<p>It is sad that commentators like browninfall must politicize important medical topics like this. </p>
<p>Some people have a lot to learn, IMHO.</p>
<p>What I don’t understand is why men are allowed to buy the product. Under the law, a store cannot sell liquor to someone when they have reason to believe that it will go to those who are underage; neither can they sell cigarettes under those circumstances. I was once with my sister, who was 25 at the time, when she tried to buy cigarettes and was carded. Without her license on her, she turned to me, asked for mine, and handed it to the guy. He said, “I know that she’s going to give you the cigarettes, so I can’t sell them to you.”</p>
<p>It is incredibly obvious that no man buys EC for his own use. Ergo, why allow men to buy it - there is a presumption that he will not be using the EC for himself. </p>
<p>Sure, this matters less for 30-year-old men, but young men (18, 19) are likely buying it for their underage girlfriends. </p>
<p>Just a thought.</p>
<p>aries,</p>
<p>Interesting thought.</p>
<p>Are you opposed to a guy buying it for his underaged girlfriend? What about an older girlfriend doing the same?</p>
<p>You are probably aware that the FDA’s own medical advisory panel did not recommend the age restriction. Indeed, several of them voiced oposition to it, given that there is no medical justification for such a restriction. To many of us, it appears to be strictly a political decision. Indeed, many of us who have been involved in some aspect of the medical industry (for me, on the nonprofit side for quite a few years) have never before seen such a blatant political decision.</p>
<p>Food for thought.</p>
<p>Aries: I agree with you on selling to men, but there is also no guarantee that the over-18 woman isn’t buying for someone underage either. </p>
<p>While I assume the package insert includes warnings and contraindications, there is no guarantee that anyone will actually read them. How often is this safe? A friend in college in the 70s was in trials for the “morning after pill”. She was not aware of the risks and paid the price.</p>
<p>And I have to admit I kicked the wall at browninfall’s comment… Pro-lifers are not vindictive and no one who performs safe, legal terminations does it for the money…</p>
<p>NMD, what aspect of this decision do those of you in the medical industry see as political? The age limit?</p>
<p>Of course men should be allowed to buy it. Yes, there is a risk that an 18 year old man could buy it for a younger girlfriend, but a 40 year old woman could also buy it for her 14 year old daughter. It wouldn’t make sense to not sell the product to men at all (all sorts of what-if situations where a girl needs the guy to get it for her), and it also wouldn’t make sense to have a different age limit for men than women.</p>
<p>Allmusic,</p>
<p>yes, the age limit. As I said before, the FDA’s own panel of medical experts saw no medical/scientific need for an age limit. </p>
<p>Since this is just an OTC switch of an existing prescription product, let me quote from the package information that the FDA already approved:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You might make a special note of the statement above “Safety and efficacy of progestin-only pills have been established in women of reproductive age for long-term contraception. Safety and efficacy are expected to be the same for postpubertal adolescents under the age of 16 and for users 16 years and older. Use of Plan B emergency contraception before menarche is not indicated.”</p>
<p>I don’t know how much experience readers here have in reading drug inserts, but this is about as benign as they get. The side effects are non-trivial in short term, but insignificant in the longer term. </p>
<p>As to guys being able to buy it? Well…someone had to get the whole process started, no? Should that same person not have some role in future activities?</p>
<p>Intellectual dishonest arguments.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes and yes. In the same way that I disagree with the drinking age being 21 but I disagree with those who buy for 17-year-olds.</p>
<p>I’m sorry that you cannot reason by analogy. We do not forbid liquor sales to everyone, under the theory that the person purchasing the alcohol could be buying it for someone underage. However, the requirement remains that you cannot sell an age-controlled substance (i.e. merits of age control not in debate!) to those who are LIKELY to be giving it to others. For example, many stores will card ALL members of a group checking out and refuse to sell liquor is any of them are underage.</p>
<p>There is a fundamental difference between “maybe, possibly, in a rare event” and “absolutely certain.” We know for CERTAIN that any man purchasing female birth control is NOT buying it for himself. Ergo, he’s giving it to someone. (There is no analogy to the liquor world, except if you worked in a small-town store, know everyone, and a 21-year-old who is allergic to alcohol buys booze, you know that she isn’t buying for herself, so you can refuse the sale.)</p>
<p>Any woman who buys EC is presumptively using it for herself - you need, legally, more than her presence to wonder if someone else is the recepient. </p>
<p>When a MAN buys EC, you know, for an undisputed fact, that it is going to be given to a woman - i.e. AUTOMATIC trigger of the prohibition against selling age-restricted items to someone who is not using them for himself. That is, IMO, enough to deny the sale. </p>
<p>It is also FUNDAMENTALLY different from any woman who buys EC - she at least has use for it. </p>
<p>I’m sorry if y’all can’t see the difference between “No way in hell is he buying it for him” and “She might be buying it for someone else.” </p>
<p>For the non-critical readers out there, I am not trying to justify age restrictions. I am saying that, when age restrictions on a gender-specific item are in place, sale to the other gender presumptively undermines that restriction. If the law is that you can’t sell age-restricted products in a “third-party” sale, then, well, that’s the law and men shouldn’t be allowed to buy it.</p>
<p>aries,</p>
<p>OK. See your point. Just don’t agree. :)</p>
<p>You’re coming at it from a pretty legalistic position, unless I misunderstand. That’s OK and certainly supportable from many angles, legally, socially, morally, to say “the law is the law…”</p>
<p>But it can be interesting to think about what one does whent the law is “wrong”. Of course, this raises its own ethical and moral issues regarding who decides a law is “wrong” when etc. and I’d rather not go there, as morning coffee has not yet taken effect…</p>
<p>NMD</p>
<p>I’m not sure how it’s political when I state that the abortionists are going to be disappointed with this decision. I think that it’s really rather obvious. A revenue stream that they are relying on for income will not be the same going forward. Since when did stating the obvious become political?</p>
<p>Good point. The same way oncologists are disappointed when a new cancer drug is developed, because it makes it just that much harder to make this month’s payment on the Porsche.</p>
<p>ariesathena – I think there’s something in your argument that you did not address, which makes a pretty strong difference between the alcohol situation and the Plan B situation.</p>
<p>They’re not supposed to refuse all sales of alcohol where they think someone else might drink it, too. They refuse sales when they think someone else might illegally drink it. Therefore, a 40-year-old man who comes in to a store and chats up the clerk about which wine to buy to surprise his wife for her birthday is not likely to get carded just because he is clearly buying the wine for someone else. It is not the fact that they are buying it for someone else that counts, it is whether they are buying it for someone else who cannot legally buy it for themselves.</p>
<p>You are right that if a man buys Plan B, he is definitely not buying it for himself. But neither is the man in my example above, who explicitly says that the wine is for his wife. Unless the pharmacist / clerk has reason to believe that the recipient of the drug / alcohol is not legally allowed to receive it, then he or she cannot and should not refuse the sale.</p>
<p>Here’s another alcohol example. A 21-year-old college student goes into a party store and buys a keg. Chances are he’s not going to drink it all by himself, right? In fact, it’s fairly likely that he’s going to share it with other people. And, if he’s on a college campus, it’s fairly likely that some of the people he’ll be sharing it with will be under 21. But if that 21-year-old comes into the store alone and the seller has no proof that he has intentions to do anything illegal with it, then the seller will probably not refuse the sale. Similarly, if an 18-year-old guy goes in to a pharmacy to buy Plan B, there is a reasonable chance that he is doing so because his girlfriend is younger and cannot buy it for herself. However, unless she comes in with him or the pharmacist has evidence that he plans to do something illegal with the drug, then he or she will probably not (and should not) refuse the sale.</p>
<p>browninfall,</p>
<p>Your post is either political or scarily naive. </p>
<ul>
<li><p>Do you really believe that any organization that does abortions derives significant profit from them? If so, you should check the data. </p></li>
<li><p>Do you really believe that a physician who does such procedures makes much money from them? Enough to justify the personal risk that unfortunately comes these days? Enough to justify the foregone income from other, more profitable procedures?</p></li>
</ul>
<p>So, browninfall, take your pick:</p>
<ul>
<li> you are misinformed regarding the economics of abortion</li>
</ul>
<p>OR</p>
<ul>
<li> you are politicizing the discussion.</li>
</ul>
<p>I see no other choices.</p>
<p>I await your response.</p>
<p>…or, abortionist “believe” in what they do. </p>
<p>That is to say, it is an ideological position worth preserving, from a cultural point of view. Let’s be honest, this is part of a cultural war. It is deeply rooted in the passionate philosophies and ideologies of both (all) sides. It is not simply a medical procedure like an amputation or vaccination. </p>
<p>At this level, “profit” is beside the point, wouldn’t you say?</p>
<p>Neither is the other side motivated by profit…and it is no all goodwill on either side. There are powerful lobbies and ideologies on both sides.</p>
<p>NMD</p>
<p>People make money performing abortions. People like to make money. Now those same people will make less money because it seems plausible to assume that there won’t be as many abortions for them to perform. Some people will as a result be disappointed that they’re not making as much money. Seems pretty clear to me. Why are you so touchy on this matter?</p>
<p>I’d challenge Drb to find an oncologist who is seriously disappointed when a new cancer drug is discovered, because said doc couldn’t make the Porsche payment. Errrgggggh!</p>
<p>I’m only hoping there is sarcasm there that I am not picking up, since I am short on sleep.</p>
<p>Similarly, Mr. Browninfall seems to be a little lacking in the cogent argument department, as that post is too simplistic to respond to without giggling. Much of the money being made by abortion procedures goes directly to insurance companies anyway, so rather than maligning physicians, perhaps you should direct your vitriol towards the greedy administrators of managed care. The money docs receive is piddly in comparison.</p>
<p>Giggle away. I made it simple to understand for a reason because it’s a very simple concept. Fewer procedures equals less money for those doing the procedures equals (insert sad smiley face).</p>
<p>I’m not sure how that is maligning anyone. I like doctors. I have many friends who are doctors. Some are in medicine for the best of reasons and others are in it for the money.</p>
<p>Yes, NMD, it’s a legal argument, and also an argument for legal consistency.</p>
<p>When an 18-year-old man walks into a store and buys Plan B, it’s certainly not for him and likely for his underage girlfriend. Different for a 40-year-old man; just saying that pharmacists have the right (and the duty, often) to deny the sale to a young man who buys EC. </p>
<p>Personally, I don’t think that the relative wisdom of the law (because, face it, there’s good arguments on both sides) should determine whether or not you get to undermine it. </p>
<p>I do think that there is a lot of good reason to not give strong drugs to minors. Reality is that many people who need these drugs need them on weekends, when doctors are unavailable. The OTC nature of these pills, which are high-dose forms of birth control pills (prescription only!), is due entirely to the circumstances under which they are needed, not their chemical composition, which is identical to prescription-only drugs. That, in my mind, is more than enough reason to restrict access to those who are over 18. </p>
<p>I’m not saying that allowing everyone access does not have its own merits. That doesn’t mean that any decision to the contrary is politically motivated. We don’t allow 15-year-olds to drive, drink, smoke, or play the lottery. Why should they have unfettered access to a high dose of prescription medication, without the oversight of a parent or a physician?</p>
<p>Again, only reason that anyone wants this off prescription is because of the time issue. I find it amusing that none of the liberals are arguing to take the Pill off prescription and make it available to people of all ages, which would ensure that you don’t need Plan B in the first place.</p>
<p>allmusic: yes,that was sarcasm. get some sleep.</p>
<p>Fountain siren: your “or” does not address the options NMD was challenging browninfall to address. Certainly practitioners who perform abortions wish to keep them safe and legal (far more likely more for cultural reasons than economic ones); however, none will be “disappointed” by the approval of an intervention that makes them less needed.</p>
<p>Phew, I will sleep better now, Drb.</p>
<p>BIF, you must not know many doctors, since it’s pretty hard to “get rich” or “be in it for the money” in medicine anymore. Used to be true, in the good ol’ days before managed care, but those days are long gone. There are a few specialities left where good money can be made, but trust me, Ob/Gyn, with the highest malpractice insurance costs in the country, is not one of them.</p>