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

351–360 of 395 posts

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#351

Post by Levitz »

dmoy wrote: post #28
candiddevmike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a bit more nuance here. There is certainly a political angle, but there is a non zero risk with taking something like this that should be discussed with a doctor first, IMO. Bypassing a doctor does open up access, but there may be risks, especially if folks don't take the medicine correctly.

> Bypassing a doctor does open up access, but there may be risks, especially if folks don't take the medicine correctly. In related news, it is shockingly easy to get messed up real bad by Tylenol. But you can get it in a 500-pill bottle from Costco.

I'm seeing this point repeatedly through the thread, and it's like there is an implied "And we wouldn't want to put barriers to that, would we?"

And I'm thinking, maybe? Maybe if you can think of a medication that can wreck you that easily, the problem lies on that medication too?

Should every substance which doesn't mess you as hard as Tylenol be OTC?

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#352

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

mrguyorama wrote: post #329
ToValueFunfetti wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Eugenics and choice are not exclusive; eugenics does not have to be administered through force. Singapore subsidized sterilization of poor and uneducated people and that was eugenics, even though people were still able to choose whether they wanted kids. And, to get ahead of 'poor people don't have a choice because they need money to live', Singapore changed tracks and started incentivizing reproduction for educated women, and that is also eugenics. If I don't reproduce because I have a genetic disease that I don't want to pass down, I'm practicing eugenics.

Eugenics doesn't by definition mean all of the horrible abuses that have arisen from it in practice. It's just about 'improving' the human gene pool, and any method of achieving that goal qualifies.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#353

Post by nodogoto »

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.

Chronic post-vasectomy pain syndrome negatively impacts quality of life in 1-2% of cases. Even a small chance of chronic pain should be weighed carefully against the benefits and alternatives.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#354

Post by tialaramex »

runako wrote: post #98
sugarpile wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think the two are equivalent? Hormone medications can have a profound impact on a person across the spectrum from mental to physical health. Secondly, taking BC wrong may lead to a false sense of security and subsequent unwanted pregnancies. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a, smallish, correlated increase in STDs, as well. Neither of those are a thing someone buying tylenol has to worry about. Disinge…

> Secondly, taking BC wrong may lead to a false sense of security and subsequent unwanted pregnancies. 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 positio…

More generously, the unwanted pregnancies can result from assuming your birth control works but actually it doesn't because you didn't read the instructions properly. At the extreme this can be "I didn't realise I need to take the pills every day even when I'm not planning to have sex". A relatively brief consultation can fix that.

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.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#355

Post by travisjungroth »

giantg2 wrote: post #343
travisjungroth wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about a theoretical "one" that can easily get birth control. In practice, this does act as a significant barrier for a large portion of the population. It's easy to forget this in an Amazon/Doordash/Instacart world, but online ordering doesn't work for everyone. For example, 4.5% of US households are unbanked.

That seems like a poor argument given that demographic is most likely to qualify for free or reduced cost healthcare either through Medicaid or ACA.

No, it's a great argument because it disproves your claim "One can easily access hormonal Rx birthconrtol online". It seems you have a new claim that this doesn't matter because they likely qualify for free or reduced healthcare. I don't find that very convincing. "Likely" isn't enough here and a doctor's appointment, even for free or reduced cost, is still a significant burden.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#356

Post by Levitz »

PraetorianGourd wrote: post #298
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It'd be like if we told women they had to have the baby the moment their egg accepts a sperm, regardless of the reasons it ended up there. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not here, but that is pretty much what exactly is happening in much of the USA. It's sad, disappointing and, frankly, irrational, at least from the perspective you present.

A majority of Americans still have access to abortion that is _less_ restrictive than most EU countries. The Supreme Court did not outlaw abortion. In my state, abortions can be legally performed right up until birth.

Telling this to other Europeans who comment stuff like "I can't believe they outlawed abortion in the US" just doesn't get old. From "Damned brutal patriarchy" to "Damned children murderers" in less than 5 seconds.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#357

Post by mathisfun123 »

mcpackieh wrote: post #344
mathisfun123 wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have a say but not dictate. so my point isn't that the response says things but that it advocates for policy/governance.

In a liberal democracy, a common citizen 'dictating' simply means saying something with a jackass commanding tone. Such advocacy for policy/governance is a protected right in liberal democracies. It is my right to say: "I command you to dye yourself blue and dance for my amusement." And it's your right to tell me to fuck off.

read my words carefully: i didn't say anything about the words themselves, nor the act of speaking those words, i said the ideas and positions are antithetical.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#358

Post by jjkeddo199 »

ssnistfajen wrote: post #345
jjkeddo199 wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying that a free market economy is incompatible with high birth rates? How did even less generous free market nations have high birth rates in the past? Don't you think being forced to choose between having a free market and having high birth rates an even more extreme idea than the one in my OP?

>Are you saying that a free market economy is incompatible with high birth rates? Industrialized free market economies are incompatible with high birth rates. >How did even less generous free market nations have high birth rates in the past? Because those nations were not yet fully industrialized nor did they respect basic human rights for every individual. Even in the U.S. it was not possible to have a no-fault divo…

I don't think birthrates are strongly tied to the economic system. I don't believe every human being before BC was having their human rights violated just because it didn't exist yet. I think that BC is an extremely powerful tool to fight poverty, but that the tradeoffs it could have on society aren't fully understood yet either. We should be open to the idea that there are tradeoffs here.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#359

Post by isykt »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #228
isykt wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men can wear condoms and/or get a vasectomy.

Women can wear condoms and/or get Tubal ligation. And yet Men have 100% liability the moment it leaves our body, potentially including in cases of paternity fraud.

It pretty much evens out, given what being pregnant does to someone. You could always just sleep with men if it really bothers you that much.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#360

Post by ssnistfajen »

jjkeddo199 wrote: post #358
ssnistfajen wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Are you saying that a free market economy is incompatible with high birth rates? Industrialized free market economies are incompatible with high birth rates. >How did even less generous free market nations have high birth rates in the past? Because those nations were not yet fully industrialized nor did they respect basic human rights for every individual. Even in the U.S. it was not possible to have a no-fault divo…

I don't think birthrates are strongly tied to the economic system. I don't believe every human being before BC was having their human rights violated just because it didn't exist yet. I think that BC is an extremely powerful tool to fight poverty, but that the tradeoffs it could have on society aren't fully understood yet either. We should be open to the idea that there are tradeoffs here.

Good luck trying to advocate for gross human rights violations while ignoring the true cause of the problem.
Post reply on HN