> but there may be risks, especially if folks don't take the medicine correctly.
This describes every over-the-counter drug that has ever been sold. Keeping contraception prescription-only has always been about politics.
This describes every over-the-counter drug that has ever been sold. Keeping contraception prescription-only has always been about politics.
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/acetaminophen-safety-be-...
It’s one of the most popular medications in the world and its use isn’t especially supported by science. To the point of this thread, don’t mistake official policy for rational behavior.
Here’s an NIH meta analysis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33786837/
There are lots of studies out there, throw whatever symptom + acetaminophen effectiveness into Google for more. Just make sure that if a study is making a big deal about stat sig to check the actual treatment effect.
Anecdotal, but acetaminophen has been my goto for fever reduction. I've never had a problem with it (and it's taken me from 103->98 fairly frequently).
And, unlike most NSAIDs, it's safe(ish) for younger kids.
That said, I've never really noticed the pain killing effects.
That is what it is supposed to be and do.
Ibuprofen is in almost all ways a better drug overall for parents/home use, but because of some rare reaction to it, it's not suggested until 6 months, so most parents assume Tylenol is "safer" and never switch over.
The thing about the weak fever reducing is it’s useful for reducing the suffering from the fever itself, like letting your baby sleep. It’s surprisingly ineffective at reducing febrile seizures. I think it’s that it doesn’t have much against a fever that bad.
My understanding is that for chronic pain the evidence is sparse, but for postoperative pain it definitely works.
The downside of forgetting to take more advil in time is short-term pain. The downside of not understanding that your birth control isn't working is a child.
As we've seen with patients stopping antibiotics early, even though they're prescription!, people make uninformed choices with medication. Depending on what it's for, there are more or less risks of making it OTC.
All of that said, I agree that this has mostly been politics.
[0]: https://www.plannedparenthood.org/blog/is-the-birth-control-...
So hey, the OTC medicine gods giveth and taketh.
This seems antiquated at best. They could've approved some kind of app or process to streamline this. I'm sure it's not the only kind of medication this situation applies to.
The potential danger of forgetting to use a condom or misusing one (like a condom that's too old) is also a child. Condoms are currently sold in truck stop bathrooms.
I really see no distinction between a condom and a birth control pill. Even with misuse, making the pill more widely available will almost certainly be a social good. It will prevent more unwanted children.
Which is why I don't get the point I responded to. "You might get pregnant if you misuse this" isn't something to consider when talking about OTC contraceptives. It's practically a tautological statement "If you misuse a contraceptive, you might get pregnant"
1) Health. Agree that talking to a doctor -- or a nurse, or a midwife, or a well-trained community health advocate -- is quite useful when understanding the practicalities of taking hormonal birth control. Talking to someone helps people understand this; I think you may overestimate the efficacy of an MD per se here.
2) Insurance as gatekeeper. The narrow windows to get a limited supply, whether you can get it locally or must mail order it or can't mail order it or can or can't get a refill -- none of this is medical. It's all insurance bureaucracy. I find no benefit to this bureaucracy.
Good education about the full range of options would be great (from pill to ring to IUD to condom). Universal health care availability would be a good mechanism by which to deliver that, it's hard to accomplish when it's all gatekept by insurance.
I got laid off recently & had a routine physical that took place 2 days after my health insurance thru Company ended, went anyway, got a bill for $552. This is for conversation only, haha, but the type of conversation one would need to get an annual renewal for birth control controlled by prescription.
[1] https://theweek.com/articles/470330/birth-control-human-righ...
So I search for the report itself: https://www.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/AR%202012%...
And the claim is nowhere near the one you are making. What the UNFPA (who can't even declare anything a human right, by the way) is saying is:
>Family planning is anchored in respect for human rights, women’s empowerment, and social justice and quality.
And
>In October, UNFPA published its annual The State of World Population report, which made the case that family planning is a basic human right that unlocks unprecedented rewards for women in terms of health, economic power and gender equality.
Putting medical barriers to access the pill is by no means whatsoever a violation of human rights.
Whether one agrees or disagrees with this, the argument is not strong enough to warrant a prescription requirement.
(Also and separately: human bodies are complex. If you talk to a few women you might discover that IUDs are not universally tolerated and condoms are not an acceptable substitute for a variety of reasons. There are good reasons many women choose to take oral contraceptives, even though they have a daily use requirement.)
This isn't just about kids, it's also about the inconvenience and added cost (to pay for the doctor visits) placed on all women who use oral contraceptives. I'm not sure how it relates at all to this announcement.
The pill is simply one of the safest options on the market. It's not perfect, but it's generally super well tolerated.
[1] https://www.consumersafety.org/medical-device-lawsuits/miren...
Neither of those are a thing someone buying tylenol has to worry about. Disingenuous or poorly considered to think it can _only_ be about politics imo.
Taking Tylenol wrong kills you.
I would highly doubt it. Contraception is already abundantly avaliable, including in online visits. I could see people switching from Rx to OTC. But I really don't think you could have a big enough increase in non-users to OTC to have any significant data.
Emerg docs giving out NAC like candy for acetaminophen overdoses. It would never be approved if released today, but we've got a long history with it being OTC, so I don't see that changing.
Everything you said here you can apply to other behaviors, ranging from alcohol/marijuana consumption, to eating fast food, to skydiving.
OTC here is a result of politics specifically because access is being restricted or in the midst of being restricted. The reason this wasn't OTC was because there just wasn't a need to bother with it. Now there is.
> I wouldn't be surprised if there was a, smallish, correlated increase in STDs, as well.
This is really unsubstantiated and it would be nice if you didn't say things like this in the context of this conversation here unless you're going to provide a legitimate source. Even then if this were true I'm going to guess that an infinitesimal and unsubstantiated risk of higher STD rates is nothing compared to unwanted pregnancies from a public health standpoint.
Condoms and the pill are the most used contraceptive methods in the US, by far. Given that condoms prevent STDs, it would actually be a surprise if, everything else equal, those who use the pill didn't have slightly more STDs.
The problem with the unsubstantiated claim (besides the fact) is that it ignores the broad public health picture (what's worse, 5 more people/year get herpes or 5 unwanted babies in trash cans?) and injects, frankly, useless information and FUD into the conversation.
It's done so intentionally to attach negative externalities that are truth-y to a topic when their relevance and impact are quite trivial.
What I mean here is that this may cause an increase (again on the OP to substantiate this claim) of .0001% in general STD contraction, but in a given paragraph the "fact" is given much more weight than it otherwise deserves precisely because the numbers aren't provided - each piece of the claim has equal grammatical weight.
Cognitively, without the numbers (and probably with them even), you associate birth control negative externalities with "INCREASE IN STDS11!!" and now all of a sudden you find that since you are opposed to increases in STD contraction now you are sort of on the fence and maybe opposed to birth control.
"Just use a condom" (until we find some problem with those) and then it becomes "just don't have sex unless you want a baby".
This may seem conspiratorial but these are very specific debate and discussion tactics used by others to slowly chip away at rights and freedoms that we enjoy which is why it's important to call out items like this and require that if someone is going to make a claim they should provide factual evidence supporting that claim.
Until that's done, I'm going to claim that birth control decreases STD rates.
It’s confusing that you’d focus on that specific point versus everything else I wrote though. It should be obvious that the point was to show that I can make equally valid unsubstantiated claims, not that I was making one - the claim which would be irrelevant here anyway.
This is the political angle I mentioned. You're suggesting that easier access to birth control will result in more unwanted pregnancies than limiting access to birth control. It's so silly it doesn't really warrant a response, but I did want to highlight that logic this flimsy typically only serves political positions.
Also...it's not in FDA's remit to regulate the number of pregnancies in the US. This is really reaching.
In my country abortion access isn't under threat, except in the loose sense that of course there are people who insist it's immoral and would like to ban it and some of them try to intimidate patients. Nevertheless the pill isn't an OTC medication. Emergency contraception (the "morning after pill") is available from a pharmacist but I believe the pill requires a prescription.
My daily pills (my thyroid gland is gradually dying) require a prescription too. I hit "renew" in the app every couple of months, I get two more one month packs, pick them up from a self-service machine a week or so later - rinse, repeat. Seems reasonable.
These medications are safe for everyone. There is noting a doctor does to evaluate whether you're healthy enough to take them. They literally just write the script and explain how to take it. Medications where the doctor visit is a formality should just be OTC with maybe an informed consent paper given to you by the pharmacist.
The opposition is just politically-religiously motivated concern trolling.
Then why do European countries require a prescription too?
France still requires a prescription but it's theater since the doctor can't deny you. There's just been little appetite for to reclassify birth control because going to the doctor isn't that much of a burden and most countries have laws against disclosing contraceptive use to parents. But now there's momentum.