OPINION & EDITORIAL
Morning after pill must remain prescription-based
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Joelle Parks:
- Affirmative action has no place at collegiate level (April 13, 2006)
- Local media expedite petty politics (November 29, 2006)
- Campus safety needs high priority (November 21, 2005)
- Obese must admit own fault (April 20, 2006)
- Board of Regents' new disciplinary policy overdue, welcome (December 13, 2006)
Related Stories:
- Lautenschlager right to pursue FDA suit (December 13, 2005)
- FDA let partisanship trump science (November 16, 2005)
- FDA makes right choice for women (September 4, 2006)
- Just what the doctor ordered (January 25, 2005)
- Costly Contraceptives (September 1, 2004)
by Joelle Parks
Thursday, March 23, 2006
Being pregnant is not like having a cold. It is not something that someone can "cure" with an over-the-counter drug, but last year, the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration's acting commissioner for failing to make the emergency-contraceptive (or EC) product Plan B available without a prescription. This lawsuit has been controversial all over the United States for the past two years, but last week at a press conference, Wisconsin Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager announced her plans to involve Wisconsin in the current lawsuit. As of March 15, the action states that the FDA's delay in approving emergency contraception reflects the administration's failure to respond to the urgent medical needs of women.
The original proposition requested that the court order the FDA to make Plan B available to all women over-the-counter, regardless of age. It reiterates this request with information like, "Increased access to emergency contraception (EC) promotes public health by improving opportunities for women and adolescents to use the drug when they face a crisis. Widespread use could prevent as many as half of the 3 million unintended pregnancies in the U.S. each year."
This lawsuit is absurd. Not only is the proposition unethical but also unsafe. The long-term effects of Plan B are not known, since, to date, there have not been any clinical studies on it. The morning-after pill is being held to a higher standard by the FDA because it is necessary to do so. Women prescribed birth-control pills are required to meet with their doctors once a year; yet, emergency contraceptives aren't going to require any sort of doctor's appointment?
Emergency-contraceptive pills provide a higher dose of hormones than ordinary oral-contraceptive pills and contain either a combination of estrogen and progestin, or progestin only. They are generally taken within 72-120 hours of unprotected intercourse because the sooner they are taken, the smaller the chance of pregnancy. Since emergency contraception is used at all stages of a woman's menstrual cycle, its method varies. Used after intercourse, it may prevent pregnancy by delaying or inhibiting ovulation, inhibiting fertilization or inhibiting implantation of the fertilized egg.
According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, 210 million women worldwide are estimated to become pregnant each year, and 80 million of those pregnancies are unplanned. Unplanned does not necessarily mean unwanted. Sometimes the greatest mistakes bring the greatest education and the greatest amount of happiness. In cases of rape or incest, taking EC without psychological and physical evaluations can be even more damaging to the woman than the possible pregnancy.
Freedom is often abused in the United States. Allowing young women the opportunity to take the pill frequently — not just in the case of emergencies — promotes irresponsible behavior. Getting pregnant is not the worst thing that can happen when two people engage in unprotected sex — AIDS and STDs are much worse. The supposed embarrassment of a doctor's visit to prescribe EC lies in the fact that if a woman is frequently seeking EC, she is not taking precautious measures in her sexual behavior. There should not be any embarrassment if EC is used infrequently, for actual emergencies. EC was not developed as a substitute for birth control. It was developed for emergency purposes only.
The situation is easy to imagine. Sex is not a matter to be taken lightly in any situation. Self-medication for women of any age allows even the youngest girl the right to go to the pharmacy by herself to buy EC and ingest. If offered over-the-counter, emergency contraception will act as a scapegoat to preventative action. If Wisconsin is allowed to intervene, it will be named as a plaintiff in the suit that could destroy many forms of prevention and health that the U.S. government is supposed to protect.
Joelle Parks (jparks@badgerherald.com) is a sophomore intending to major in journalism.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 9:27am):
With more and more doctors & pharmacists not willing to give patients simple birth control much less Plan B because of their faith, how are women that need this medication supposed to get it if it's not over the counter? If it's not going to be sold over the counter then at the VERY least a law should be passed that requires Doctors to prescribe & pharmacists to fill the prescriptions when a patient requests them to. These professionals religious beliefs should not interfere with our health needs.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 9:46am):
Ok, where to start. First, just because STDs are worse than getting pregnant does not mean that unwanted pregnancy should be taken lightly.
Second, just because some women change their minds about their unwanted pregnancy does not mean all women will. "Sorry Sally, I won't let you abort because some women change their minds. Maybe you will too." And what if the woman doesn't change her mind? Then she's stuck with an unwanted child. Children do not bring happiness. They are a burden.
I don't think easy access to EC will increase the amount of sex women have. Are people having more sex now than before condoms were available? The fact is, human beings are walking sexual organs. The driving purpose in all organisms is to reproduce. People are going to have sex no matter what. Period. The last thing we need is more unwanted children.
You did make one good point in that we don't know the long term health effects of EC. But that is a risk that a woman should be allowed to take. It's her decision if she wants to take the risk of permantly damaging her body.
But my real motivation for allowing EC is that unwanted children are one of the biggest problems our society faces. Children that grow up with such irresponsible mothers are more likely to end up in jail.
On the other hand, I have no sympathy for a woman who gets knocked up. If she is too dumb to keep her pants on then she deserves whatever she gets. That's right, I see you women on campus with your baby strollers. Don't act like you wanted that. Maybe if you thought twice before you let Mr. Fraternity Jock have is way with you, you wouldn't be stuck with a little "bundle of joy." Now I will have to pay when your kid quits school and goes on welfare because his single mother was busy boinking her 24th boyfriend to take care of you. You make me sick.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 10:07am):
>>In cases of rape or incest, taking EC without psychological and physical evaluations can be even more damaging to the woman than the possible pregnancy.<<
I suppose you don't have any sort of evidence to back up this claim, in all its ridiculousness? How is taking EC going to cause psychological and physcial trauma worse than that of getting pregnant with the child of your rapist? If the pill is so potentially dangerous, than why did an FDA advisory committee vote 27-0 that the drug could be safely sold over the counter?
>>Freedom is often abused in the United States. Allowing young women the opportunity to take the pill frequently -- not just in the case of emergencies -- promotes irresponsible behavior.<<
How about this claim? A recent study has actually shown that women who use EC are no more likely to stop using alternate forms of protection and are no more likely to contract STDs.
>>The supposed embarrassment of a doctor's visit to prescribe EC lies in the fact that if a woman is frequently seeking EC, she is not taking precautious measures in her sexual behavior. There should not be any embarrassment if EC is used infrequently, for actual emergencies. EC was not developed as a substitute for birth control. It was developed for emergency purposes only.<<
I don't think anyone's arguing that women need EC over the counter to avoid embaressment. It's because, as you say, it's for emergencies, and sometimes you can't get a prescription in the time frame to prevent pregnancy, which is ideally 24 to 72 hours.
The debate over EC is not about safety. It's about controlling women's sexual behavior.
Sara Wolfgram (March 23, 2006 @ 12:29pm):
"Allowing young women the opportunity to take the pill frequently -- not just in the case of emergencies -- promotes irresponsible behavior."
It is illogical to think that young women will take this pill frequently once it becomes available over the counter. Do you know many women that would rather have to go to the pharmacy every time they have unprotected sex and pay $35 for Plan B instead of using condoms or a birth control prescription (i.e. have protected sex in the first place)?
"The supposed embarrassment of a doctor's visit to prescribe EC lies in the fact that if a woman is frequently seeking EC, she is not taking precautious measures in her sexual behavior."
Embarassment of a doctor's visit is the least of the problems associated with prescription-only Plan B. If a woman is raped and the only doctor available for her to go to does not believe in the use of Plan B for any reason (presumably under the false assumption that it causes abortion), that is a problem. If an emergency occurs on a Friday and a woman cannot see a doctor until Monday, that is a problem.
Use of Plan B, as you said, could prevent as many as 1.5 MILLION abortions each year. It seems so clear to me that the OTC sale of Plan B should be something that pro-choice and pro-life advocates can agree on.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 1:42pm):
"Freedom is often abused in the United States."
Yep. It sure is. So the solution then is to take freedom away? To allow the small percentage of people who "abuse freedom" dictate policy for the rest of us. Good idea! Perhaps you need a refresher course on the foundation of the United States of America.
The FDA advisory panel (you know, the doctors who are supposed to represent the best of the best in a nonpartisan setting) voted 24-3 in favor of OTC status for plan B. 24-3! That's a better percentage than the number of dentists who recommend Trident! Yet the drug was not approved. Hmmm.
I'll take the "long term effects" of a one-time hormone dose over the long-term effects of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy where the mother is not physically, mentally, financially or emotionally able to take care of a child any day.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 2:33pm):
ah yes, a good solution is to force people to go against their beliefs or judgement. lets put a law in place to make doctors and pharmacists hand drugs out. hell... maybe we should do it for ALL drugs that patients request. Why even have doctors or pharmacists? patients should just be able to request whatever they want and get it.... so lets make EVERYTHING over the counter.
What happens then if a pharmacy isnt carrying the drug, should we make a law forcing them to carry it? i mean, im sure that woman couldnt go to another pharmacy (or doctor). What if the drug goes on back-order, like drugs often do? Should we make laws making sure the company produces enough drugs for everyone? We need more laws, thats what we need.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 3:15pm):
All drugs, legal or "illegal" should be available without prescriptions at rates determined by the free market place. This would be freedom ... but of course this is not the highly-touted land of freedom our money-grubbing politicians would have us believe.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 4:27pm):
"a good solution is to force people to go against their beliefs or judgement"
Absolutely, if their "beliefs or judgement" imposes their will on me to cause me pain or loss. What about my "beliefs or judgement"?
I don't mind religion as long as it doesn't "pick my pocket nor break my leg" but laws against providing Plan B do both.
Anonymous (March 23, 2006 @ 6:42pm):
explain to me how a pharmacist not carrying plan b, or filling the script... or a doctor who doesnt write for the script (for whatever reasons, be it moral, religious, medical, etc.) imposes their will on you when there are plenty of other places you can go to get the product. everyone who wants laws forcing people to prescribe and dispense make it sound like its a mass movement in the medical professions... and nobody will do it.
Sarah Chung (March 31, 2006 @ 6:13pm):
Sara Wolfgram, you probably have been misinformed about what the morning after pill really is (like the majority of the world) - an abortion pill. It doesn't prevent pregnancies, no, it terminates them. Do more thorough research, ask a non-bias gynecologist (not one of those planned parenthood places that stand to make a profit by selling you the morning after pill). And it is not illogical to think that young women will misuse this product. It's already happening in India - http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1464417.cms.
Joelle Parks, I completely agree with you. This pill must remain prescription-based for our own safety.
