welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

we now have a plan b

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17398
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 6:37 pm    Post subject: we now have a plan b Reply with quote

from here
Quote:
August 24, 2006
‘Morning After’ Pill Is Cleared for Wider Sales
By GARDINER HARRIS

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 — The Food and Drug Administration today approved over-the-counter sales of the “morning-after” contraceptive pill to women 18 and older, resolving one of the most contentious issues in the agency’s 100-year history.

The drug, an emergency contraceptive called Plan B that is manufactured by Barr Laboratories, will be sold only in pharmacies and health clinics. To buy it, women will have to show proof of age. Girls under the age of 18 will still need a prescription to get the drug.

Acting F.D.A. Commissioner Andrew C. von Eschenbach said in a memorandum released this morning that he had decided that 18 was the appropriate cut-off age for sales because pharmacies already restrict nicotine and cold medicines that way.

“This approach builds on well-established state and private-sector infrastructures to restrict certain products to consumers 18 and older,” Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach wrote.

Dr. von Eschenbach’s predecessor, Dr. Lester M. Crawford, said last year that science supported giving over-the-counter access of the drug to women as young as 17, but that he could not figure out how to ensure that such an age restriction was enforced.

The agency has decided to rely on voluntary compliance with the rules, since neither federal drug regulators nor Barr plans to police the age restriction. A memorandum written by Dr. Steven Galson, director of the F.D.A.’s drug center, said that Barr should send to state pharmacy boards any reports that it happens to receive of pharmacists who repeatedly sell Plan B to minors. Barr has agreed not to sell the pills at gas stations or convenience stores, to ensure better compliance with the rules.

Anti-abortion groups strongly opposed Barr’s application to switch Plan B from prescription to over-the-counter status, saying that the medicine is an abortion pill whose widespread availability could lead to an increase in sexually transmitted diseases.

Abortion rights advocates pushed equally hard to get the application approved, contending that easy access to Plan B would sharply reduce the nearly 1 million abortions performed each year in the United States.

Both sides are wrong, studies suggest. Couples in the United States have so much unprotected sex — half of all pregnancies are unplanned — that even if the pills were passed out like lollipops, they would be unlikely to cause a major change in abortion and disease rates.

“Emergency contraceptives don’t work if, like condoms, they’re left in the drawer,” said Dr. James Trussell, director of the office of population research at Princeton University. “And studies show that even if women have the pills on hand, the drawer is where they remain.”

Indeed, Plan B’s effect on the F.D.A. and its image may well overshadow its public health impact. The agency has been considering the switch for three years, through three different commissioners.

“I cannot recall any other issue in my 45 years of watching F.D.A. that has garnered this much attention at all levels of government,” said Peter Barton Hutt, a former general counsel for the agency who now teaches drug law at Harvard.

The director of the agency’s office of women’s health resigned last year to protest what she said was the “abortion politics” behind the delay in approving Plan B. An investigation by the Government Accountability Office concluded that top agency officials had decided to reject the initial Plan B application months before a scientific review was complete.

Sworn depositions show that some of the agency’s science staff members were convinced that no amount of scientific evidence would have persuaded the agency’s political appointees to approve the application.

Dr. John Jenkins, director of the agency’s office of new drugs, said in a deposition that his boss, Dr. Steven Galson, told him “that he felt he didn’t have a choice” but to reject the application, according to transcripts provided to The New York Times.

“And he characterized that in a sense that he wasn’t sure that he would be allowed to remain as center director if he didn’t agree with the action,” Dr. Jenkins said. Dr. Galson, director of the agency’s drug center, is Dr. Jenkins’ boss.

Dr. Florence Houn, director of the office that evaluated the Plan B application, said that she was told by Dr. Janet Woodcock, a deputy F.D.A. commissioner, that a rejection was necessary “to appease the administration’s constituents, and then later this could be approved.”

Drs. Galson and Woodcock both said in their own depositions and public statements that scientific considerations drove their decisions. One memorandum that has since been made public states that Dr. Woodcock told agency employees that she feared that Plan B could take on “ ‘urban legend’ status that would lead adolescents to form sex-based cults.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton, a Democrat from New York, and Sen. Patty Murray, a Democrat from Washington State, became so concerned about the delays surrounding Plan B that they placed a legislative hold on Dr. Crawford’s nomination last year as F.D.A. commissioner.

The senators lifted the hold after Health and Human Services Secretary Michael O. Leavitt promised that the F.D.A. would act on the Plan B application by Sept. 1 of last year. Dr. Crawford was confirmed.

The agency then announced a further delay in the application, something Ms. Murray said in an interview amounted to “the worst double-cross I’ve ever seen in my time in the Senate.” Mr. Leavitt responded that the delay amounted to “an action.”

When Dr. Crawford unexpectedly resigned weeks later, the senators said that they would not be fooled again. They have held up Dr. von Eschenbach’s nomination to become commissioner, saying that this time they want a Plan B decision first.

The agency added to this strange history today when it released several documents supporting its Plan B decision, including an extraordinary 7-page memorandum by Dr. Galson that clarifies some of his earlier statements.

The memo explains why he now agrees with Dr. von Eschenbach that 18 is a better age restriction than 17, and offers a detailed rebuttal of a previously undisclosed suggestion by subordinates that complaints about noncompliant pharmacists be sent to the federal agency instead of state pharmacy boards.

In a press briefing on Monday, President Bush was asked whether he supported Dr. von Eschenbach’s intention to approve over-the-counter sales of Plan B — a rare moment when a president addressed an application pending before the agecny.

Mr. Bush said that minors should need a prescription to obtain Plan B.

“And I support Andy’s decision,” he said.

The Plan B application has also seeped into popular culture. Earlier this month, Plan B was the subject of a passionate argument on the popular TV talk show, “The View.”

Still, confusion about the medicine is widespread. Many women’s health clinics pass out cards explaining the difference between Plan B, a contraceptive, and RU-486, the abortion drug.

Plan B is made from a synthetic hormone found in regular oral contraceptives. It should be taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, and like “The Pill,” it generally acts by preventing ovulation or fertilization, according to the agency. Plan B may in rare circumstances prevent a fertilized egg from becoming implanted — something abortion opponents decry. But regular oral contraceptives would prevent implantation in the same way.

RU-486, on the other hand, causes a woman to miscarry a well-established pregnancy.


18, i guess, is a reasonable compromise (although even 17 year olds have driver's licenses, i don't know why that one guy couldn't figure that out) - at least it's finally out of the hands of the political appointees.

whatever you think of the pill itself, you have to be appalled at the attitude of the "new" fda, in ignoring the science for the partisan political concerns.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marik



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 1234

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:31 pm    Post subject: Who was left to alienate? Reply with quote

Find some religious radio stations, quick.

The religious right is collectively shitting a brick over Bush approving this.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mouse



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 17398
Location: under the bed

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

thanks, but no thanks. i shall look forward to newspaper stories of the hellfire and damnation they will rain upon him.
_________________
aka: neverscared!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 10:38 pm    Post subject: Re: Who was left to alienate? Reply with quote

Marik wrote:
Find some religious radio stations, quick.

The religious right is collectively shitting a brick over Bush approving this.


don't worry

bush appeased them by taking "evolutionary biology" off of the list of college majors approved for receipt of government grants in the middle of the night
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9583

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2006 11:32 pm    Post subject: ever Reply with quote

I have no idea who did that but if Bush did indeed have a hand in it, then it would be

1. hilarious, and
2. never confirmed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kame



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2565
Location: Alba Nuadh

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Say it ain't so, Major Tom Sad
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

well, it's true i can't provide proof of the bushprints, but...


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/24/washington/24evo.html
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12306
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's the Panda's Thumb entry on that federal list. Also missing are HVAC technology and Exercise Physiology.
The HVAC stuff I can pass as nobody wanting to admit Global Warming is real, but exercise?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CTrees



Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Posts: 3772

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, see, The Exorcist scared Bush Jr., and he's not exactly the best with differentiating passingly similar words, so he figured exercise phsyiology must be related. Thus, it's gone.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
WheelsOfConfusion



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 12306
Location: Unknown Kaddath

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Update on the Evolutionary Biology SMART grant situation. Apparently it was an error of omission. I'm almost cynical enough to harbor doubts about that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Major Tom



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 7562

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sure, that was the explanation from the start -- no one knows how or who, despite the fact that it's not an easy omission to accomplish.

no one authorized it; it wasn't supposed to happen, as far as what anyone involved has actually said.

but it's still not back on the list -- or, at least, wasn't several days after eveyone was saying there was no reason for it not to be.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Thy Brilliance



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 3596
Location: Relative

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

No one ever hands out lollipops anymore. Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group