US retains morning-after pill age restriction.

[juststrange]

I'd just like to take a poll of who is in the "I should be able to put whatever I want in my body" crowd, and who is in the "We need a national tax-payered healthcare system" crowd. Because as I see it, you can't have it both ways. If you put whatever you want it your body, and it causes you to fall ill because of an interaction, the community has to bear the financial burden of your medical bills.


Additionally, drugs like meth and opiates don't just cause higher crime rates and make public intoxication a problem. They have very real, very devestating health effects including but not limited to death. And when you are dead you really aren't pulling your fair share of the weight.

[Belial]

I'd just like to take a poll of who is in the "I should be able to put whatever I want in my body" crowd, and who is in the "We need a national tax-payered healthcare system" crowd. Because as I see it, you can't have it both ways. If you put whatever you want it your body, and it causes you to fall ill because of an interaction, the community has to bear the financial burden of your medical bills.

Arguably, that's still compatible. If we've decided that everyone should be able to do whatever they want and we all foot the bill (you don't say anything about my recreational drug use health expenses and I won't say anything about your constant goddamn hockey injuries you toothless fuck and neither of us will say a goddamn thing to Sheila in the next room who is being surgically reconstructed after a bad skydive) then we just do that. A socialized healthcare system is not actually an excuse to be all up in each other's health business. That said, if the state is paying the cost of the medications themselves, they certainly get to say who can have them and who can't.

Additionally, drugs like meth and opiates don't just cause higher crime rates and make public intoxication a problem. They have very real, very devestating health effects including but not limited to death.

Actually, I don't know about meth, but street-level opiates' side effects are mostly due to cutting agents. Pharmaceutically pure heroin, for example, really doesn't have terribly many adverse effects (aside from addiction itself) to speak of, unless you overdose on it.

And when you are dead you really aren't pulling your fair share of the weight.

You are absolutely right. We do need to outlaw death.

[Decker]

And when you are dead you really aren't pulling your fair share of the weight.

You are absolutely right. We do need to outlaw death.

Makes about as much sense as anything else we've tried.

[Ghostbear]

And when you are dead you really aren't pulling your fair share of the weight.

You are absolutely right. We do need to outlaw death.

Might not get past the funeral home lobby though- let alone the coffin makers.

[Belial]

Oh hey anyway, remember when this thread was about reproductive freedom? Good times.

If that means a quick chat before supplying it, that's fine by me. If medical professionals use that chat to push a personal agenda, there are ways to deal with that, such as crotch kicking and the like. But America's totally fucked up moral standards are not a good reason to compromise safety standards in medical care.

Unfortunately, while we may wish it wasn't so, I really can't see that "chat" (here in dreadful reality) not being another intimidation hurdle that someone has to jump over when they're already in a potentially incredibly shitty situation.

[Dream]

I really can't see that "chat" (here in dreadful reality) not being another intimidation hurdle that someone has to jump over when they're already in a potentially incredibly shitty situation.

Sure, it's embarrassing and stressful. Hard to face up to.* But I've (vicariously, of course) done the whole emergency contraception thing a couple of times now, and here in communist EUtopia it hasn't been so much "can we help you" as much as it's been "how much can we put lots of extra effort into making you super comfortable and supported, and make this as easy and non-judgemental as possible, and did we mention that actually you're super-responsible and we have nothing but the greatest respect for you having dealt with a perfectly understandable yet difficult situation with common sense and maturity, by the way here is your chosen contraceptive method, and also piles of free condoms, lube and all the information you need to make informed decisions about longer term contraceptive solutions in future if that is your preference. If you need a recommendation for a therapist or support group there is someone here you can speak to."

And I just don't believe that Americans are alien psychopaths who can't bring themselves to have basic human compassion, so I don't believe that that experience is impossible for American women. And then they could be safe AND have access to contraception as necessary, because only in lunatic nations are those two things considered mutually exclusive.


*Both of which are not only the concern of dispensing chemists, but of parents and social groups who make them so. Which is a bit off topic, but highly relevant.

[Belial]

And I just don't believe that Americans are alien psychopaths who can't bring themselves to have basic human compassion, so I don't believe that that experience is impossible for American women. And then they could be safe AND have access to contraception as necessary, because only in lunatic nations are those two things considered mutually exclusive.

Impossible? No. It happens in a lot of places. Just not even close to all of them. Probably not even the majority. This is a country that makes laws to protect a doctor's right to deny contraception or abortion because god hates sluts, or to legally require any woman seeking such to be properly shamed and guilt-tripped first (ultrasound laws and such).

We're not all alien psychopaths. But a lot of us...

[Chen]

Having read the (quite sensible I thought) explanation about drug interactions and pharmacists needing to talk to the people who are actually going to take the drug, I must admit that my first thought was that a 'boyfriend' might buy the pill with the intent to either coerce his girlfriend into taking it against her will, or to slip it to her without her knowledge.

Yeah this is the main reason I figured it made sense that only women could purchase said pill. It seems the risk of harm in letting men also purchase it outweighs any minor added benefit.

[Dream]

This is a country that makes laws to protect a doctor's right to deny contraception or abortion because god hates sluts, or to legally require any woman seeking such to be properly shamed and guilt-tripped first (ultrasound laws and such).

We're not all alien psychopaths. But a lot of us...

I reiterate: Crotch kicking. Not the most constructive engagement with the problem, but sometimes you have to make do with the only tools that can cross the threshold of mutual understanding. That, or have all prescriptions for young girls collected by Nicolas Cage from Bad Lieutenant. That would sort those pharmacists out.


Still though, I'm very reluctant to have some terrified thirteen year old kid heamorrhaging out her vagina because no-one asked her if she'd menstruated lately before giving her a massive dose of hormones. Girls who don't know about the risks of different contraceptives must surely be at most risk of not being able to talk to their families about gynecological illness.

[Belial]

I think at the point where the 13 year old girl is pregnant in that atmosphere, the risk of medical complications that she can't reasonably get treatment for are pretty much the same for all options. Pregnancy: also pretty hard on a body.

[Dream]

True, but the existence of a worse possible outcome doesn't make the definitely bad one any better. It's still critically important to warn about the dangers of these drugs, and a label on the pack isn't going to work. It has to be a consultation with a medical professional. Once you're old enough to fuck up your own life all by yourself, by all means grab morning after pills by the handful at an outlet store and stock up against future changes to your personal sex life/pharmacy access curve. When you're too young to know any better unless someone tells you, you pretty much have to be told.

[Triangle_Man]

So, are there any side effects that could be a problem for a 13 year old taking a morning after pill?

Also, I think in regards to abortion I keep hearing people say 'Lie-berals promoting a culture of death' or 'the fetuses right to life'; the latter sounds hypocritical when matched with death penalty support until you realize that people are adopting a Kantian view of morality without realizing it (or otherwise engaging in an internal contradiction, but then this is another matter altogether). And of course we're going to have people stuck in a 'women shouldn't be having sex' attitude at the same time, whether they're aware of it or not.

And, ummm...Obama keeps appealing to common sense here. I guess I have a different notion of common sense because I'm not seeing it here currently.

[LaserGuy]

So the prescription system acts to make sure that only people who actually need the drug get a piece of the limited supply, rather than all of it going to rich people who think they need it. Or college kids who want to study harder or pull all-nighters.

Or pro-life groups wanting to limit access to abortificients by buying up the entire supply...

Isn't there a great big reason of stopping people dosing others with the morning-after pill? The side effect it has on hormones alone is quite harmful, not to mention if it were to be dropped in a pregnant persons cup.

Well, the morning-after pill doesn't work when you're actually pregnant. It only works during the brief period that extents from the moment you've had sex, to the moment the fertilized egg implants in the uterus (which, medically, is the start of pregnancy). Outside of this period, it should not have any particularly detrimental effects. And yes, poisoning people is hypothetically a problem, but there are lots of other medications/chemicals that could be used to poison people with much better effect.

[sourmìlk]

I'd just like to take a poll of who is in the "I should be able to put whatever I want in my body" crowd, and who is in the "We need a national tax-payered healthcare system" crowd. Because as I see it, you can't have it both ways. If you put whatever you want it your body, and it causes you to fall ill because of an interaction, the community has to bear the financial burden of your medical bills.

Intentional or negligent ingestion of dangerous medication combinations doesn't have to be covered by a national healthcare system.

[Dauric]

I'd just like to take a poll of who is in the "I should be able to put whatever I want in my body" crowd, and who is in the "We need a national tax-payered healthcare system" crowd. Because as I see it, you can't have it both ways. If you put whatever you want it your body, and it causes you to fall ill because of an interaction, the community has to bear the financial burden of your medical bills.

Intentional or negligent ingestion of dangerous medication combinations doesn't have to be covered by a national healthcare system.

... No it doesn't, but it will tie up the courts with cases of people demanding that their particular circumstances don't count as intentional/negligent use of medications.

[sourmìlk]

Aren't there already situations in which people will contest that they're at fault for their own injury? It doesn't seem like this would change that. And as further incentive not to mix medication, I see no reason why it wouldn't be the case that only prescribed medication would be covered by insurance, even if you can buy prescription medication on a whim.

[Dauric]

Aren't there already situations in which people will contest that they're at fault for their own injury? It doesn't seem like this would change that. And as further incentive not to mix medication, I see no reason why it wouldn't be the case that only prescribed medication would be covered by insurance, even if you can buy prescription medication on a whim.

Indeed, the courts are already full of people doing exactly this. That's the problem, one of the reasons so many companies prefer arbitration to court is that it already takes a very long time to get something -in- to the court system because there's so much of this kind of thing going on. To add yet another thing for people to sue their insurance providers over will just exacerbate the problem even further.

[sourmìlk]

Will it do so significantly? I would hope that there aren't too many people who, given the opportunity, would both intentionally take incompatible prescription medication their doctor didn't prescribe and refuse to admit fault when insurance refuses to pay.

[Dauric]

Will it do so significantly? I would hope that there aren't too many people who, given the opportunity, would both intentionally take incompatible prescription medication their doctor didn't prescribe and refuse to admit fault when insurance refuses to pay.

I'd wager your hopes are entirely misplaced. We need warnings about not stopping chainsaw blades with feet or hands, driving cars or operating heavy machinery while taking sleeping pills, and apparently Sony has recently decided that for their PS3 the warnings on the box, in the manual, and in their first-run disclaimer about photosensitivity and epileptic seizures aren't enough, so much so that the latest update has it that every time the PS3 starts up it needs to display a health and safety warning.

[sourmìlk]

Yes, but are the people who sue despite those warnings at all numerous?

[Chen]

And yes, poisoning people is hypothetically a problem, but there are lots of other medications/chemicals that could be used to poison people with much better effect.

Well, I can't think of many better ways to prevent your significant other from having a child via poisoning and not also killing them (or severely harming them) in the process. I believe the argument was only against letting someone other than the person who is going to use the pill be the one to purchase it, notably restricting men from being able to purchase it since they themselves will never personally use it.

[Radical_Initiator]

Yes, but are the people who sue despite those warnings at all numerous?

How numerous do they need to be before the burden they place on the system becomes untenable?

[Dream]

I believe the argument was only against letting someone other than the person who is going to use the pill be the one to purchase it, notably restricting men from being able to purchase it since they themselves will never personally use it.

Which makes no sense at all. This isn't aspirin, and you can't buy it in hundred pill bottles. There really isn't a serious risk of men secretly affecting their partner's fertility with this, and if there is a minor risk, it isn't preventing single sales of single pills that will stop it. Just like some medications already have, all you need is a limit on numbers of sales to a single person, and numbers in a single pack. Pretty easy for a single use medicine.

[Dauric]

Trying to find numbers on those kinds of cases but I'm hampered by not knowing the right words for what they're classified as (not being a lawyer myself). Mostly I'm finding stuff on medical malpractice which isn't the kind if case in question. Suits over product misuse and injury I would think, but I'm not getting a lot of useful results. Mostly definitions of the terms, explanations of product liability, etc. etc. etc. but not a lot in the way of how many cases of any particular type are handled.

Yes, but are the people who sue despite those warnings at all numerous?

How numerous do they need to be before the burden they place on the system becomes untenable?

This, also given that in some estimations the burden on the system is already untenable.

[sourmìlk]

Exactly one person more numerous than your estimate, so that I can still be correct.

I'm not sure exactly though. It's hard to put an economic value on a right. But if people are that frivolously litigious, then (as contradictory as this is), they don't deserve rights, and I hate people for making me say that.

[LaserGuy]

And yes, poisoning people is hypothetically a problem, but there are lots of other medications/chemicals that could be used to poison people with much better effect.

Well, I can't think of many better ways to prevent your significant other from having a child via poisoning and not also killing them (or severely harming them) in the process. I believe the argument was only against letting someone other than the person who is going to use the pill be the one to purchase it, notably restricting men from being able to purchase it since they themselves will never personally use it.

There are lots of perfectly natural things that you can put in food that can induce abortions if taken in sufficiently large quantities, but are otherwise mostly harmless. Papayas, nutmeg, saffron, tansy, etc. Anyway, the morning-after pill is purely preventative--there is no possible way to know whether or not you would have become pregnant when you take it. I can't imagine there'd be that many situations where this would be a serious issue.

[sourmìlk]

If we never sold consumable products to people who weren't buying it for themselves, half of our market would be restricted. I can use most anything to poison food: ear drops (I saw it on a Simpsons episode), rat poison, specks of animal or human waste, etc. Plan B is an arbitrary exception.

[Dauric]

If we never sold consumable products to people who weren't buying it for themselves, half of our market would be restricted. I can use most anything to poison food: ear drops (I saw it on a Simpsons episode), rat poison, specks of animal or human waste, etc. Plan B is an arbitrary exception.

But you see, Plan B isn't just any kind of poison, it doesn't just harm the body it corrupts their very SOUL!

... well at least that's what the social conservatives tell me. Repeatedly. Even after I tell them I'm not interested and if they don't get off my lawn I'm going to shoot them.

Spoilered OT Edit:

Spoiler:

Having just bought my first house it's weird to make "Get off my lawn!" jokes. I have to remind myself that yes, in fact I do have a lawn.

[Radical_Initiator]

Spoilered OT reply:

Spoiler:

Spoilered OT Edit:Having just bought my first house it's weird to make "Get off my lawn!" jokes. I have to remind myself that yes, in fact I do have a lawn.

Man, you don't need to own grass to have a lawn to yell at kids about. The lawn is something you take with you; it's a part of you. And those damn kids had better get off that mystical inner-lawnness before you have to go back into the recesses of your soul and kick their asses!

[alexh123456789]

And yes, poisoning people is hypothetically a problem, but there are lots of other medications/chemicals that could be used to poison people with much better effect.

Well, I can't think of many better ways to prevent your significant other from having a child via poisoning and not also killing them (or severely harming them) in the process. I believe the argument was only against letting someone other than the person who is going to use the pill be the one to purchase it, notably restricting men from being able to purchase it since they themselves will never personally use it.

[/quote]

So let's look at our options; we either
1. Stop you from poisoning your SO to prevent pregnancy, leading to unwanted children
2. Don't stop them

While poisoning somebody obviously infringes on their rights, I can honestly say I'd rather have somebody be poisoned (assuming the side effects of the MAP aren't horrific) than for an unwanted child to be born. Neither option is good by any means, but one is clearly much worse.

[Angua]

You're assuming the mother doesn't want the child....

[LaserGuy]

You're assuming the mother doesn't want the child....

I think she means that the huge number of cases where the morning after pill are used to prevent unwanted children far outweigh the extremely unlikely scenario of it being used to poison somebody.

[nitePhyyre]

When someone <16 see a doctor, are their conversations privileged? If yes, I can sort of see the rationale. Maybe, if someone is that age, and having sex, they should talk to a health care professional?

Choosing whether a drug should be over-the-Counter, pharmacist-peddled, or by prescription is a fine line to walk. On one hand, I don't think people should be able to take chemo drugs, or antibiotics, or etc willy-nilly. On the other hand, I can't breath right now because I ran out of asthma meds, and I've yet been able to find the time to go to a doctor.

I'd just like to take a poll of who is in the "I should be able to put whatever I want in my body" crowd, and who is in the "We need a national tax-payered healthcare system" crowd. Because as I see it, you can't have it both ways. If you put whatever you want it your body, and it causes you to fall ill because of an interaction, the community has to bear the financial burden of your medical bills.

Today, I saw a massively obese person buying TWO 8oz. burgers from the burger joint. This woman was so large it would take nearly a minute to walk around her. You'd better believe the thought : "Fuck, I'm paying for her heart attack and diabetes in a couple of years" crossed my mind. That said, I don't really care, because socialized medicine is still lightyears ahead of the private system.

Intentional or negligent ingestion of dangerous medication combinations doesn't have to be covered by a national healthcare system.

The problem is, we don't want a system where everyone has to lie to get medical treatment. "I didn't take heroin, someone must have injected it into me without my knowledge. Pay my OD bills now." type stuff.

[sourmìlk]

Intentional or negligent ingestion of dangerous medication combinations doesn't have to be covered by a national healthcare system.

The problem is, we don't want a system where everyone has to lie to get medical treatment. "I didn't take heroin, someone must have injected it into me without my knowledge. Pay my OD bills now." type stuff.

Eh, fine then. I'll look the other way when you do something stupid like that, and you look the other way when I eat a cheesecake I don't need. Such is the nature of shared risk.

[kiklion]

Yeah, a lot of the rules are understandable. I just don't like that I can't buy my god damned psych medication because of some bureaucratic failure between me, my psychiatrist, and the pharmacy. Drug regulations should be designed to inform the purchaser and protect others, not protect the purchaser.

Another perfectly cromulent reason is that we don't necessarily have infinite supplies of all drugs, either. I think the FDA is currently keeping a pretty extensive list of drugs that are in shortage right now. Granted, some of them (like adderall) are in shortage because the DEA limits manufacture of their ingredients, so that's fixable, but others are short just because they take a longass time to synthesize, or have ingredients that are hard to get (human or animal blood products and such). So the prescription system acts to make sure that only people who actually need the drug get a piece of the limited supply, rather than all of it going to rich people who think they need it. Or college kids who want to study harder or pull all-nighters.

Or rich enough people buying up the supply and selling it for profit.

[omgryebread]

In my personal case, I'm on an extremely strict set of powerful medications that's monitored closely by a doctor. I couldn't possibly be informed enough to make the decisions about what medicines I need, and no one else taking antipsychotics is in a position to self-prescribe. There is absolutely no reason to buy antipsychotics without a prescription, and if I decide I want a lower dosage or a different medication, this could be dangerous for not only myself, but others as well.

EDIT: That's just against being able to buy whatever pharmaceuticals you want. Plan B is not so complicated, it's pretty cut and dry on what it does. Should be available over the counter to girls of any age. Pharmacists should have to speak to the girls to check for contraindications, so no guys buying it without the pharmacist talking to the girl, but that's it.

[Elvish Pillager]

I'm going to be charitable for a moment, and assume that you're not actually against trans male people having access to the morning-after pill, and when you say "the girl", you mean the person who's going to take it.

Even then, I'd much prefer a system where male people don't have to disclose their trans status to get the morning-after pill when they need it. And the only system with that attribute is the system where you don't frickin' discriminate based on apparent sex or gender.

Either that, or you could have a system where anyone can buy it, but only if they eat it right in front of the pharmacist. That would cover the "male person buys it and uses it to control another person's fertility" case without blithely ignoring the "female person buys it and uses it to control another person's fertility" case. I wouldn't worry about it, though - both those cases are probably vanishingly rare, and aren't the natural responsibility of the pharmacy anyway.

[Dream]

And the only system with that attribute is the system where you don't frickin' discriminate based on apparent sex or gender.

So a person asks for medication. A chemist is aware of Highly Sex Specific side- or actual- effects. The chemist can't ask the person's birth/chromosomatic/DNA sex, even to provide that person with a minimum standard of safe care? That's bullshit.

[pollywog]

I'm about to go and buy the morning after pill for my girlfriend. The pharmacist will need to speak to her on the phone, because she is in too much pain to walk there herself. I need to take the pill out of the pharmacy and then give it to my girlfriend, who will take it herself. Sometimes the person who needs the medication can't take it in front of the pharmacist.

In my personal case, I'm on an extremely strict set of powerful medications that's monitored closely by a doctor. I couldn't possibly be informed enough to make the decisions about what medicines I need, and no one else taking antipsychotics is in a position to self-prescribe. There is absolutely no reason to buy antipsychotics without a prescription, and if I decide I want a lower dosage or a different medication, this could be dangerous for not only myself, but others as well.

This is a good reason why I think this:

I, on the other hand, think that regulating drugs is a huge waste of money and a violation of a person's right to put whatever he wants in his body (to the extent that it doesn't hurt others).

is a bad idea.

[Torchship]

I'm going to be charitable for a moment, and assume that you're not actually against trans male people having access to the morning-after pill, and when you say "the girl", you mean the person who's going to take it.

As far as I'm aware, there has been no successful implantation of a functional reproductive system in any transsexual at this point, so referring to only "natural-born" women seems accurate.

Even then, I'd much prefer a system where male people don't have to disclose their trans status to get the morning-after pill when they need it. And the only system with that attribute is the system where you don't frickin' discriminate based on apparent sex or gender.

Either that, or you could have a system where anyone can buy it, but only if they eat it right in front of the pharmacist. That would cover the "male person buys it and uses it to control another person's fertility" case without blithely ignoring the "female person buys it and uses it to control another person's fertility" case. I wouldn't worry about it, though - both those cases are probably vanishingly rare, and aren't the natural responsibility of the pharmacy anyway.

Morning-after pills are prescription drugs; they require interaction between a medical professional and the intended user of the drug at some point during purchase. Since males (that is, birth-males, not pre-op transsexual males) have no direct use for morning-after pills, allowing them to purchase the pills would circumvent the entire prescription process. Obviously it would be ideal if pre-op transsexual males were able to purchase the drug without issue, but I see no way for this to be accomplished without allowing prescription drugs to be given out sans-prescription, which sets dangerous precedent. Changing the drug into an over-the-counter drug would solve all of these problems entirely; the issue is the prescription-only status of the drug, not the fact that males cannot purchase it.