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

321–330 of 395 posts

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#321

Post by maerF0x0 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #278
bamfly wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If men do not want kids, it is easy for them not to. Weird to see the "your CHOICE was when you CHOSE to have sex!" anti-abortion argument re-purposed in this way, but, OK.

Not really, as a woman’s pregnancy affects her body and life quite a bit more drastically than it affects a man. Ideally, men would be equal in this regard, but nature does not work like that so we have to work with what we have. If you can come up with a better solution that does not violate a woman’s autonomy over their body and also does not let men off the hook for providing for their kids, I am all ears (or eyes…

> , as a woman’s pregnancy affects her body and life quite a bit more drastically than it affects a man.

Until he's hit with life time payments for a child they agreed would be aborted, and he's thrown in jail for not paying it.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#322

Post by mcpackieh »

travisjungroth wrote: post #194
neuronerdgirl wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good time to remind people that tylenol dosages as written on the bottle are just within the safety window to avoid toxicity[1]. Having done the math myself, you can't even take the extra strength stuff at the recommended timing without skipping a dose each day. Drugs, even OTC ones, have very real risks, and gatekeeping BC is laughable given the risks of not having it freely available. [1] https://www.health.harvard…

Tylenol/paracetamol/acetaminophen also barely works. It increases the effectiveness of an aspirin and caffeine combo to relieve headaches (but not migraines). It’s generally ineffective against chronic pain, back pain, and severe pain. It’s a weak fever reducer. 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…

YMMV but acetaminophen is extremely effective for me. I refuse all opioid/etc prescriptions even after surgeries, and acetaminophen makes this tolerable. It doesn't magic the pain away but it takes the edge off with no risk of addiction.

My understanding is that for chronic pain the evidence is sparse, but for postoperative pain it definitely works.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#323

Post by mcpackieh »

mathisfun123 wrote: post #185
maerF0x0 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You're right that women ought to be the ones in charge of dealing with this sort of thing, That's pretty contrary to the typical diversity rationale that suggests out group people have valuable inputs. I think it makes a lot of sense to have society as a whole making decisions about how society as a whole operates. It's not just an individual's choice if they take a drug which may or may not end up being like thali…

everything in this reply espouses ideas and positions that are literal antitheses of a liberal society.

In liberal democracies, people have a right to get to have their say (on a soap box and at the ballot box) in matters that don't rationally concern them.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#324

Post by ghaff »

parasense wrote: post #283
ghaff wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generics at least aren't big moneymakers. With totally pedestrian insurance I pay next to nothing (or nothing) for the variety of meds that I take. Would probably cost more if I could buy them OTC.

Given the 50 years, I'd say the original investment has paid off many times over, and all the generic brands got their cut. It's more than fair to society to allow the medicine to go over the counter.

Oh I'm not disagreeing in general. There are probably some classes of drugs like antibiotics which probably lend themselves to overuse/misuse and are probably best kept prescription only for the most part (agriculture overuse notwithstanding). But in general, if there's no good reason something shouldn't be OTC, it probably should be.

I'm just saying generic prescription drugs don't necessarily have a huge price uplift vs. OTC.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#325

Post by saghm »

idopmstuff wrote: post #145
mustacheemperor wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are the first commenter to relate anything like even a secondhand real life experience with oral birth control. This thread (edit: at the time I am posting this) is full of men with little real knowledge of this drug insisting on why it’s reasonable it took 50 years for this to be available OTC. I don’t think the contents of their explanations are likely to be accurate, but I think they still explain why it took…

You're right that women ought to be the ones in charge of dealing with this sort of thing, but I don't think a bunch of guys presenting positions that are generally skeptical of the FDA restricting things that are generally considered safe from being sold OTC (even if not for the right reasons) are the reason that it took a long time for this to be approved to be sold OTC.

> I don't think a bunch of guys presenting positions that are generally skeptical of the FDA restricting things that are generally considered safe from being sold OTC (even if not for the right reasons) are the reason that it took a long time for this to be approved to be sold OTC.

Well yeah, the men who prevented it from being OTC for so long didn't do it out of skepticism that it was safe; just like every other time women's rights have been restricted, it's about control. Concern over medical safety is just a convenient political distraction to avoid having to defend regressive social policies. If the people who rules like these actually cared about women's health, they would take into consideration that some women need medication like this for issues that aren't related to trying to avoid pregnancy when having sex. Even labeling medication "birth control" is just a way to ignore the fact that sometimes there are conditions that affect the reproductive system without a woman becoming (or trying to become) pregnant, and sometimes these medications can help with those.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#326

Post by ssnistfajen »

jjkeddo199 wrote: post #275
ssnistfajen wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are you suggesting that problem is caused by contraceptives? Birth rates in industrialized nations are cratering because the social and economic conditions in these countries have evolved to be fundamentally hostile to those who choose to have children. Pregnant women are almost universally punished by their employers especially in the private sector, childcare costs have gone through the roof, while the "career…

The problems you mentioned are real, but I am not convinced they are the root cause for low birthrates. Do you think that Sweden, Norway, and Finland are hostile to parenthood?

For career-oriented people, yes. Those countries operate on the same market economy principles as every other industrialized nation. Extensive welfare and benefits coverage not reversing the birthrate decline only further reinforces my argument that the root cause lies deep within how our society functions.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#327

Post by rvcdbn »

runako wrote: post #87
rvcdbn wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

do you know of any states where it isn’t legal? google searching lead me to this: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/24/us/birth-control-plan-b-r... which seems to suggest that it’s legal everywhere

Is there anything in current US politics around pregnancy that might make you consider that the legal regime in this area might be changing?

sure but the previous comment made it sound like it was already illegal which would have been really surprising to me. I’m no fan of recent regressions in abortion law but the arguments made by pro-lifers that I’ve heard would not apply to birth control (ie that abortion is essentially killing a human). so I would actually expect them to favor birth control as a way to prevent abortion. that’s assuming their position is really based on their stated beliefs and not something else unstated or irrational (and I decline to take a position on this question at this time).

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#328

Post by jake_morrison »

I wish that everyone in the US had affordable, convenient, and private access to a doctor who could help them choose contraceptives and ensure no side effects.

Unfortunately, that's not the case, so getting them over the counter is an improvement.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#329

Post by mrguyorama »

ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #187
mrguyorama wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Helping poor people who do not WANT kids not HAVE kids is not Eugenics but rather their basic human rights in a world that invented birth control.

When you're doing it explicitly because 40% of their offspring will be poor, I think you've at least entered a gray area. Aligning with the interests of eugenicists is hardly an argument against a policy though.

The point is that an individual CHOOSING to not have a child because they don't want that child to stay poor is NOT EUGENICS, and this policy will not force birth control on anyone who doesn't want it. In fact, all this does is make it easier for people who DON'T WANT KIDS to NOT HAVE KIDS. Enabling personal family planning like that is basically the opposite of eugenics?

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#330

Post by tiny_ta »

basisword wrote: post #249
tiny_ta wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was on birth control for 5 years and had some friends on it too. My very anecdotal data is that: while none of us faced any mental health changes, there were some physiological changes that I did not like. You're right that there are women who maybe severely impacted mental-health wise. But I think the benefits outweigh this as the lack of ability to control one's reproductive life can also be debilitating, mentall…

Unless you’re an addict you’re not taking alcohol/drugs/cough syrup on a daily basis though. From my reading of this comment thread in general the issue really seems to be that you can’t see a doctor for free (at the point of use) in the US. Anecdotally I know a few people who have had difficult side effects on the pill, or medical issues which preclude them from using specific types. Speaking to a doctor once to get…

You're absolutely right that, ideally, this would be a conversation with a professional, non-moralizing doctor.

But there could be many scenarios where one doesn't have access to such care - think of the uninsured, think of teenage girls who don't want their parents to know, think of women in abusive relationships who don't want to get pregnant, the list goes on. If you were on your partner's/parent's plan, there is no way you could visit an OBGYN without them knowing. In addition to this, like the other commenter mentioned, this has also somehow devolved into a political issue here.

Post reply on HN