[QUOTE=col_10022]
I think I know what we are talking about. I am pro-choice but that choice extends to the doctors as well, I can’t imagine forcing doctors to presecribe an ex-post contraceptive drug (which some people have called an abortion pill).
[/QUOTE]
Calling something an abortion pill doesn’t make it an abortion pill.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
I don’t understand your point. What, then, is the standard of practice?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t want to argue against my own position (I am pro-choice). I just get upset when pro-choice people use hyperbole and and make stuff up to try and prove a point. I guess it was more a reaction to the idea that someone would make up such a terrible story to try and piss me off. After Bush and his lies I have almost no tolerance for being lied to anymore.
If they are going to sell the contraceptive pill OTC then why won’t they sell birth control pills OTC? Is it just so that the manufacturer of the most popular birth control pill can make more money?
[QUOTE=col_10022]
If they are going to sell the contraceptive pill OTC then why won’t they sell birth control pills OTC? Is it just so that the manufacturer of the most popular birth control pill can make more money?
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps. If so, I would suspect it’s because the birth-control manufacturers have not applied for OTC status and done the neccesary paperwork and studies. It’s probably not in their best interest to do so, as you point out.
The FDA doesn’t just grab random drugs to approve - the makers have to apply for approval and jump through a lot of hoops to make it happen.
Or do you have information that the birth control pill has been applied and rejected for OTC approval? I can’t find anything on that.
…and, I’d just like to point out that huge numbers of women would be very UNhappy to see daily birth control pills become available OTC - it means their insurance plans would no longer pay for it!
[QUOTE=col_10022]
If they are going to sell the contraceptive pill OTC then why won’t they sell birth control pills OTC? Is it just so that the manufacturer of the most popular birth control pill can make more money?
[/QUOTE]
In addition to what WhyNot has said, it’s also possible (as Excalibre mentioned upthread) that the risks of using birth control pills are associated with long-term use. Taking a quantity of hormones for a day or two is very different from using them in smaller amounts for years on end. According to this site, the risks association with birth control pills are
Of those, only nausea is also listed as as one of the risks of emergency contraception. In fact, the sites states
[QUOTE=col_10022]
I think I know what we are talking about. I am pro-choice but that choice extends to the doctors as well, I can’t imagine forcing doctors to presecribe an ex-post contraceptive drug (which some people have called an abortion pill).
[/QUOTE]
Nope, you clearly don’t. There is an actual pill for medical abortion, called RU-486 or mifepristone (it’s sold under the brand name Mifeprex.) And there’s something else - post-coital contraception, which acts in a completely different manner. We’re discussing post-coital contraception here.
You seem to share the lamentably common but intellectually indefensible confusion between the two things that we’ve addressed at length earlier in this thread. If you’re not capable of understanding the difference, you’re not capable of understanding or rationally arguing the issue. And if you seriously think that the fact that some people are so ignorant (or such inveterate liars) as to call it the “abortion pill” when it is no such thing has any relevance, that bespeaks a rather muddled thought process, doesn’t it? I could start calling it the “suicide capsule”, but that wouldn’t then make it rational for me to start campaigning to ban it on the grounds that it’s a suicide capsule.
In fact, the pill is available OTC in some countries, which makes me suspect that your guess here is right - the reason it’s not sold OTC is for marketing reasons (or perhaps concern over the politics surrounding contraception of all types in this country), not because of any particular danger in the pill itself. There are plenty of pills sold OTC that can still have very dangerous side effects if misused - overdoses of Tylenol, for instance, can cause your liver to die. Long term, heavy use of it by alcoholics does the same thing, even at ordinary doses. Lots of OTC drugs are not perfectly safe; it doesn’t follow that a given prescription drug is necessarily more dangerous than most OTC drugs.
[QUOTE=WhyNot]
Or do you have information that the birth control pill has been applied and rejected for OTC approval? I can’t find anything on that.
[/QUOTE]
I have no idea. I only follow this debate enough to understand the principles involved in the pro-life/pro-choice debate; I don’t really follow the details of how the right to choice is implemented. As far as I’m concerned, the ability to exercise family planning is so fundamental to women’s rights that until I grow a uterus, I can only get involved to the extent that the exercise of those rights imposes on the rights of others or in the name of public policy (I have some reservations about abortions of viable healthy fetuses if the health of the mother was not at stake).
Question: for all those who feel licensing boards should compel doctors and pharmacists to provide this pill…
…would you support legislation that makes those doctors and pharmacists immune from civil liability if someone sues them for any reason relating to the pill’s use?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Question: for all those who feel licensing boards should compel doctors and pharmacists to provide this pill…
…would you support legislation that makes those doctors and pharmacists immune from civil liability if someone sues them for any reason relating to the pill’s use?
[/QUOTE]
Why? I expect them to handle the drug in precisely the same manner as any drug. Not more careful. Not less.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Question: for all those who feel licensing boards should compel doctors and pharmacists to provide this pill…
…would you support legislation that makes those doctors and pharmacists immune from civil liability if someone sues them for any reason relating to the pill’s use?
[/QUOTE]
Do pharmacists currently have have liability for any medications use?
Wow, I read that twice and still managed to put have in there twice.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Question: for all those who feel licensing boards should compel doctors and pharmacists to provide this pill…
…would you support legislation that makes those doctors and pharmacists immune from civil liability if someone sues them for any reason relating to the pill’s use?
[/QUOTE]
Probably not. I don’t see why special legal protections would be required for this medication as opposed to the dozens of significantly more dangerous drugs pharmacies freely provide.
I don’t know enough about medical malpractice law and the like to really have much of an idea of the issues involved. But I’d be very wary of supporting what seems like a sneaky attempt to squeeze in a first step along the road to strongly restricting malpractice suits, which is certainly something a lot of people are pushing. Without seeing some reason why pharmacists should be particularly insulated from liability with regard to this pill as opposed to any other, I’m certainly not going to support legislation like that.
[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Why? I expect them to handle the drug in precisely the same manner as any drug. Not more careful. Not less.
[/QUOTE]
Well, if Dr. Bricker feels that a particular medication may expose him to liability if he prescribes it, he can avoid that risk by not doing so.
But under the scheme you propose, he has no option to do that. It seems fair to me that if you force the guy to dispense something, you cannot then turn around and permit people to sue him.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
It seems fair to me that if you force the guy to dispense something, you cannot then turn around and permit people to sue him.
[/QUOTE]
Does this ever really happen, though? If a pharmacist prescribes an FDA-approved medication according to the proper dosing and application, how could he ever be held responsible if the patient suffers an adverse reaction. Were pharmacists sued over Vioxx? Or just the drug manufacturer?
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Well, if Dr. Bricker feels that a particular medication may expose him to liability if he prescribes it, he can avoid that risk by not doing so.
[/QUOTE]
If he has a viable medical reason for not doing so, fine. If it’s that he wants the slut to suffer, not fine. He can make his case to a board.
[QUOTE=Caridwen]
<snip>I’m pretty certain that all people that are pro-choice absolutely believe that that abortion is absolutely the last resort. <snip>
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know if you mis-spoke here, but I don’t think this is correct at all. There are as many reasons to be pro-choice as there are pro-choice people.
Bricker, that’s a dangerous road to go down. Doctors are already practicing medicine based on fear, rather than education and proper, rigorous tests and trials (see doctors refusing to give epidurals through lumbar tattoos - medicine based on urban legends. Yeehaw.) A doctor must first do no harm, but by doing nothing that isn’t 100% guaranteed safe, they would do much more harm - i.e, they would do absolutely nothing. There is no easy answer for this question, and each doctor must make her own informed decisions on issues like this, or she has no business practicing medicine. (A moral judgement is not the same as an informed decision - if you can’t live with the dispensation of legal medicine morally, you need to get out of the doctorin’ business.)
[QUOTE=nyctea scandiaca]
She called her pharmacy, who told her it isn’t available over the counter until Jan. 1, 2007. She called her doctor’s office, which was closed, and was told to call the local hospital’s emergency room. Even though going through the ER would cost her a co-pay of $100, she decides it’s worth it, and calls.
[/QUOTE]
If its going OTC and many places have a big attitude about selling it, I see a huge market for a website offering overnight shipping of EC.
[QUOTE=drachillix]
If its going OTC and many places have a big attitude about selling it, I see a huge market for a website offering overnight shipping of EC.
[/QUOTE]
Yep. And I think that would be great, since it would allow people to get it without being subject to the nibnoses.
[QUOTE=Fear Itself]
Does this ever really happen, though? If a pharmacist prescribes an FDA-approved medication according to the proper dosing and application, how could he ever be held responsible if the patient suffers an adverse reaction. Were pharmacists sued over Vioxx? Or just the drug manufacturer?
[/QUOTE]
Yes this happens when the manufacturer goes bankrupt.
The way it works in many states is that there is strict product liability along the entire chain of commerce.
It happened in the case of asbestos, the asbestos manufacturers went bankrupt and then they moved on to the people who manufactured products that contained asbestos, Theoretically, you can move to the distributors and ultimately if there is noone else left, you can sue the retailer but pretty much everyone else has to be bankrupt in order for the retailer to end up with any of the liability.
(From first event thru the procedure I drove over 624.8 miles seeking a service provider that respected MY choices…)
12/5/2011- Rite Aid - Corning, Ca.- Refused to dispense the *advertised/stocked E.C. I requested stating “Medi-Cal doesn’t cover it” and directing me to the nearest crisis clinic in Red Bluff, Ca. (*my insurance was never run or verified to determine what I was/was not covered for. Referring me to another provider did not make sense… as I would still be paying with the same insurance that I was told “does not cover it”? **as I now understand it…my insurance DID cover it under the PACT program *even at the pharmacy though I had full medi-cal with no share of cost also.)
(P.A.C.T.)3/5 or 3/6 /2012- Fairchild Women’s Clinic - Yreka, Ca. {*listed as a PACT provider of E.C.} - I walked into the clinic and explained that I was pregnant and needed reproductive services. I was being entered into the computer as a ‘new patient’ when I was asked “if I wanted to sched. my first pre-natal appt.?”. I quickly stated “No… I do not intent to continue the pregnancy. I want to obtain RU-486 from the local Rite Aid but I need a prescription to acquire it”. I was immediately told “Sorry, we can’t help you…”. The clinician stated that she ‘called the other local walk-in clinic for me and they would not help me either’.
3/7/2012- Planned Parenthood - Ashland, Or. - does not accept Ca. Medi-Cal. I was told that I would have to ‘wait a week’ and return for the ultra-sound and RU-486 the following week. If at that time, the ultra-sound showed I was ‘too far along’ for the RU-486; I would have to pay $110.00 for the ultra-sound and return, again a week later, for the surgical procedure. At a cost of $520.00 out of pocket. (+ the $110.00 sonar penalty fee.)
3/14/2012- CAWHS - Redding, Ca., - I was able to obtain an appointment at this clinic after driving over 200+ miles away. I drove myself there alone, and home again 20 minutes after the procedure.
3/15/2012- Rite Aid - Yreka, Ca., - the CAWHS phoned my discharge medications into the Yreka, Ca. pharmacy. Though, that was still over 30+ miles away from me and after the previous days travel and surgery, I had no means to pick it up. So, I elected to ask my Father to collect them on his way home from work (*he had no clue what they were or why … and had no interest either! We don’t discuss these things in my family). When he returned home… he immediately asked me “why did the RPH ask me if you just had a baby?!?” My Father responded to the RPH “No, she better not have…?” The RPH then stated “her Dr. would not prescribe this if she hadn’t…”. *Needless to say, the blood that drained from my face… the minute my father told me what the RPH discussed with him… said it all!
(“Partnership for Patients”)9/28/2012- Fairchild E.R. - Yreka, Ca., - I was again, attempting to obtain E.C. and after the earlier refusals from the ‘typical service providers’ I elected to go to the E.R. I explained in detail why I was there. I was admitted, questioned and re-questioned, by three different nurses, who each took my BP, *with a new disposable cuff ea. time. I was asked for a detailed sexual and reproductive health history. I was assured that “I would not be turned away…”. and after waiting over 4 hours; the Dr. finally came in and, again questioned me about why I was there… then, refused to dispense the E.C. or B.C. of any kind and proceeded to scold me for “an improper use of the E.R.”
I am tired of substandard care and being completely disregarded as a human being, in general.
I have already filed complaints with the;
3/2012-OCR 12-141205-who states “they provided the C.E. with technical support”. Though, NO ONE WILL EXPLAIN TO ME what the hell that even means?!?
4/2012-BOP 2011-51926-who state “the case has now been moved from investigation to enforcement”
6/2012-FTC 38068612-who state “they entered my complaint into Sentinel” and they are also looking into whether the offenses by the pharmacy are in breach of a 2010 FTC order to “stop misrepresenting the cost/coverage of products/services” as well as to “stop misrepresenting their privacy and security practices over patient/consumer PHI.”