Morning-after pill for sale in advance

[Guest Warwick Green]

Women are to be offered the morning-after pill before they have had sexual intercourse.

DrThom, the only exclusively web-based medical organisation registered with the Healthcare Commission, the health service regulator, said it would take all reasonable steps to make sure that the medication, costing £15.99, did not fall into the hands of under-age girls.

But it confirmed that it was planning to make the morning-after pill available by recorded delivery "in advance of need".

The proposal provoked the fury of Life, the anti-abortion charity, which claimed that the web-based organisation was encouraging irresponsible sexual behaviour.

DrThom said its online service would be "ideal for any woman who wants to plan ahead for when a condom breaks, she forgets to take her pills, or a stomach upset when travelling risks making her hormonal contraception ineffective.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...MC-new_15072006

[PocketRocket]

The proposal provoked the fury of Life, the anti-abortion charity, which claimed that the web-based organisation was encouraging irresponsible sexual behaviour.

Gotta laugh at these people. Nothing will make them happy other than living the lifestyle that they follow.

It's like "Don't have abortions".

Found a solution for that???

"Okay then, don't have sex unless it's within the bonds of marriage, between 10:00-10:20 pm, with the lights out, whilst wearing heavy flannel pyjamas, and by all means, DO NOT ENJOY IT!!!!"

[RB]

this emergency contraception had doubled since a prescription is no longer necessary - certainly welcome, with a 95% effective rate of prevention of unwanted pregnancy I think it forces people take responsibility for their wanton behaviours

[Guest Warwick Green]

The proposal provoked the fury of Life, the anti-abortion charity, which claimed that the web-based organisation was encouraging irresponsible sexual behaviour.

Gotta laugh at these people. Nothing will make them happy other than living the lifestyle that they follow.

It's like "Don't have abortions".

Found a solution for that???

"Okay then, don't have sex unless it's within the bonds of marriage, between 10:00-10:20 pm, with the lights out, whilst wearing heavy flannel pyjamas, and by all means, DO NOT ENJOY IT!!!!"

There was a story in last Saturday's Globe & Mail about a web site for Christians who want to buy sex toys. (but only sex toys in good taste apparently.) This of course has had a mixed reception from the religious right. The guy who is the big oompah in the anti-SSM fight (I think his name is Charles McVey) was appalled at this. He pointed out that purpose of sex is for procreation, not fun.

And people wonder why religion is falling out of favour.

[geoffrey]

I think I read somewhere that it's not healthy to take the Morning After Pill constantly? Am I right?

Are we just creating the next cigarettes with something like this, something we'll be paying the health care price for twenty or thirty years down the road?

[Guest Warwick Green]

I think I read somewhere that it's not healthy to take the Morning After Pill constantly? Am I right?

Are we just creating the next cigarettes with something like this, something we'll be paying the health care price for twenty or thirty years down the road?

Not just the morning-after pill. My wife had to stop taking birth control pills after she started getting black-outs.

[PocketRocket]

The guy who is the big oompah in the anti-SSM fight (I think his name is Charles McVey) was appalled at this. He pointed out that purpose of sex is for procreation, not fun.

My sympathies go out to his wife.

[jdobbin]

I think I read somewhere that it's not healthy to take the Morning After Pill constantly? Am I right?

Are we just creating the next cigarettes with something like this, something we'll be paying the health care price for twenty or thirty years down the road?

Where did you hear that?

[Black Dog]

I think I read somewhere that it's not healthy to take the Morning After Pill constantly? Am I right?

Well, you're not supposed to take the morning afte rpill "constantly." It's emergency contraception.

[MightyAC]

I think I read somewhere that it's not healthy to take the Morning After Pill constantly? Am I right?

Are we just creating the next cigarettes with something like this, something we'll be paying the health care price for twenty or thirty years down the road?

It's just a heavy dose of the same hormones used in the pill. From what I understand it's not anymore dangerous but it does cause significant discomfort in the form of upset stomach, cramping, etc. The temporary side effects, along with the cost will ensure that it's not used as routine birth control. I have no problem with women keeping a dose on hand in case of an accident but I hope they realize that drugs have an expiry date. It seems like a better/safer idea to just buy it after a condom breaks...I believe it's effective for up to 72 hours.

The guy who is the big oompah in the anti-SSM fight (I think his name is Charles McVey) was appalled at this. He pointed out that purpose of sex is for procreation, not fun.

That guy is such a tool. He is currently targeting Conservative MPs that support or are indifferent to SSM. He is rallying the socons in an attempt to replace moderates with single issue, anti-SSM candidates. One day clowns like McVety will likely be as organized as the conservative Christian groups in the US…then we’ll all be in trouble.

[geoffrey]

I think I read somewhere that it's not healthy to take the Morning After Pill constantly? Am I right?

Are we just creating the next cigarettes with something like this, something we'll be paying the health care price for twenty or thirty years down the road?

Not just the morning-after pill. My wife had to stop taking birth control pills after she started getting black-outs.

Is there a link between the pill and breast cancer too? My internet search here has some conflicting opinions, none from really credible sources IMO.

I think I read somewhere that it's not healthy to take the Morning After Pill constantly? Am I right?

Are we just creating the next cigarettes with something like this, something we'll be paying the health care price for twenty or thirty years down the road?

Where did you hear that?

Not really sure, it's just rumour, I'm not saying it's fact. Even in all the write ups on it though it's stressed that it's an emergency only medication and shouldn't be used regularly. One thing I've understood is that constantly messing with body chemistry rarely benefits you long term.

I think I read somewhere that it's not healthy to take the Morning After Pill constantly? Am I right?

Well, you're not supposed to take the morning afte rpill "constantly." It's emergency contraception.

Yes. I know. I'm not against it sheesh. Just worried what effect this has on my health care costs later on. I don't want to be paying for other people's easily preventable mistakes and constant irresponsiblity.

[Black Dog]

Yes. I know. I'm not against it sheesh. Just worried what effect this has on my health care costs later on. I don't want to be paying for other people's easily preventable mistakes and constant irresponsiblity.

Relax, I'm not saying you were against it. It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that one would take frequently. And your repeated use of the word "constantly" leads me to beleive that the only people who take this are irrespopnsible sluts who screw like bunnies pop these pills like Pez. In other words, you might not be against it, but your definitely judging anyone who would need it. As for the cost issue: mistakes happen and I'd rather pay for that than cover the social costs of an unwanted kid.

[geoffrey]

Yes. I know. I'm not against it sheesh. Just worried what effect this has on my health care costs later on. I don't want to be paying for other people's easily preventable mistakes and constant irresponsiblity.

Relax, I'm not saying you were against it. It just doesn't seem like the kind of thing that one would take frequently. And your repeated use of the word "constantly" leads me to beleive that the only people who take this are irrespopnsible sluts who screw like bunnies pop these pills like Pez. In other words, you might not be against it, but your definitely judging anyone who would need it. As for the cost issue: mistakes happen and I'd rather pay for that than cover the social costs of an unwanted kid.

Have a limit like any insurance plan would... you get it twice a year, more than that, and you do hard labour for it? Shouldn't be my money funding people's irresponsibility.

[BubberMiley]

You creating a problem that doesn't exist (people taking the morning after pill "constantly"), then making your typical, lame, "I shouldn't have to pay for it" argument. But you're not really paying for it, because the problem doesn't exist.

[Charles Anthony]

You creating a problem that doesn't exist (people taking the morning after pill "constantly")

Actually, no he is not.

He is pointing out a direct implication of what this article suggests and it seems everybody has casually glossed over it.

How can you miss it???

In other words, you might not be against it, but your definitely judging anyone who would need it. As for the cost issue: mistakes happen and I'd rather pay for that than cover the social costs of an unwanted kid.

Stop. His questioning is logical.

You are putting words in his mouth that he did not say.

From the very first sentence in this post:

Women are to be offered the morning-after pill before they have had sexual intercourse.

it is evident that the implication is that women are being encouraged to take the morning after pill certainly more frequently than previously recommended if not every time they have sex.

The words that you put in his mouth:

leads me to beleive that the only people who take this are irrespopnsible sluts who screw like bunnies pop these pills like Pez

come from your mind and "leads me to believe" that you have an agenda with pre-conceived knowledge of who takes pills and who has sex.

He did not say what you said. Only prejudice will fight valid questioning of advocates for new medication regimens.

Read the rest of the article:

If one of DrThom's doctors judges that it is safe to prescribe, treatment will be sent in the post as recorded delivery but not until 72 hours have elapsed, preventing its use for unprotected sex that has already occurred.

----<snip>----

The DrThom spokesman said there was no evidence that offering the pill was encouraging unprotected sex.

"Just as a 14-year-old girl could ask her older sister or friend to walk into a family planning clinic or pharmacy on her behalf, the same is ultimately the case with the DrThom service."

I think one could logically conclude that this exclusively online pharmacy does not give a damn other than selling pills.

[Drea]

Have a limit like any insurance plan would... you get it twice a year, more than that, and you do hard labour for it? Shouldn't be my money funding people's irresponsibility.

As far as I know birth control is not covered by medical unless you are on welfare, have very low income or have extended medical through your employer.

If a woman is already on welfare or has a very low income, would it not be prudent to "let" her have this pill to prevent us taxpayers from paying for a kid for 18 years?

It should also be available through school nurses/counselors. A girl could just go to the office and get it -- along with a package of condoms and a good scare about STD's.

[Black Dog]

Have a limit like any insurance plan would... you get it twice a year, more than that, and you do hard labour for it? Shouldn't be my money funding people's irresponsibility.

Is this actually costing you anything? Or, like birth control pills, are these covered by the consumer out-of-pocket?

Personally, though, it doesn't mater. I think birth control perscriptions should be covered by medicare, as should morning after pills for the simple reason that the cost of covering thjese things likely pales in comparison to the costs associated with seeing more unwanted pregnancies going to term. Or the subsequent increase in abortions. Nor do I see the point in punishing people for "irresponsible behaviour" that has little or no impact on the broader social fabric.

CA:

it is evident that the implication is that women are being encouraged to take the morning after pill certainly more frequently than previously recommended if not every time they have sex.

You're wrong. There's no indication of that, particularily in the portion you cite. The way it usually works is women must go to the pharmacy to get the pill after they have sex. The online service describe in the article simply elimates the need for that post facto trip to the chemists by allowing women to kleep a supply of the pills on hand:

DrThom said its online service would be "ideal for any woman who wants to plan ahead for when a condom breaks, she forgets to take her pills, or a stomach upset when travelling risks making her hormonal contraception ineffective.

"The service is not for a woman who wants it because she has just had unprotected sex."

A spokesman added: "The reason for launching this service is that the emergency contraceptive pill is more effective the sooner it is taken after unprotected sex.

"Treatment failure rates are generally considered to triple if a woman waits more than 24 hours before taking it."

IOW there is no indication whatsoever that this pil is being promoted as a substitute for other forms of birth control.

[geoffrey]

Well I think it should be publically funded to an extent, it prevents abortions and that's something I can support whole-heartedly. I might not like it, but it's the lesser of two evils.

I just wouldn't want someone to turn that around and use it constantly to the point where I'm paying for their cancer (or whatever side-effects) treatments later on. It would happen, there are some questionable folks out there.

[Guest Warwick Green]

Well I think it should be publically funded to an extent, it prevents abortions and that's something I can support whole-heartedly. I might not like it, but it's the lesser of two evils.

I just wouldn't want someone to turn that around and use it constantly to the point where I'm paying for their cancer (or whatever side-effects) treatments later on. It would happen, there are some questionable folks out there.

The anti-abortionists I know are against it because they believe in effect that it is just another form of abortion. It's not preventing conception but could be destroying a fertilized egg.

[gnam]

Well I think it should be publically funded to an extent, it prevents abortions and that's something I can support whole-heartedly. I might not like it, but it's the lesser of two evils.

I just wouldn't want someone to turn that around and use it constantly to the point where I'm paying for their cancer (or whatever side-effects) treatments later on. It would happen, there are some questionable folks out there.

In point of fact these pills are hormonal treatments that bear a strong chemical similarity to many average birth control pills (the dosages are different). There is very little chance that this treatment will cause any adverse side effect that is not already a danger associated with standard BC pills. Thus, in a sense, many people already are using this treatment on a regular basis (at reduced dosages in the form of birth control pills).

[geoffrey]

Well I think it should be publically funded to an extent, it prevents abortions and that's something I can support whole-heartedly. I might not like it, but it's the lesser of two evils.

I just wouldn't want someone to turn that around and use it constantly to the point where I'm paying for their cancer (or whatever side-effects) treatments later on. It would happen, there are some questionable folks out there.

In point of fact these pills are hormonal treatments that bear a strong chemical similarity to many average birth control pills (the dosages are different). There is very little chance that this treatment will cause any adverse side effect that is not already a danger associated with standard BC pills. Thus, in a sense, many people already are using this treatment on a regular basis (at reduced dosages in the form of birth control pills).

There are clinical side-effects to BC pills though too. Not to mention the increase estrogen transfer into our water supply.

Maybe an explaination for all the metrosexuals. (kidding)

[Melanie_]

I'm past the point of worrying personally about these things, but I'd rather see my daughters use the morning after pill on an as needed basis than have them on a birth control pill every day. After all, the reason the Pill works is because you're so bitchy when you take it, no one wants to come within 15 feet of you! (wait a minute...maybe I do want my daughters on the birth control pill....)

[geoffrey]

I'm past the point of worrying personally about these things, but I'd rather see my daughters use the morning after pill on an as needed basis than have them on a birth control pill every day. After all, the reason the Pill works is because you're so bitchy when you take it, no one wants to come within 15 feet of you! (wait a minute...maybe I do want my daughters on the birth control pill....)

Supporting use of the morning after pill... I don't know if that is wise, though I wouldn't question your judgement. If it were an emergency, yes.

But isn't it sending the wrong message to be telling kids that no matter what you do, you can be responsiblity free with just a little pill? Maybe it's this zero responsibility attitude that is behind the spread of AIDS and other STD's that's skyrocketing in teens and young adults these days.

Not that the Birth Control pill prevents AIDS either, just gives people another reason not to use a condom.

Is the pill and now the morning after pill behind the increase in STD's?

[Melanie_]

But isn't it sending the wrong message to be telling kids that no matter what you do, you can be responsiblity free with just a little pill?

The pill and the morning after pill allow women to control their reproduction; condom use is dependent on the man's willingness to wear one. Seeing as how the responsibility for raising a child falls mainly to the woman, I prefer to see the woman taking the responsibility for preventing conception. (BTW, when I spoke of my daughters earlier, it was in a hypothetical sense - two of them are too young yet for any of this, and the other is grown with a child of her own).

But, I see your point regarding STDs. Condom use is the best prevention, other than abstinance.

This leads to another question - why is abstinance so rare? As a mother of 4, sometimes I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle against the mass sexualization my children are exposed to. The reality is they are surrounded by sex, on TV, movies, the internet, in the music they listen to, in the magazines they buy, etc. Even shows that are supposed to be kid friendly, written for the preteen audience, are filled with sexual innuendo. Yes, as a parent it is my job to teach them right from wrong, but does the media have to work so hard to undermine what I teach them?

[geoffrey]

Ahh that media.

The media isn't a friend of anyone, I just prefer to ignore it as much as I can. They have agendas and commerical spots to sell and sex does it. That's why it's there.