid AC (famotidine), Tagamet HB (cimetidine), Zantac 75 (ranitidine hydrochloride), Axid AR (nizatidine), and Prilosec OTC (omeprazole magnesium) for heartburn; Rogaine (minoxidil) for hair growth; and Claritin (loratadine), the first non-sedating antihistamine.

    The FDA believes that there is an important trend toward consumer participation in their own health care. It's part of the agency's mission to keep up with the consumers' wish to be more involved.

    Switches have a huge impact on the health care economy. The greater availability of medicines over the counter saves approximately $20 billion each year, according to a 1997 study by the CHPA. The $20 billion takes into account prescription costs, doctor visits, lost time from work, insurance costs, and travel.

    <SNIP>

    Benefit-Risk Comparison
    When considering an Rx-to-OTC switch, the key question for the FDA is whether patients alone can achieve the desired medical result without endangering their safety.

    No drug is absolutely safe. There are risks associated with every medication, so the FDA does a benefit-to-risk comparison to determine whether it is appropriate for consumers to self-medicate with a drug for a certain use.

    On the safety side, the agency looks at the drug's toxicity--its potential for poisonous effects--when the drug is used according to its labeled directions, and also from foreseeable misuse of the drug.

    The FDA weighs a drug's safety against its benefit to patients. The agency considers whether consumers will be able to understand and follow label directions, whether patients can diagnose the condition themselves--or at least recognize the symptoms they want to treat--and whether routine medical examinations or laboratory tests are required for continued safe use of a drug.
    Now Available Without a Prescription
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  6. #346
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,186

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by MoSurveyor View Post
    I posted it as a clarifier exactly because I made that claim - and I still stand by it. If it's issued in a hospital it's only with a prescription, which by definition is not OTC regardless of it's availability outside a hospital. (I even used Tylenol as an example so there would be no mistake about what I was saying). This would also apply to the MAP. Or were you also objecting to doctors prescribing the MAP to those under 17?


    Here's the original exchange:
    So by your own admission it's "not at all similar to picking up a pill at the local pharmacy".

    And then you followed it by a personal attack for even mentioning such a thing.
    How about we end this back and forth that has far removed itself from my original comment and I'll state the gist of that comment again.

    I basically said, counter to what Sangha was claiming, that the cost of the pill would not be a prohibiting issue to the under 17 year old child because under the new Obamacare HHS mandates, the morning after pill has to be included, free of any charge or co-pay, under all insurance policies and that the reproductive rights people and their friends in the Obama administration and HHS will ensure that the morning after pill will be available free of charge.

    Over the counter, under the counter, whatever, my point was that the reproductive rights people will ensure that this court case, granting access to the morning after pill to under 17s without a prescription, will not be essentially voided by cost considerations. You may disagree, as is your right, but I stand by my opinion going forward.

  7. #347
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,942

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    From the following article:

    Another question is whether making the drug available without prescription might actually make it less accessible to some. Over-the-counter drugs generally are not reimbursed by insurance and a dose of Plan B One Step generally costs $40 to $50.

    "We're going to continue to work with our fellow advocates to make sure that it is affordable for women," said Northup of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

    But making the morning-after pill fully nonprescription does remove one line of argument from those who are suing over the Affordable Care Act's contraceptive coverage requirement. Nonprescription products are not included in that provision.
    With Plan B Ruling, Judge Signs Off On Years Of Advocacy : Shots - Health News : NPR
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

  8. #348
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by minnie616 View Post
    It is about being able to get the medication over the counter.
    We can buy Prilosec over the counter now also.
    As long as the FDA feels a drug is a safe it can be sold over the counter.
    Why make it available to girls of "any age" if there is no need? Why wouldn't they still require a prescription (or AT LEAST parental consent) for girls under the age of consent? It doesn't make sense and is contradictory to our laws.

  9. #349
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Last Seen
    07-16-14 @ 01:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    47,571

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    The hypothetical young girl access furore is a strawman. In this scenario, an 11 year old has sex, and next morning, worried she might be pregnant, the 11 year old decides that emergency contraception is the way to go. She checks in her Hello Kitty purse to make sure she has the $50 to pay for the drug, and the pharmacist simply supplies it without noticing her tender years.
    Does that sound anything like reality?

    The reason anyone seeks emergency contraception with the "morning after" pill, is because of what already happened "the night before"! In the disastrous and criminal event that such a young girl has had sex, then delaying access to contraception can only compound an already appalling situation.

    The original law included the young girls as a political excuse to limit an otherwise safe drug to prescription only issue, as a sop to the religious. This artificial obstruction to free access by women of all ages, has been removed, and now the argument "think of the children" is being used. Those same children can already buy more dangerous drugs than the "morning after" pill OTC.
    Well, if young girls don't need it and aren't the ones targeted, then why would they do away with the age limitation without a prescription?

  10. #350
    Sage
    minnie616's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,942

    Re: Judge strikes age restrictions for "morning after" pill

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisL View Post
    Why make it available to girls of "any age" if there is no need? Why wouldn't they still require a prescription (or AT LEAST parental consent) for girls under the age of consent? It doesn't make sense and is contradictory to our laws.
    What law is it contradictory to ?
    When it comes to matters of reproduce health, Politicians and the religious dogma of another faith should never interfere with religious liberty of an individual or her faith.

Page 35 of 46 FirstFirst ... 25333435363745 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •