Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

fda.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 395 posts

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#261

Post by bamfly »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #173
stuckinhell wrote: post #134

As a woman, I fear most people don't understand how much hormonal birth control can increase blood clots, cancer risk, mood changes, and all sorts of side effects. There doesn't seem to be a free lunch when it comes to biological modifications. :(

Vasectomies are pretty close to a free lunch.

Big advocate. They're awesome.

Main downside is reversals are 1) another surgery—and maybe not covered by insurance—and 2) often fail. Not a great option if you do want kids, just not right now. I guess that's the not-a-free-lunch part.

Excellent option if you are certain you're forever-done with having kids, though.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#262

Post by brewdad »

giantg2 wrote: post #171
TheCoelacanth wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can walk into a drug store and choose from aisle after aisle of prescription-free drugs, so I think we have already done that.

This is false equivancy. We would need to view that on an individual basis. Just because we have done it for one type of drug, doesn't mean the concerns are the same for another type. This is especially true when considering alternatives during evaluation.

No one is suggesting doing this with every drug, only this one. Straw man.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#263

Post by nsxwolf »

odyssey7 wrote: post #38
candiddevmike wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are non hormonal options out there like IUDs (and condoms) that may be a better option though. Speaking as a parent, I would rather have my kids come talk to me /my wife about this stuff and work with us and a doctor to figure out what's best for them long term. I recognize not every kid has that kind of relationship with their parents and would benefit from purchasing it directly.

As much as this is coming from a good place with good intentions, some things are human rights[1] that parents shouldn’t be able to withhold. [1] https://theweek.com/articles/470330/birth-control-human-righ...

This being a "human right" seems like a matter of opinion.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#264

Post by cogman10 »

angmarsbane wrote: post #177
runako wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are non hormonal options out there like IUDs (and condoms) that may be a better option though. 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 reaso…

Attempting to get an IUD installed was the most physically painful experience in my life to date.

IUDs don't have great track records for safety. [1]

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...

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#265

Post by triceratops »

regus wrote: post #158
zackmorris wrote: post #124

This is a bigger deal than it might seem. When birth control pills arrived in the 1960s, they were seen as a tool of liberation that would free women from forced pregnancy. Then the pope came out against them in 1968: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-po... That caused a population explosion everywhere, but especially Central and South America, which were predominantly Catholic. IMHO it all co…

From the article: 'The Pill, Humanae Vitae declared, "... Man, growing used to contraceptive practices, may lose respect for the woman and come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion."' This statement seems pretty prophetic when you take a look at the dating scene today.

> Man...may...come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment

And you think this never, ever happened pre-Pill?

At least in today's dating scene, women are free to do the same thing.

I personally think respect for women has never been higher than today - though there's still a long way to go. Because women have been able to achieve much more, now they have more choice over if or when to become a mother.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#266

Post by nsxwolf »

zackmorris wrote: post #124

This is a bigger deal than it might seem. When birth control pills arrived in the 1960s, they were seen as a tool of liberation that would free women from forced pregnancy. Then the pope came out against them in 1968: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-po... That caused a population explosion everywhere, but especially Central and South America, which were predominantly Catholic. IMHO it all co…

Why wasn't there a population explosion before the pill even existed? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#267

Post by giantg2 »

travisjungroth wrote: post #209
giantg2 wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that the prescription process is providing more harm than good.

Having a doctor rubber stamp a prescription does more harm than good. If the argument is that getting a prescription is such a simple task it should cost almost nothing and be done instantly, then it likely doesn’t need to exist as a barrier at all.

"Having a doctor rubber stamp a prescription does more harm than good."

The question was how/why, not to simply restate it as fact wilit supporting data.

"If the argument is that getting a prescription is such a simple task it should cost almost nothing and be done instantly, then it likely doesn’t need to exist as a barrier at all."

That's not the argument. The argument is that the current system already meets the needs, so what real benefit does OTC provide? It's mostly a counterpoint to someone claiming that it's an overly complicated process. Even if it is cheap and fast, the benefit to an Rx is that someone reads the 6 or so questions off the Epic screen (or the user answers them on online) to ensure there are no interactions or elevated risks.

I'm not saying OTC is the wrong answer, but I'm not seeing any real arguments for real added net benefit from it.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#268

Post by nsxwolf »

reocha wrote: post #232
JamesAdir wrote: post #189

Writing this entire message without using the word "woman" once is just amazing. As someone living outside the US, I can't understand this mindset.

Trans men and nonbinary people can take norgestrel, the language used is just following standard medical language.

That language has been "standard" for what, about a year or two? Forgive people for being confused.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#269

Post by SantalBlush »

tracker1 wrote: post #207
SantalBlush wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're misunderstanding. It's not that they can't know things outside of programming (which is your strawman), it's that they usually don't make the real effort to learn, and think reading a few blog articles makes them knowledgeable about a subject.

At what point does one cross this arbitrary barrier to being proficiently knowledgable in a subject outside their profession? I'm a self taught developer with nearly three decades of experience, still spending 10+ hours a week expanding my craft (reading/experimenting). But in the past 5-7 years have spent twice that time on food and nutrition science study. Part of that understanding research quality, not just quant…

So you believe all of that time you put in suggests that you know more about the subject of food and nutrition?

To put it another way: if you could have acquired all of that knowledge without spending so much time and effort, then why didn't you?

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#270

Post by loeg »

isykt wrote: post #211
maerF0x0 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's often funny to me how there will be such a massive gnashing of teeth about whether or not something is prescription or OTC available to women, when Men essentially have no contraceptive choice and have 100% liability the moment it leaves our body, potentially including in cases of paternity fraud. It'd be like if we told women they had to have the baby the moment their egg accepts a sperm, regardless of the reas…

Men can wear condoms and/or get a vasectomy.

Providers can be loath to give men vasectomies if they haven't already had children. That's changing, but still can be a barrier.
Post reply on HN