Plan B now available over the counter in Canada

[patricia]

The so called "morning after" emergency contraceptive [effective up to 72 hours after unprotected sex] is now available, in Canada, over the counter, without prescription. This product, when properly used, has about an 80% success rate.
The same product has been rejected by the Bush administration in the U.S. , because it may not be completely safe for women under 16 years old.

[crawjo]

Originally Posted by patricia

The so called "morning after" emergency contraceptive [effective up to 72 hours after unprotected sex] is now available, in Canada, over the counter, without prescription. This product, when properly used, has about an 80% success rate.
The same product has been rejected by the Bush administration in the U.S. , because it may not be completely safe for women under 16 years old.

Just speaking in comparative terms, "80 percent success rate" doesn't sound very good for a contraceptive.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by crawjo

Just speaking in comparative terms, "80 percent success rate" doesn't sound very good for a contraceptive.

Actually, compared to other methods it is. The success rate for the traditional birth control pill, used correctly is not 100%. There is no method, aside from abstinance that is 100% effective. So, 80%, while not perfect, is better than just hoping you're not pregnant, by far.

[tippy]

I'm wondering, just for the sake of clarity, whether that means that 80% of women who they can determine are pregnant (within 3 days of intercourse?) miscarry an actual embryo or whether the statistic means that 80% who dose do not become pregnant. It must be the first option, right, otherwise it is even less than 80% effective?

[Enforcer]

80%, however that number was arrived at, is dismal. What it means is that this is a good, "Holy f**k, what have I done?" type solution. Not meant to be used as a primary means of birth control, obviously.

Larry

[patricia]

Originally Posted by tippy

I'm wondering, just for the sake of clarity, whether that means that 80% of women who they can determine are pregnant (within 3 days of intercourse?) miscarry an actual embryo or whether the statistic means that 80% who dose do not become pregnant. It must be the first option, right, otherwise it is even less than 80% effective?

No. The explanation was that the drug, if taken up to 72 hours after the unprotected sex would expel the fertalized egg, if there is one, by flushing out the uterus. It's not necessary to know whether or not you are actually pregnant, which wouldn't be possible so soon.
It prevents the fertalized egg, if there is one, from attaching itself to the lining of the uterus.

[Jazzzoline]

That method is widely used though, the difference is one doesn't need to run to the doctor every time it happens.

I remember once, I was about 26, and just had news of a promotion. So, after an evening drinking champagne (Veuve Clicquot) we end up in the bed doing some "béchamel" the wild way. The condom broke, I looked at the calendar and it was obviously "THE" day during the month. I ran to the doctor the next day ...

Originally Posted by patricia

The same product has been rejected by the Bush administration in the U.S. , because it may not be completely safe for women under 16 years old.

How subliminal of you.

I actually feel that this product should not be on the market.

If you're gonna screw, use some common sense.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

80%, however that number was arrived at, is dismal. What it means is that this is a good, "Holy f**k, what have I done?" type solution. Not meant to be used as a primary means of birth control, obviously.

Larry

Larry, I repeat. There is NO 100% successful birth control method aside from abstinance. The only other fail safe methods are vascectomy and tubal ligation. The pill is only about 90% effective when you factor in incorrect usage. So, yes, an 80% success rate is better than many other methods many of which are much less than 80% successful.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

How subliminal of you.

I actually feel that this product should not be on the market.

If you're gonna screw, use some common sense.

Yeah. That'll work........in combination with a reliable birth control method.

The only other fail safe methods are vascectomy and tubal ligation.

IF done properly.

Originally Posted by patricia

Yeah. That'll work........in combination with a reliable birth control method.

Right, and there are already many others out there that are proven, effective(as much as they can be), and safe.

But then again, I'm a happily married man, and not some godless heathen like so many of you who choose to blissfully live in sin.

[tippy]

I had no intention of playing devil's advocate on this issue. I am glad it is available and think it should be. However, I have to wonder whether it is effective at all given that most of the women who take it would not end up being pregnant in the first place. I hope they tested on women who were at least ovulating. My way of thinking is simply that it seems conceivable that only 20% of instances of unprotected intercourse might result in an embryo anyway. Do they have statistics for that? Otherwise it seems like taking this is more of a panacea with it being effective less often in the case of an actual pregnancy than not. I think for those who rely on barrier methods, there is always a nagging question every time one engages in intercourse that one breathes a sigh of relief at each onset of menses. If the effectiveness rate is but 80% for all women who ingest whether pregnant or not, I suppose I don't see much difference in the alleviation of suspense. Perhaps it only shortens the suspense period? I guess my surprise is that I too expected the effectiveness rate to be quite a bit higher. I will leave it to the statisticians to clear up my doubts.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by patricia

Larry, I repeat. There is NO 100% successful birth control method aside from abstinance. The only other fail safe methods are vascectomy and tubal ligation. The pill is only about 90% effective when you factor in incorrect usage. So, yes, an 80% success rate is better than many other methods many of which are much less than 80% successful.

I'm not sure about the numbers, and I'm no expert. But I've always seen studies quoted that place birth control pill effectiveness in the 98-99% range. There's a big difference between 1 in 100 and 1 in 5. I'm not saying there aren't worse forms of birth control than this. I'm saying anyone willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of getting pregnant either really doesn't care too much about it, or is a dumbf**k. That's all.

[Sergio Zamora]

Would chances of success be increased if you take twice the dosage? I'm not recommending that, ladies, just wondering out loud.

[Jazzzoline]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

Would chances of success be increased if you take twice the dosage? I'm not recommending that, ladies, just wondering out loud.

Actually, what the doctor gave me was 4 normal birth control pills ( was it 4 or 3 I don't really remember), taken over a short period of time (one day if i remember)

[patricia]

Originally Posted by tippy

I had no intention of playing devil's advocate on this issue. I am glad it is available and think it should be. However, I have to wonder whether it is effective at all given that most of the women who take it would not end up being pregnant in the first place. I hope they tested on women who were at least ovulating. My way of thinking is simply that it seems conceivable that only 20% of instances of unprotected intercourse might result in an embryo anyway. Do they have statistics for that? Otherwise it seems like taking this is more of a panacea with it being effective less often in the case of an actual pregnancy than not. I think for those who rely on barrier methods, there is always a nagging question every time one engages in intercourse that one breathes a sigh of relief at each onset of menses. If the effectiveness rate is but 80% for all women who ingest whether pregnant or not, I suppose I don't see much difference in the alleviation of suspense. Perhaps it only shortens the suspense period? I guess my surprise is that I too expected the effectiveness rate to be quite a bit higher. I will leave it to the statisticians to clear up my doubts.

The value of this method is not that it gets rid of unwanted pregnancies, any more than traditional methods do, but prevents a pregnancy from developing. You're right that the woman doesn't know whether she would have become pregnant or not, but neither does a woman who uses traditional methods know whether she would have become pregnant had she not used them. It's not meant to be anyone's primary method of birth control, or an abortion method, such as the previous R[whatever it was] is. It's simply a modification of existing estrogen/progestern formulae that are in the regular birth control pill. That is how they work. They [the traditional pills] work by flushing out the uterus in a artificial menstrual period in predictable cycles and suppressing ovulation.

[patricia]

Originally Posted by Larry Nagel

I'm not sure about the numbers, and I'm no expert. But I've always seen studies quoted that place birth control pill effectiveness in the 98-99% range. There's a big difference between 1 in 100 and 1 in 5. I'm not saying there aren't worse forms of birth control than this. I'm saying anyone willing to take a 1 in 5 chance of getting pregnant either really doesn't care too much about it, or is a dumbf**k. That's all.

No argument here. But the effectiveness rates of other methods are as I said.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by patricia

Larry, I repeat. There is NO 100% successful birth control method aside from abstinance. The only other fail safe methods are vascectomy and tubal ligation. The pill is only about 90% effective when you factor in incorrect usage. So, yes, an 80% success rate is better than many other methods many of which are much less than 80% successful.

But the pill, if used correctly, which is simple enough to do, it's just a matter of remembering to take it at the same time every day, is closer to 97-98% effective last time I looked into such matters. I will note, sadly, that a number of women are not able to use oral contraceptives, myself included. I tried 3 different kinds and all made me exceptionally crazy(er than I am already). Hence, I am relegated to the use something and hope for the best method. God, no wonder we are known to engage in sex less often than we could. It's only full-on fun if you can wipe the potential consequences from your mind.

[Enforcer]

I'm curious what the 80% factors in. Does the 80% include patients who forgot to take this pill? The old statistics on the pill used to talk about "error." That error consisted of complete dumbf**kery on the part of the user. Forgetting to take a pill, taking it on the wrong day or failing to refill an RX. I don't see the point in even tabulating that kind of error. How can I fault the drug for the person not taking it? It would be like including failure rates for vasectomies when the patient cancels his surgery. I understand that failure to take medication is a real world problem, but it does a disservice to the accuracy of the statistics for people who aren't irresponsible morons.

Larry

[Sergio Zamora]

he he. Tippy said 'oral'.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Jazzzoline

Actually, what the doctor gave me was 4 normal birth control pills ( was it 4 or 3 I don't really remember), taken over a short period of time (one day if i remember)

Jazzz, I'd written an almost identical post but then decided not to divulge. But will note that we are remembering the same thing. I thought it was 2 doses in one day (equivalent to 3 or 4 pills). I don't remember side effects, though I would expect that I at least experienced mild nausea, but it couldn't have been too terrible or else I would have remembered. This was from 10 years ago.

[tippy]

Originally Posted by Sergio Zamora

he he. Tippy said 'oral'.

yeah, and I meant it, baby.


And, Larry, you're pissing me off a little bit--even though you might be right about the dumbfuckery--the ungenerous nature of your post does not take into account the potential dangers that ingesting hormones might wreak on a woman's health. Yeah, all us dumbfucks gotta do is take a little pill. No Big Deal. But I do agree with you that bc pills are remarkably effective, and that peace of mind alone is worth the health risks for many many women. I would also note that just a couple weeks ago, a young high school student in New York City DIED from the side effects of her contraceptive patch. She was the unfortunate statistic of those long list of side effects that we commonly laugh at and ignore.

[Jazzzoline]

It makes me wonder: How many women can't take the regular birth control pill.

Many, I think. So Larry, they just stop doing it??

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by tippy

yeah, and I meant it, baby.


And, Larry, you're pissing me off a little bit--even though you might be right about the dumbfuckery--the ungenerous nature of your post does not take into account the potential dangers that ingesting hormones might wreak on a woman's health. Yeah, all us dumbfucks gotta do is take a little pill. No Big Deal. But I do agree with you that bc pills are remarkably effective, and that peace of mind alone is worth the health risks for many many women. I would also note that just a couple weeks ago, a young high school student in New York City DIED from the side effects of her contraceptive patch. She was the unfortunate statistic of those long list of side effects that we commonly laugh at and ignore.

I'm glad you're angry. I'm much more comfortable in that environment.

No, I don't necessarily support the idea of ingesting hormones as birth control. There are all kinds of problems that come along with it. But we're not talking about that, are we? This person has already made the decision, starts to take the pill, then forgets to follow through, then has sex anyway. And I don't see how that's the fault of the drug. I support a woman's right to do whatever she wants to ensure her birth control, whether by drugs, surgery or having a man who has had surgery, etc. But whatever the method, you have to stick with it or expect the results to not turn out the right way. Right?

Larry

[tippy]

Okay, okay...but I think you were overreacting to patricia's misleading statistic. I say misleading only because the pill, I have always been told, has a much greater efficacy than 90%. It's the most effective form of birth control that we have I think. What about the IUD (though I think it is potentially irritating to its environs)?

[HenryMc]

There is a whole debate here about sexuality, promiscuity and birth control. This drug if used correctly can inhibit unwanted pregnancies in the vast majority of cases. It is not in the front line of birth control products and is not designed as such.

Where a lass 'goes too far' or drinks too much and has unprotected sex it may be the answer, or rape cases and the such like.

I do not suspect its where lasses have 'forgotten' the pill one night.

[Enforcer]

Originally Posted by tippy

Okay, okay...but I think you were overreacting to patricia's misleading statistic. I say misleading only because the pill, I have always been told, has a much greater efficacy than 90%. It's the most effective form of birth control that we have I think. What about the IUD (though I think it is potentially irritating to its environs)?

Yeah, but tippy... If I didn't overreact, what fun would I be?

Actually, I did a little quick research and she was correct about the 90% when accounting for "error" being quoted often in research. I would rather see that quote along with the one for women who actually took it as prescribed, which elevates it by magnitudes up to the 99% range. That was really my only gripe, because it paints a misleading picture.

About birth control: Honestly? I don't know what the right choice is. I wouldn't want to try and make it for anyone else. It's a personal decision that men and women have to make. The idea of ingesting hormones sounds really bad to me. I don't know if I'd want to do that, much less ask someone else to do it. It has side effects like crazy, too. I have seen it up close in my personal life, and I asked her to reconsider because I thought it was risky and caused her more problems than it was worth. She stopped, and her life got better in a hurry.

There are no easy answers to it. IUD is another questionable one. Are they safe? I don't know the answer. I don't know the risks. I don't keep up on the stuff anymore, because it's not a personal issue for me in my daily life anymore. But as an ignorant person with an opinion he likes to share without solicitation, I would caution women to not jump on any new medicinal bandwagons prematurely. The one truth I've learned from science in my life is that whatever we think today is likely to change somewhere down the line.

Margarine and cancer, baby.

Larry

[tippy]

>>Yeah, but tippy... If I didn't overreact, what fun would I be?<<

Larry, your posts have me rolling on the floor (and not always by myself) more than 98-99% of the time. I shoot first and ask questions later. I could have said what I wanted to say without drawing you into it personally. But this way I get to engage with Cool People. Do you see how freakin manipulative I am???

[Enforcer]

I love being manipulated. Please do it often.

Pliable like silly putty but with considerably more charm and a better selection of neckties,
Larry