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

361–370 of 395 posts

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#361

Post by ericmay »

Levitz wrote: post #348
ericmay wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's get big government nanny state out of the way here. People can make their own decisions. It's not like you can't consult with a physician when taking contraceptives over the counter anyway. 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…

>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. 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.

Sure, and being poor is probably linked to higher rates of STDs too. Oh and alcohol use... and... and...

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.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#362

Post by trogdor »

mcpackieh wrote: post #322
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…

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.

Do you also refuse intraoperative opioids?

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#363

Post by CivBase »

fzeroracer wrote: post #350
CivBase wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a recent ruling that when it comes to contraceptives that agencies cannot protect minor confidentiality from their parents. That issue is about whether parents should have access to private information about their children, not restrictions to contraceptives. I already acknowledged there are groups who are opposed to contraception. The Catholic Medical Association and Students for Life of America are exam…

Students for Life is a republican non-profit organization, same for the Catholic Medical Association. They are pushing concentrated efforts to restrict access to pre-pregnancy contraceptives. You're trying to pull a no true scotsman here and it isn't working. > That issue is about whether parents should have access to private information about their children, not restrictions to contraceptives. No, that is exactly th…

That's not a "no true scotsman" argument. It would be if I claimed something like "they're not real Republicans" but I'm not.

Those are indeed Republican organizations and I did not claim otherwise. So what? Republicans aren't a hive mind. They don't agree on everything. You wouldn't claim the Democratic party wants to ban vaccines just because JFK Jr. is an anti-vaxer.

Supporters of a party aren't always indicative of that party's stance on all issues.

> The ruling is specifically around contraceptives, so you trying to say it's not about contraceptives is incredibly weird.

How is it weird? Parental rights over their children is a frequent focus of Republican politics. They've recently pushed for similar policies in regards to sexuality and gender identity.

I'm not going to pretend there aren't Republican voters whose support for the policy is motivated by the thought process you just layed out. But it's not reasonable to prescribe that motivation to the entire Republican party when there are other explanations that are more consistent with recent and historical Republican ideologies.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#364

Post by Levitz »

ericmay wrote: post #361
Levitz wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. 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.

Sure, and being poor is probably linked to higher rates of STDs too. Oh and alcohol use... and... and... 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 e…

So you would rather make unsubstantiated claims yourself, taking part in precisely the thing you took a few paragraphs to denounce, because you consider yourself to be right?

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#365

Post by ericmay »

Levitz wrote: post #364
ericmay wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, and being poor is probably linked to higher rates of STDs too. Oh and alcohol use... and... and... 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 e…

So you would rather make unsubstantiated claims yourself, taking part in precisely the thing you took a few paragraphs to denounce, because you consider yourself to be right?

Well I know I’m right about the general topic and requiring sources for the unsubstantiated claims.

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.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#366

Post by Spivak »

Levitz wrote: post #349
Spivak wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And 90% of women have taken hormone contraceptives at some point in their lives and that's not even counting the people who take hormone treatments for PCOS or menopause. 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…

>The opposition is just politically-religiously motivated concern trolling. Then why do European countries require a prescription too?

The UK allowed the pill OTC in 2021 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57384096 which only requires a consultation with the pharmacist.

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.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#367

Post by giantg2 »

travisjungroth wrote: post #355
giantg2 wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, the point is that you can get birthcontrol online using Medicaid or insurance without needing a bank account.

'"Likely" isn't enough here'

Why wouldn't it be - just because you say so? Keep in mind the alternative is that they make too much to qualify, which gives them other options.

Keep in mind your definition of unbanked is only about checking and savings accounts. It has nothing covering credit cards or prepaid cards, which are also options. So saying people are unbanked and would likely be burdened isn't enough.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#368

Post by refurb »

huthuthike wrote: post #233
refurb wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, profits are higher for OTC. Check out the cost of a prescription for say esomeprazole versus what Costco sells it for. Price competition across pharmacies is far higher (due to low insurance reimbursement) than cash paying patients.

I think you are looking at the cost of generic prescription drugs vs their generic OTC counterpart. When a drug is first invented it is patented, not generic. The drug company has to look at whether to apply for FDA approval as a prescription or OTC. Most often drug companies look to get approval as prescription, because that is more profitable for patented drugs. Once the drugs move out of patent, that doesn't mean…

I think you are looking at the cost of generic prescription drugs vs their generic OTC counterpart.

Of course. Drugs that are approved for OTC are almost always generic by that time.

Most often drug companies look to get approval as prescription, because that is more profitable for patented drugs.

No, it's not approved as prescription because it's more profitable, it's approved as prescription because that's all the FDA allows. The safety requirements for OTC are far stricter than prescription. Most patented drugs could never become OTC, ever.

In the case of Norgestrel it took until now before any drug maker thought it would be worth pursuing.

Norgestrel is a generic. All birth control pills pretty much are. The hormones can be in different combinations or formulations, but generally they are all generic components.

So my point stands, it's often more profitable to be OTC than prescription.

Re: FDA approves first nonprescription daily oral contraceptive

#370

Post by skissane »

dragonwriter wrote: post #110
giantg2 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which states have deemed it illegal?

Some state lawmakers have publicly targeted that after abortion, hoping to use it as the lever to get the Supreme Court to toss Griswold the way they did Roe with Dobbs . Additionally, some state abortion bans have been interpreted as impacting birth control, causing access disruptions (this happened in Idaho with their trigger ban, but clarifying language was passed after the impact began being felt.)

> Some state lawmakers have publicly targeted that after abortion, hoping to use it as the lever to get the Supreme Court to toss Griswold the way they did Roe with Dobbs.

I’m not aware of any state lawmakers in the US proposing to ban contraception in general. There have been proposals to ban ”abortifacient contraceptives”-although in those cases there is disagreement over whether certain contraceptive methods are “abortifacient” - which I think is mostly semantic, many of these methods have some (small but non-zero) probability of preventing implantation or causing post-implantation spontaneous abortion, which causes their opponents to label them as “abortifacient”; defenders disagree with using that word that way, and insist a contraceptive method should not be labelled “abortifacient” if spontaneous abortion is not the primary method of action (more a rare side effect). Putting those semantic disputes aside, there are methods of contraception which are universally agreed upon as being non-abortifacient, such as condoms. The laws struck down by Griswold were bans on contraception in general, not bans only on specific forms of it. Unless SCOTUS was really eager to overturn Griswold (Thomas is but I doubt Roberts and Kavanaugh are), SCOTUS can uphold those laws by distinguishing them from Griswold, by narrowing it, rather than overturning it altogether.

Post reply on HN