The price of the pill, which has not been announced, will determine how affordable it will be when it becomes available in early 2024.
  •  Griseowulfin   ( @Griseowulfin@beehaw.org ) 
    27•11 months ago

    I think this is a good step given the climate on women’s reproductive health currently. I am apprehensive that it will be treated as a “lazy” contraceptive instead of getting combo OCPs and follow up with a physician. This type of drug is extremely narrow in dosing, in that you can get pregnant if you miss your dose by an hour or two. It also opens up the opportunity for a woman to taken it without needing a doctor, which is good for those who don’t have east access to a family doc or OB. However, given the stats in the article(that most women prefer OTC due to convenience), I think it further enables people to avoid developing a relationship with a physician for primary and preventative care. I worry we might see some accidental pregnancies and maybe some negative health outcomes secondary to people not seeing a doctor every so often for their birth control.

    •  middlemuddle   ( @middlemuddle@beehaw.org ) 
      4•11 months ago

      While I support encouraging people to have regular visits with a doctor for preventative care, I don’t feel that gatekeeping birth control is the right way to do it.

      Public health messaging about the importance of preventative care is important, but the barrier for most is going to be access and affordability. Most people don’t have good flexibility in their lives to fit in a doctor’s appointment during regular clinic hours. The availability of off hours appointment times is extremely limited. Incentives for clinics to stay open later would help to address this barrier, but there are plenty of other logistical barriers that exist which also need to be addressed. I just don’t think holding birth control hostage is the right answer.

  •  ravheim   ( @ravheim@beehaw.org ) 
    21•11 months ago

    Adding the actual FDA link since it’s not behind a paywall. Looks like they’ve looked at data going all the way back to 1973 to assess the efficacy and safety of the dosage. That will be an important bit of knowledge when the inevitable lawsuit comes out “because the FDA didn’t do their due diligence.”

    [https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-nonprescription-daily-oral-contraceptive]

    •  wjs018   ( @wjs018@beehaw.org ) OPEnglish
      36•11 months ago

      The type of pill that was approved is the progestin-only “mini pill” which has a much safer clinical profile than the more common-in-the-US combination pill that has both progestin and estrogen. This type of pill is already available OTC in over 100 other countries. The US is just really behind the curve on just about anything to do with reproductive rights and care.

    •  distractedcactus   ( @distractedcactus@beehaw.org ) English
      18•11 months ago

      Dangerous in what way? According to the article:

      The panel cited the long history of safety and efficacy of Opill, which was approved for prescription use 50 years ago. The over-the-counter pill will be identical to the prescription version, which is 93 percent effective at preventing pregnancy with typical use.

    •  chepox   ( @chepox@sopuli.xyz ) English
      18•11 months ago

      Hundreds of other countries in the world sell these over the counter. That means millions of users across dozens of years across the globe. As long as you follow the directions on the packet, like any other medication you can buy OTC, it is safe. Validated by millions of people.

    •  prole   ( @prole@beehaw.org ) English
      16•11 months ago

      If only we had an agency full of thousands of career experts in reproductive medicine and beaurocrats who are empowered to regulate medicines, and do extensive testing and review before allowing them to be sold to the public.

      Oh well…

          •  realChem   ( @realChem@beehaw.org ) English
            5•11 months ago

            There’s potentially a conversation worth having here about how drug approvals work in the US and EU, but if you actually want to have that conversation please do so assuming good faith, and don’t resort to slinging accusations back and forth. Is your comment a sincere request for information? If so, you may want to consider rewording it to be a better lead-in to a productive discussion. Disengaging is also, of course, a totally valid option here.

            •  reverendsteveii   ( @reverendsteveii@beehaw.org ) English
              2•11 months ago

              what have I accused anyone of? my comment is a request for the person who is using the fact that sometimes some people are corrupt as evidence that in this particular case these particular people are corrupt. it’s vague, witch-hunty and tries to create the appearance of bad actors without presenting any valid reason to believe that anything untoward has taken place. If you or comment OP have evidence that this particular drug is known to be dangerous and that people have covered it up I’m all ears, I live for that kind of shit. But this drug is well-known, well-studied and has been globally available since 1960. Of course anywhere you find power you’ll find corruption but this, as they say, ain’t it fam and vague appellations to the existence of corruption in the general case is such a weak argument that it borders on bad faith in and of itself.

              •  realChem   ( @realChem@beehaw.org ) English
                1•11 months ago

                Actually, I agree with you. I can see how you might think I don’t given only the context of this comment chain, though. For added context, I’ve already asked the other users involved to please disengage, but it was in a different chain so you may not have seen it. I’m really honestly not trying to single you out.

                My own opinions aside though, in the future if you see another user who you believe to be participating in bad faith, please report their comment. Reporting helps give us more context for what might seem to simply be escalatory language, and also helps surface things to the mod team much more rapidly. We do want the beehaw community to self-police, but we also want this to remain a nice place without long threads of unproductive argument.

    •  gk99   ( @gk99@beehaw.org ) English
      10•11 months ago

      Not even just the doctors, I keep hearing tales of pharmacists at specifically Walgreens just refusing to fill prescriptions.

      Hence why next time I talk with my doctor I’m switching to somewhere else.