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

281–290 of 395 posts

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#281

Post by pevey »

basisword wrote: post #229
lalaithion wrote: post #8

This is amazing, it will help a lot of people have access to a drug that can vastly improve quality of life without being gatekept by their doctor. Just one note about the phrasing of all the headlines: they’re phrased as if the FDA did a good thing, but it’s better to imagine this as the FDA _stopping_ doing a bad thing. The only reason that we haven’t had over the counter oral contraceptive for the last fifty years…

When you refer to the doctors as gatekeepers is it because they are doing something other than ensuring you have a safe experience with the drug, or is it more a comment on inability to access doctors due to US private medical system?

Yes

Both

And also the more mundane reason that an extra hoop to jump through is unnecessary and does more harm than good.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#282

Post by tracker1 »

euler5050 wrote: post #274
tracker1 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for this... It's kind of funny considering I've probably done as much reading on nutrition science the past 5-7 years as I have programming (almost 30 years into this career). Mostly in that there's been so much mis/disinformation regarding food and nutrition over the past couple centuries, and I have a lot of health issues as a result. I bring the above up, because even a lot of doctors are ill informed. Not…

See this is a great example, you've studied this topic extensively but don't seem to know the absolute basics of the industry. "Not to mention nutritionists that are institutionally trained in dogma first, for licensure." Nutritionist is not a protected title in the US or Australia, and actually requires no training whatsoever. It does require training and licensure to become a dietitian, because it's a clinically fo…

So, because I displaced the term dietician with nutritionist conversationally you side step into a diatribe. You do realize that a lot of people have learning disabilities that make it difficult to remember specific terms in their place? It's kind of like a mental block in trying to remember. I have this when it comes to proper names all the time. It doesn't mean that I don't have an understanding of the conceptual base.

So, dieticians never suggested limiting cholesterol, and cutting out all saturated fat?

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#283

Post by parasense »

ghaff wrote: post #85
huthuthike wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like no one bothered to apply to make it OTC until a year ago. In the US there is more money to be made from selling prescription medication.

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.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#284

Post by euler5050 »

tracker1 wrote: post #282
euler5050 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See this is a great example, you've studied this topic extensively but don't seem to know the absolute basics of the industry. "Not to mention nutritionists that are institutionally trained in dogma first, for licensure." Nutritionist is not a protected title in the US or Australia, and actually requires no training whatsoever. It does require training and licensure to become a dietitian, because it's a clinically fo…

So, because I displaced the term dietician with nutritionist conversationally you side step into a diatribe. You do realize that a lot of people have learning disabilities that make it difficult to remember specific terms in their place? It's kind of like a mental block in trying to remember. I have this when it comes to proper names all the time. It doesn't mean that I don't have an understanding of the conceptual b…

People mix up the title all the time, it's no big deal. I'm mostly focused on the fact that you were upset by the licensing requirement. I took that as evidence that you were not aware that dietitians are often a clinical facing role, with clinical responsibilities such as writing prescriptions.

Was I incorrect in that assumption? Or do you genuinely want to relax the licensure requirement for people who write IV prescriptions?

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#285

Post by travisjungroth »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #230
travisjungroth wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> It’s a weak fever reducer. That is what it is supposed to be and do.

I keep it in my first aid kit, since it works some amount for fever reduction and can be used in some cases where ibuprofen is contraindicated (like with dengue).

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#286

Post by sweetjuly »

pevey wrote: post #113
jncfhnb wrote: post #82

Hmm idk. My anecdata of one wife had a really bad time with oral contraceptives. I feel like behavioral side effects are pretty insidious. She got pretty bad anger problems that would only appear to manifest with those she was very close to (and 95% of the time was me). It was difficult to convince her that her emotions were being selectively biased. Which is a bit of a causality minefield to get into. I worry that m…

Oral contraceptives do have side effects, including effects on mental health. Sometimes the effects seem to be positive. Often, they are quite negative. These effects are not taken seriously/acknowledged by the vast majority of medical professionals, so I don't see how it is relevant to whether the pills have to be prescribed. It is a separate issue. People should be free to make their own choice without going throug…

>These effects are not taken seriously by the vast majority of medical professionals

This is what is so baffling about so many of the ridiculous comments here. It's so disturbingly common for doctors to ignore bad individual interactions and just call women dramatic. It's shockingly hard to find anyone who will even so much as listen. Prescribers will throw some random BC pill at you and if it doesn't work for you, tough, try your luck with another doctor/NP. The system doesn't provide any protection, it frankly just makes it worse.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#287

Post by jncfhnb »

EatingWithForks wrote: post #90
jncfhnb wrote: post #82

Hmm idk. My anecdata of one wife had a really bad time with oral contraceptives. I feel like behavioral side effects are pretty insidious. She got pretty bad anger problems that would only appear to manifest with those she was very close to (and 95% of the time was me). It was difficult to convince her that her emotions were being selectively biased. Which is a bit of a causality minefield to get into. I worry that m…

Counter anecdata: I know several women where oral contraceptives noticeably improved their lives, because their hormones were now being regulated. They got less mood swings and were way more stable. Also, women generally have a larger friend group than men and their friends are more encouraged to stage interventions if their lives are spinning out of control than men.

That’s not a counterpoint. It’s a possible upside, but these things don’t net out across patients.

> Also, women generally have a larger friend group than men and their friends are more encouraged to stage interventions if their lives are spinning out of control than men.

This is a nonsense argument even if the premise may be true. This, in no way, makes the harm ok.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#288

Post by jrockway »

pyuser583 wrote: post #204
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.

We saw this with Theranos. They lobbied really hard to stop doctors from being gatekeepers to blood tests.

What's the problem? Theranos committed fraud and their founder is in prison. Meanwhile, you can order blood tests. Early in the COVID pandemic I thought I had it at the very start. I got myself an antibody test and found that I didn't. Good data, and I didn't need to go wait in a doctor's office with a bunch of COVID patients.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#289

Post by jncfhnb »

sweetjuly wrote: post #286
pevey wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oral contraceptives do have side effects, including effects on mental health. Sometimes the effects seem to be positive. Often, they are quite negative. These effects are not taken seriously/acknowledged by the vast majority of medical professionals, so I don't see how it is relevant to whether the pills have to be prescribed. It is a separate issue. People should be free to make their own choice without going throug…

>These effects are not taken seriously by the vast majority of medical professionals This is what is so baffling about so many of the ridiculous comments here. It's so disturbingly common for doctors to ignore bad individual interactions and just call women dramatic. It's shockingly hard to find anyone who will even so much as listen. Prescribers will throw some random BC pill at you and if it doesn't work for you, t…

If you put up gates to one option but not to others you are tunneling them into the one. Regardless of doctor value.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#290

Post by SantalBlush »

tracker1 wrote: post #280
SantalBlush wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes, I believe all that time I put into learning means I do know more than most. And no, I didn't suggest that I'd have that knowledge without the time, effort and study, never did. I'm not sure what you are asking exactly. The initial response above seems to indicate that a person shouldn't speak on something outside their primary career. So my question is, at what point is one able to pass the bar of being able to…

To be honest, it seems like we mostly agree, so I don't see what the issue is.

>The initial response above seems to indicate that a person shouldn't speak on something outside their primary career.

Already addressed this in the very comment above that you replied to. This is incorrect.

Regarding where the "bar" is exactly, that is of course subjective. But I reject any idea that its subjectivity implies that all opinions are valid or whatever it is you're suggesting, because they're not. Some opinions are uninformed, and I have no problem saying so.

Post reply on HN