Isn't it time for birth control pills be over-the-counter?

[cynatnite]

Having it prescription only does help insure women will get regular pap smears and they would be screen for contraindications - conditions under which the pill should not be used.

On the other hand, unfettered access gives women better chances of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy. It is nonaddictive and too many pills will make one nauseated. It's not life threatening like analgesics.

The health risks are there such as it is with other over-the-counter medications.

Of course, the RW will scream that it gives permission to have sex. We all know that teenagers who are determined to have sex do not need anyone's permission.

What do you think?

[EC]

1. You'd think so

it's been enough years on the market to test it and see long term effects...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. I hear what you're saying, and I mostly agree.

Some medications need to be prescription only. I believe birth control meds are in that group. They are powerful hormones, and a woman taking them needs to be monitored.

Still, I agree with your premise. Unwanted pregnancies need to be avoided, and the pill is terrific for that.

[cynatnite]

4. I'm really torn about this...

Maybe there are a few that could be over-the-counter. Maybe the ones with the lowest estrogen would be okay rather than the ones with both estrogen and progestin. There are patches, too.

I would think that there would be something they could make more widely available for women.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

5. I'm torn too...

I believe there is merit in your suggestions.

[TheDebbieDee]

3. I think birth control pills should be covered under all

health insurance plans, just like the men's penis-hardening pills! What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

[joeglow3]

6. I agree with both of your points, individually, but don't like the comparison

For the record, I want birth control to be covered and think "penis-hardening pills" are an unnecessary cost in a system already out of control. However, one addresses a physical defect that can be treated and one is a personal elective choice (most plans will cover birth control pills treating symptoms).

[Jenny_92808]

12. I disagree respectfully

A mans ability to get his jollys should not be covered over a women's ability to recieve coverage for her reproductive health choices.

[uncommon]

98. Amen - I hate that distinction "one treats a defect" -- a lot of women consider fertility

to be just as much a problem as impotence.

[WillowTree]

22. Common poor analogy. There's a big difference.

The purpose of health insurance is to pay for treatment of disease, injury and bodily malfunction. "Penis hardening pills", as you so elequently put it, serve the purpose of restoring a normal bodily function. Birth control pills, when prescribed for contraceptive purposes, do not treat any disease, injury or bodily malfunction and, in fact, prevent a normal bodily function (ovulation). That's why meds that treat ED are covered medical expenses under most insurance plans and contraceptives usually are not, though some plans do cover contraception and BC pills are always covered when prescribed for reasons other than contraception (amenorrhea, dysmenorrhea, menorrhagia, etc).

That's the logic. You don't have to like it, but that's the way it is.

[uncommon]

99. That's semantic garbage and the insurance industry KNOW it --

pregnancy is a hell of a lot bigger a problem for women than impotence is for men.

[Sheepshank]

110. the problem with your logic

is that the insurance companies should then pay for infertility treatments across the board. The inability to reproduce is surely a medical problem, hormonal imbalamce, a physical abnormality etc. Oh, but lookee here, very few insurance companies cover infertility treatments. Some will cover diagnosis, but no treatments. it's a scam I tell ya!

[Jenny_92808]

7. I think that a ....

male contaceptive should be developed and men should be responsible to take it:)

But seriously now. I still wonder why viagra for men is covered under insurance but the pill for women is not covered. Hmmmmmm!

[niyad]

9. well, because men run the companies, and getting hard is more important than a brood mare's

reproductive system.

but I suspect you already knew that.

[niyad]

8. they are (or at least were) in mexico, and for pennies compared to the states.

[mzteris]

10. eh - I'd have to say "no" - as much as I believe

women should have say over their own bodies, the potential for serious and sometimes life-threatening side effects exist in more than "rare" instances. A woman should have a doctor monitoring her health regularly if she is on BC pills.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. you can get serious side effects from tylenol. Or booze.

Given the political realities, I think OTC birth control is one solution, at least until we don't have so many control freaks in this country, trying to run other peoples' lives.

[mzteris]

16. not like birth control pills -

sorry - not buying that argument at all. Doctor's supervision is necessary for some drugs - BC is one of them. It has nothing to do with "control". The fact of the matter is, I wish they'd make a more effective form of bc that wasn't as potentially dangerous. That, and make the damn men assume some of the risk. Problem there is the bastard will probably say he's on it when he's not.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Given the realities of impediments to access re: oral contraceptives

I think making them avail. OTC would be one solution. I also tend to side more with putting the decision making power; as well as the responsibility for informed use- in the hands of the individual. That's just where I sit on a whole range of issues, although I can accept the arguments for a different approach.

[uncommon]

100. Yes, like birth control pills --

there are a lot of OTC meds that can cause the same problems.

[pnwmom]

28. Up to 20% of women have a genetic predisposition for blood clots and don't know it.

All women need to be under the care of a physician when they're being treated with these powerful drugs. They're not in the same category as Tylenol.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. See post #90. nt

[dflprincess]

11. I have mixed feelings

There should be screenings, not just the pap smear, but for blood pressure problems that can appear even in younger women.

And, if they went OTC, the price might not come down all that much but no insurance would cover OTC drugs so there might be more women who can't afford them.

[Quantess]

18. Just look at what "Yaz" did.

Yaz was a high dose pill, but modified in some way (...to last over a longer segment of time,?) The result was that many young, otherwise healthy women got strokes or other CVAs.

I was advised to stop taking my regular, low-dose BC pill, because of my vision-disturbance migraines. The doctor warned me I could be at risk for a stroke. I was 24, healthy, slim, and exercised regularly.

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Yes. As long as we have Jesus-drunk pharmacists holding peoples scrips hostage

it should be available OTC.

[emilyg]

25. No. I had to stop

taking them - for health reasons.

[Warren DeMontague]

90. Okay. Without getting derailed, presumably, we all want the same thing.

Universal access to safe, effective, affordable contraception for everyone who wants it.

[Quantess]

15. No. I disagree.

At age 24, I was advised by a doctor to stop taking birth control pills, due to risk of a stroke.

The telltale symptom? I started getting vision-disturbance migraines, with blind spots. Once I discontinued the very low-dose BC pill, I only got a mild migraine once every 2 or 3 years. This was a little over 10 years ago.

[Pithlet]

20. But wouldn't you have gone to the doctor anyway, even if you'd been taking them over the counter?

I'm not sure how having them prescription made a difference?

[Quantess]

21. At the time, I had no idea that migraine headaches were a symptom of ANYTHING.

That isn't common knowledge, or at least, it wasn't to me.

However, you could use this in favor of your argument, because nobody who had prescribed BC pills to me had ever warned me that vision-disturbance migraines are a warning symptom of CVA / stroke.

I am just not in favor of BC hormones, based on my own experiences. A good friend around that same time turned into a seemingly different person after her Depo-Provera shot. Nobody could stand to be around her. The rest of the time, she slept.

I was very happy with my IUD, which is what I got after discontinuing BC pills. That worked out well for me. Sorry if this amounts to oversharing, but.... you asked.

[Pithlet]

23. Don't most people go to the doctor for migraine headaches at some point?

That was my point. I assumed that's what sent you to the doctor. And most people fill out a form or advise their doctors what medicines they're taking.

That's another thing, no one warned you. A lot of people who are pro-prescription make it a point that we go to our doctors for that and that's why it should be prescribed. But I've noticed that a lot of women aren't well informed by their doctors about the pill and its potential dangers. So, I don't they really aren't doing a very good job of that anyway. I think it's up to us as consumers to educate ourselves and demand our doctors inform us. I think we can do that and still demand we have easier access to the pill. It seems the main argument for it is to keep us going in for regular checkups. Why can't we do that and also have cheaper, easier access?

[Quantess]

24. The first time it happened, I called a hospital for advice.

I was 21. The nurse told me to calm down and she asked me if I had been drinking. I hadn't. Well then, she didn't know what to tell me, and the conversation ended.

Next few times, I told family members. "Oh yeah, your sister has 'migraines' all the time". Once I got the chance to compare notes about our "migraines", I figured out that anytime she has any sort of weak headache, she uses the word "migraine". :eyes:

It was only years later when I happened to mention it to a doctor who finally gave me some useful information. I wasn't even there for that reason!

I agree that there should not be roadblocks to anybody who wants easier access to the BC pill, or who wants to try it out. But, BC pills are not for every woman, and there are other options.

Damn the typos!

[Pithlet]

26. It's not for everyone. I still maintain it should be OTC. It's an overall safe option.

The argument that it isn't for everyone or that there are possible harmful side affects doesn't merit need for keeping it a prescription. Nothing is 100% guaranteed safe. But it's ridiculous that after years of being on it I sill have to jump through all these ridiculous hoops and pay these ridiculous co-pays. It's ridiculous that I have to follow my insurance companies demand. They won't even let me keep more than a month's supply at a time! It's crazy. It can make planning travel real fun. And all because some people think we need this to remind ourselves to get checked. But people can pop Tylenol like candy and kill their livers, no problem. It makes no sense. It seems like the argument is we can't be trusted to take care of ourselves. I just don't buy it.

[Quantess]

30. Not every insurance company covers it. Shouldn't we begin there?

Now that is the real travesty, as far as I'm concerned.

Anyway, you don't want boys buying BC hormones. And oh yes, as silly as it sounds, there would be boys buying BC hormones. A few of them every year, anyway.

[Pithlet]

32. Yep, that's a travesty. All the better reason to make the OTC.

As far as the boys buying them. Well. :shrug:

[Quantess]

37. Sorry, I agree that was a very trivial argument, although not without merit.

But really, can't we focus on insurance companies covering BC pills and prophylactics, first and foremost?

[pnwmom]

I disagree. With so many women being at higher risk for a blood clot and not knowing it,

I don't think it's "ridiculous" that the pill is available only under a doctor's supervision.

Tylenol does have some significant risks. But it is usually taken sporadically -- unlike the pill, which is taken every day.

[Pithlet]

45. You are overstating the risk.

It is very small. It just is. Yes, when it happens it's devastating. But the vast majority of women who take it won't have a stroke. Even the women with genetic predispositions. Just like most people who drive car won't have an accident. Or people who fly in planes won't die in firey crashes. Or people who take Tylenol will get to keep their livers. Keeping it prescription is an overreaction. Women can take care of themselves.

[pnwmom]

86. How do you know? Since the pill has been available only under the care of a doctor,

doctors who generally avoid giving it to women who are at high risk, how do you know that the risk would be low even if all women of all ages and in all states of health could take it?

[Pithlet]

89. And how do you know the percentage of women in those risk groups who are taking it.

You are making assumptions. You are assuming that doctors only prescribe to a narrow group of women. That isn't an assumption that is based on fact. Yes, the makers of these pills state that women who are over 35 and smoke shouldn't take it. But there is no law that states that doctors cant' prescribe to them. Are there any numbers that state how many women in this group take them? I do know that plenty of women over 35 take them. I'm one of them. I don't smoke, but that isn't to say there aren't others who do. There's also some evidence that there is a higher risk of stroke in women who have migraines. Guess who has migraines *raises her hand* And yes, my doctor knows about it. We're weighing the risks and benefits. I'm on a low dose and doing fine.

[pnwmom]

117. Most doctors aren't stupid enough to leave themselves wide open to a malpractice

lawsuit if they deliberately prescribed the pill to a high risk woman -- for example, a smoker over the age of 35. Or someone with diabetes who was overweight and had high blood pressure.

I know a woman who couldn't find any doctor to prescribe the pill even though she was in her early twenties, low blood pressure, excellent health. But she also had a genetic predisposition to clots (that she only knew about because it ran in her family.)

Yeah, there is no law that forces doctors to not prescribe the pill to high risk women. But the threat of huge damages in lawsuits does the job.

[pnwmom]

35. "At some point"? If you're on the pill, you need to have regular, easy access to a doctor,

at least by telephone. To do that, you need to be a patient of some doctor. Many people are not! Haven't you heard about the millions of people who only get care from emergency rooms? If we allowed the pill to be sold over-the-counter, there would be a sharp increase in the number of blood clots, strokes, and heart attacks among younger women.

If a woman doesn't have the means to see a doctor, then she should rely on barrier means of birth control that are available OTC. If you "double up" there's just as much protection as with the pill. I couldn't take the pill because of my own clotting history, so we used barrier methods for many years. It's doable, and much more healthy for many women than the pill.

[Pithlet]

39. dupe

[pnwmom]

44. You're the one blithely deciding that the pill puts women at no special risk.

And you're wrong. Daily use of the pill puts women at a significantly higher risk of life-threatening blood clots; and twenty percent of women have even a higher risk.

What is the difference between Tylenol, for example, and the pill? It's that the risk of Tylenol comes when you ABUSE the drug or don't use it as it was intended. The risk from the pill just comes in its normal, daily use.

[Pithlet]

46. Point to me where I said there was no risk.

Point it out. I'll be waiting. Because I said no such thing.

[pnwmom]

51. You compared the risk of the pill to Tylenol or alcohol.

Tylenol has very low risk when used AS DIRECTED. Similarly, alcohol is low risk when small or moderate amounts are consumed.

The pill poses significant risk of life-threatening blood clots even when used exactly as directed. These blood clots, called DVT's, can occur without symptoms and can cause instant death. (As I learned after I first spent a few weeks in the hospital with one.) No one should take the pill without first getting a clean bill of health; and then staying under the care of a doctor.

[Pithlet]

53. What are the odds of these life threatening events happening, pnwmom? Hmm?

How often do women die from pill use? What are the odds? See, I've looked this stuff up. And I know that you're much more likely to die from much more mundane things. Usage as directed? Do women use the pill exactly as directed? See, it seems I remember reading somewhere that they don't exactly. That little bit about taking it at the same exact time everyday. We don't always do that. Then we sometimes forget and then have to do that two times on the next day and all that stuff... But still a heck of a lot better than the alternative, which can also be potentially dangerous, right? And yet women somehow manage to do that pretty well on their own, too, don't they? In fact, there's no law saying they have to do that with a doctor!

[pnwmom]

63. The odds are low now BECAUSE these drugs are only available under a doctor's care.

If they were easily available to all women, no matter what their age or health condition, whether they were diabetic or cigarette smokers or had high blood pressure or a blood clotting disorder, there would be many more cases of serious blood clots due to the pill.

[Pithlet]

67. I was still on the pill even with high blood pressure. My smoking co-workers were on the pill.

So, I'm not sure about that. I think many doctors are pretty freely dispensing them across the board until menopause these days (that's when my doctor said I could stop). I know that smokers aren't supposed to take them, but I bet many do. So, I'm not sure it's just non-smoking low blood pressure having women taking them at this point anyway.

[pnwmom]

72. If your smoking co-workers were on the pill, were they over 35? That's the age

at which few responsible doctors would prescribe the pill to a smoker. Assuming the smoker is honest about her smoking.

Your doctor apparently made the judgment that your overall health would benefit from the pill, even with your elevated blood pressure. That is what a doctor is trained to do -- to evaluate individual risks.

[Quantess]

78. you did, however, misspell devAstated. LOL.

No biggie. ☺

[Pithlet]

40. dupe.

[Pithlet]

41. dupe.

D

[Pithlet]

42. I'm aware of the state of our healthcare in this country.

Does that mean we make all of our OTC medications prescription. They all have risks. We need to do something about the healthcare travesty in this country, obviously.

You know, it's good that you can just blithely decide what everyone else should choose. Barrier methods aren't for everyone ether, without going into too many details

[pnwmom]

48. They don't all have comparable risks to the pill when used correctly.

The pill carries significant risks even when it's used exactly as it is intended, unlike Tylenol and many other OTC drugs.

[Pithlet]

50. People are so bad at analyzing risk.

And the internet is a great place to go and see it at work.

[pnwmom]

52. In this case, it's simple. Daily use of a hormonal pill poses significant risks,

especially to those genetically predisposed to blood clots, most of whom don't know they have the predisposition.

The FDA has correctly decided that the risks of the pill are too high to allow it to be purchased OTC.

[Pithlet]

54. Yeah, because the FDA always gets it right...

Oh, wait...

Yes, some women do have a predisposition to blood clots. So, how many women die from using BC pills? What are the exact risks? Seems if it were that dangerous, the damned things should just be yanked! There are some people who actually feel they should. You wouldn't happen to be one of those, would you? I run into them all the time, and this is starting to seem familiar. The birth control pill is just sooooo evil.

[pnwmom]

66. I have nothing against the pill and took it myself before I developed my first DVT.

Like most women with a blood clotting disorder, I didn't know I had one.

The "exact risks" of taking a BC pill vary from woman to woman. The overall risks in the literature are based on a healthy population given the drug under medical supervision. There would be far higher risks if the pill were available to women of all ages and with all health conditions.

There is no reason to "yank" all forms of the pill, since they can be safely used by many women, under the care of a doctor. However, they aren't safe enough to be available OTC, where they could be used by any woman, even unhealthy women who don't go for regular medical care.

[Pithlet]

68. The vast majority of women don't have your experience. n/t

[pnwmom]

74. True. And the number is so small because the pill isn't available over the counter.

The risk is real, but manageable, under good medical care.

[Pithlet]

79. You keep making this claim. Do you have anything to back that up? n/t

[pnwmom]

85. Yes. The article you posted,

wherein many of the health conditions that increase the likelihood of stroke were listed.

If you can figure out a way to make the BCP available OTC without putting it into the hands of those already at a high risk of a stroke, more power to you.

[Pithlet]

87. But it isn't just healthy women taking it.

f you think it's only skinny young non smokers taking it now, you're dreaming. I think plenty of doctors prescribe it for women who fall out of that range. Because they know that 6 out of 10,000 is pretty slim odds. Even 10 out 10,000. Hell, every single med you see advertised come with a slew of scary sounding side effects. It always sounds like they're so dangerous. But the odds of those dangerous side effects are usually slim, which is why they pass. Do you think the OTC meds don't have similar sounding potential side effects. We were talking about Tylenol earlier. Do you know it doubles your risk of kidney cancer? And that's with therapeutic dose. NOT overdose. Why shouldn't we be monitored when we take that? The fact is, the medications we take, both script and OTC, almost all come with measurable risks, some of them downright deadly. But they have benefits that vastly outweigh them. Many of the prescription medications eventually go on to become OTC, even the ones with some potentially dangerous side effects. There really is no reason why BC pills couldn't as well. I think there are a lot of scripts that could go OTC that aren't. They probably eventually will but the Pharmaceutical companies want to hold on as long as they can, and that's a bit reason why they stay script.

[pnwmom]

118. "I think plenty of doctors prescribe it for women who fall out of their range."

Well, I think not. And there are no statistics kept on how many doctors risk lawsuits by prescribing the pill for women for whom it is contra-indicated. So your impression can't be backed up by any facts.

As for Tylenol, most people don't take it on a daily basis, for years -- as women do the pill. But if they do, they should also be under the care of a physician. The longer Tylenol has been used, the more risks it has been proven to have. Maybe eventually it WILL end up being available only through a prescription.

[mzteris]

94. I "didn't believe in migraines"

(or cramps for that matter) at that time in my life. I just had "really bad headaches".

Then I started having these funny little wiggly lines in my vision but I thought - hey, I've been reading A LOT and watching a bit too much TV .. . maybe I need my eyes checked - I'll get around to it . . . months passed. Then came the day I went absolutely blind - it was only then that I went to a doctor. (Talk about being completely freaked out!!) - but the fact is, if that had not have happened, I might not have gone at all until I went for my yearly checkup (pill prescription).

They took me off the pill and that was in the mid-80's.

Because if you didn't "have" to go to the doctor, you may very likely not go - especially if you're some silly teenage girl without a CLUE.

[pnwmom]

31. Many people don't go to the doctor when they have serious symptoms.

Either because they're too busy, don't have transportation, or can't afford it. Some people don't even have a doctor to go to, except for emergency rooms.

Having to get a prescription means you at least have a doctor who is there to answer questions and to see you if symptoms develop. Or to advise you to get to the ER immediately.

[Pithlet]

19. They should be over the counter. Yes, women who take them should make sure to get checked.

But there are plenty of OTC meds with side effects just as serious, and people aren't required to be monitored to get those. BCPS are too hard to get and too costly. That needs to change.

[pnwmom]

27. No. The risk of blood clots, strokes, etc. is too high. Up to twenty percent of women

are at an elevated risk of a blood clot due to a genetic predisposition -- and most don't know it.

Women who are taking one of these powerful, daily drugs need to be under the care of a physician. Barriers are a safe alternative that are available without a prescription.

[Pithlet]

29. The risk of stroke is slight, and is outweighed by the benefits of BC pills.

And women can still be under the care of a physician even if they get their pills OTC.

[Quantess]

34. The risk of stroke may be slight, but the effects are potentially devastating.

Your opinion that the benefits outweigh the risks are definitely your own and are not shared by me.

[Pithlet]

36. I'm well aware of how devestating it is. I won't divulge how I know. But believe me, I know.

But facts and risks need to be taken into account. Not emotions.

[Quantess]

38. What part of anything I wrote was emotional?

[Pithlet]

43. Devestating.

That's an emotionally driven argument.

[Quantess]

47. That's weak, on your part. That's all you've got?

:thumbsdown:

[Pithlet]

49. I'm not the one trying to convince anyone that people who take BCPs are going to stroke out.

So, whatever.

[Quantess]

65. Do you disagree that strokes / CVAs are potentially devastating?

There are some women out there, maybe not a lot, but there are some women who would tell you you are wrong, if they could speak again.

I dare you to tell any man who talks about the dangers of testicular cancer or prostate cancer that he is just being "emotional".

[Pithlet]

70. edit I'm sorry I had you confused with pwnmom

[Quantess]

80. No, I don't think so. I was the one who first used the word "devastating", wasn't I?

[Pithlet]

81. Then I was confusing the two of you even earlier, lol

[pnwmom]

69. She isn't saying that. She's saying that there's a significantly higher risk

of a devastating stroke among women on the bcp. Which is perfectly true.

The way to reduce that risk is to only prescribe the bcp to women whose overall health (taking account the risks of pregnancy) would benefit from it.

[Pithlet]

75. And I'm saying she's wrong. It isn't a significantly higher risk.

It's a small risk. Even the National Stroke Assocation thinks so http://www.stroke.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SS_MAG_mj2008_feature_women The risk is about 6 per 10,000, with the norm being about 3 per 10,000. It's tiny! To compare? Odds of dying in a car crash? 1-6500.

[pnwmom]

82. READ THE ARTICLE you posted. The risk is much higher among women who take the pill

AND who are smokers, or diabetic, or have high blood pressure, or a number of other conditions.

This is the point of having a doctor be the one to prescribe the pill -- s/he can evaluate the patient's medical status to make sure that the benefits outweigh the risks for that particular patient.

For example, the "tiny" risk of a stroke is increased 35 times in a smoker. And even more than that when the smoker is older, has high blood pressure, and takes a BCP. Eventually the risks -- for some individual users with multiple risk factors -- aren't "tiny" at all.

[Pithlet]

83. Much higher? If you want to read it that way.

I wouldn't define it as "much" Infinitesimal risk times 35 is still not a whole heck of a lot of much. It's still tiny.

[Quantess]

71. self delete

[pnwmom]

61. Your whole argument is emotionally driven.

"But it's ridiculous that after years of being on it I sill have to jump through all these ridiculous hoops and pay these ridiculous co-pays. It's ridiculous that I have to follow my insurance companies demand. They won't even let me keep more than a month's supply at a time! It's crazy. It can make planning travel real fun. And all because some people think we need this to remind ourselves to get checked. But people can pop Tylenol like candy and kill their livers, no problem. It makes no sense. It seems like the argument is we can't be trusted to take care of ourselves. I just don't buy it."

In other words, the FDA should change their classification of the pill because you're tired of jumping through their hoops.

[Pithlet]

62. No, my argument is based on facts. My frustration there was merely an aside.

I'm not basing my argument solely on that.

[Quantess]

73. "Facts"? Do you have a Doctor's License or a Nurse's Certification to back that up?

[Pithlet]

76. Nope. Just the facts. I'll repeat my post 75

t's a small risk. Even the National Stroke Assocation thinks so http://www.stroke.org/site/PageServer?pagename=SS_MAG_m... The risk is about 6 per 10,000, with the norm being about 3 per 10,000. It's tiny! To compare? Odds of dying in a car crash? 1-6500.

[pnwmom]

84. That small risk doesn't take into account the much higher risks faced by many women

who might want to take the BCP. Women with diabetes, high blood pressure, blood clotting disorders, liver disorders, as well as women who are obese and/or smoke.

If you can figure out a way for it to be OTC and ONLY available to the women who actually have a "tiny" risk of having a stroke, I'll change my mind.

[pnwmom]

56. The FDA has taken facts and risks into account which is why the pill still requires a scrip. n/t

[Pithlet]

58. The FDA has in the past been influenced by other factors, particularly when dealing

with controversial matters like contraceptives. I highly doubt they weren't influenced by politics in this matter.

[Pithlet]

59. The FDA has in the past been influenced by other factors, particularly when dealing

with controversial matters like contraceptives. I highly doubt they weren't influenced by politics in this matter.

[Pithlet]

60. The FDA has in the past been influenced by other factors, particularly when dealing

with controversial matters like contraceptives. I highly doubt they weren't influenced by politics in this matter.

[pnwmom]

55. A stroke is a medical catastrophe. The benefits of BC pills

would outweigh a stroke ONLY if you never actually had one.

Yes, many women make the decision that they can live with a small risk of a blood clot in exchange for the ease of the b.c. pill. But in order for that risk to be small, they need to have their health evaluated FIRST and they need to REMAIN under the care of a doctor.

[Pithlet]

57. I'm not arguing they shouldn't be under the care of a doctor!

Sheesh.

[pnwmom]

77. You're arguing that it shouldn't be necessary to be under the care of a doctor

in order to take the pill -- that they should be available to any woman who wants them OTC.

Because of the known risks, I think they should remain prescription-only, so that they are only taken while under a doctor's care.

[Pithlet]

88. I'm arguing that the benefit of having them available freely so women

who may not have easy access to doctors can at least have access to BCPs. Because I do believe that benefit outweighs any risks the BCP carries. Because women who cannot afford and do not have access to doctors are at far greater risk from unwanted pregnancies from a health and economic standpoint than they are from that 6 in 10,000 chance they might have a stroke. Because BCPs are superior to the barrier method alone. Meanwhile, we push for them to have better access to healthcare.

[grahamhgreen]

33. only under the advice of a pharmacist - they can screw up peoples bodies in dosage

is incorrect.

[Radical Activist]

64. That would be awesome.

Although it sounds like there are some legitimate medical concerns.

[JCMach1]

92. Lots of drugs should be and would save the system BILLIONS

If you know you have a throat infection (for example), why do you need to see a doc? Just go and take the anti-biotics from the pharmacist LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD!

One of the things I love about not living in the US... I don't have to put up with the idiocy that you HAVE to see a doctor EVERY TIME there is a problem.

Oh yeah, and you get to skip the waiting room and the $80+ fee.

[Dorian Gray]

93. In both

Hong Kong and the UK you could get access to birth control without prescription. I preferred prescription, though, to be honest because I found myself having difficulty finding one that worked with my body chemistry. (Well, they all worked, but I had some pretty negative effects with a handful of them until I found the one that worked best for me.) It's been years since I've been on them, though, so who knows what types of advances they've made.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scout]

97. you want your daughter to have an unintended pregnancy then, is that it? n/t

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[revolution breeze]

112. I took my daughter to the doctor and got her birth control pills.

I also bought her condoms "just in case" explaining antibiotics and other medications can affect "the pill". She had strep throat, "Charlie" claimed to have a "latex allergy" and now I have a two day old granddaughter.

[uncommon]

101. Your daughter would be better off with access to birth control...

whether it pisses you off or not.

Edited to add: Not to mention all she has to do is go to Planned Parenthood and she can get a prescription anyway.

[Name removed]

103. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[uncommon]

105. Based on your attitude in this thread, it doesn't sound like you would be very

approachable on the subject.

And you can still talk to your children about their choices regardless of whether a medication requires a prescription or not.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[revolution breeze]

114. OTC will not make them more accessible.

They will be kept behind lock and key like Sudafed and you will have to show ID and sign for them. And they will probably be priced so lower income women can't get them anyway. We NEED more public health units with resources for family planning.

[revolution breeze]

111. My daughter has a friend from camp

They have both had diabetes since they were 6. Her friend began taking Yaz two years ago and her parents were unaware. When she had stroke-like syptoms, they believe it was a diabetes related seizure and administered Glucagon. They waited for it to take affect before calling the ambulance but after five minutes mothing happened. It was a stroke caused by the Yaz. Had they known she was on medication, they would not have waited that five minutes to call an ambulance.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

115. I wouldn't trust you to make sound judgements over your daughter's reproductive rights.

She's more responsible.

[uncommon]

96. They absolutely should be OTC -- however, then insurance companies would

have even more ability to NOT pay for them...

[hedgehog]

102. If birth control pills were available OTC, would they be used properly?

It's my understanding that the pill has to be taken every day at the same time of day. Would a teenager understand that, or would a teenager save her pills for dates?

Someone above noted that antibiotics are freely available in other countries so you can self medicate whenever you have a sore throat without seeing a doctor. Good luck treating that viral cold or allergic sore throat with antibiotics. And after all the bugs out there have developed a resistance to antibiotics, good luck with that MRSA infection.

Birth control is available OTC: condoms and foam. A diaphragm takes a single visit for a fitting, then the gel is OTC.

What we need more than anything else is to impress on young people that sexual activity is a choice; i.e. that "getting swept away by the passion of the minute" is no excuse for unprotected sex. If you're not planning on having sex, stay out of dark corners. If you are planning on having sex, be honest about it and prepared.

I realize that rape is non-consensual, but should every woman be on the Pill in case she is raped?

[uncommon]

106. Women shouldn't need to plan on being raped.

What the hell are you talking about?

[hedgehog]

109. I was trying to anticipate an objection to my premise that

if you're old enough to be having sex, you're old enough to take responsibility for protection. The pill is taken daily and you are protected from pregnancy no matter what happens. Other methods require planning ahead to ensure they are available and used at the proper time. The pill allows the fantasy of "just being swept away", the other methods do not.

[revolution breeze]

108. No!

Anyone on any time of long-term medication regimen should be medically monitored. But they should be covered by all insurance programs and should be readily available on demand. There is a two month wait at our local health department for an appointment to get free birth control pills. Thankfully they have bowls of condoms on every flat surface so you can just pick up a few without any question.

[Fleshdancer]

113. YES. The pill is already being sold OTC in other countries...

Almost all the arguments against selling the pill OTC goes back to the "we know what's best for you better than you do" BS. If women living overseas are capable of purchasing the pill OTC while also taking responsibility for their overall reproductive health, then so am I.

[Sal Minella]

116. Leave it to a bunch of men to decide it's "normal bodily function"

for a woman to get pregnant every time she ovulates.

It's also "normal bodily function" that 60-year-old men can no longer rut like 17-year-olds, but the men making the insurance coverage rules just ignore that fact.