dagblog - Comments for "Obama Subsidizes MTV's "16 And Pregnant""

I don't pretend to know the

Michael Maiello — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:42:46 +0000

I don't pretend to know the biochemistry here. Your questions and concerns are totally valid.

But, of course, pregnancy has some major effects too, which might well affect development in adolescents. And, of course, if the alternative is surgical abortion, that has its risks. I guess my take is at this point, the pregnancy is an issue. Risks abound. This does seem to deal with it quickly and at minimal expense and with the greatest degree of flexibility and privacy. It has a lot going for it.

It's a 1.5 mg dose of

Verified Atheist — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:35:54 +0000

In reply to I would say that even a

It's a 1.5 mg dose of levonorgestrel, which is a synthetic progestogen, in many ways similar to estrogen.

Edit to add: some Google searches suggest that hormone treatment for post-menopausal women typically uses doses of 0.75 to 1.25 mg of estrogen or an estrogen-type hormone. However, a 1 mg dose of levonorgestrel might not equate to a 1 mg dose of estrogen. (I Am Not A Doctor.)

I would say that even a

Elusive Trope — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:04:41 +0000

In reply to But isn't the issue here one

I would say that even a fourteen year old or fifteen year is in a significant stage of brain and socio-emotional growth, as well as physiological growth. I don't know squat about this drug, but if it is a strong hormone, there could be serious impact on development for a fourteen or fifteen year old who takes the drug repeatedly.

As far the not being used

Elusive Trope — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:58:51 +0000

In reply to I think there's the

As far the not being used repeatedly issue - if we are talking 14 and 15 years, there is a greater likelihood that some would use it repeatedly. Decision making skills of young adolescents are not the best. There is the issue of using the pill to replace practicing safe sex. Who needs a condom when one just has to pop this pill right afterwards.

What would be ideal is that parents would be able to have open and honest conversations with their daughters about their activities, and if they are being sexually active to get the prescription ahead of time. But it would be naive to think that this is going to happen on a broad scale.

I just started a pharmaceutical regime to deal with some mood issues. While for the moment they seem to be having a positive effect, there is definitely some serious impact on my cognitive state. So maybe I a little hyper-sensitive about throwing some drugs out there for young adolescents to take at a stage when their brains are going through some significant changes and growth.

I think there's the

Verified Atheist — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:33:06 +0000

In reply to But isn't the issue here one

I think there's the political, the medical, and the practical concerns.

The political concern is just what you and Another Trope allude to. Obviously, this is primarily about not wanting teenage girls to be promiscuous.

The medical concern is what Another Trope is alluding to. Plan B uses a significant does of hormones to do its job, and it is quite conceivable that repeated expose to those hormones could disrupt adolescence. I'm sure there are doctors who are legitimately concerned about this.

The practical concerns are several: first, this drug needs to be taken within 72 hours to be effective, and the sooner, the better. Secondly, it's unlikely that this drug would be used repeatedly, although maybe I'm just being naive there. Finally, surely the effects of pregnancy would be worse.

But isn't the issue here one

Michael Maiello — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:14:21 +0000

In reply to While this does seem to be a

But isn't the issue here one of time? The manufacturer says it needs to be taken within 72 hours. By the time some one wakes up and gets to the pharmacy, a good chunk of that time is wasted. You want to add an ER visit and a doctor who might want to call in a parent to all of that?

I'd take Sebelius' concern more seriously if the FDA admitted "we don't know" about 11 year olds. Though... come on, we all know the problem is largely one faced by women a few years older than that.

While this does seem to be a

Elusive Trope — Wed, 07 Dec 2011 20:08:40 +0000

In reply to Obama Subsidizes MTV's "16 And Pregnant"

While this does seem to be a decision motivated by politics, Sebelius statement as to why they overruled the FDA does seem to have some logic to it.

In a separate statement and letter to Hamburg....said she overruled the FDA because she had concluded that data submitted by the company that makes the drug did not “conclusively establish” that it could be used safely by girls of all ages.

“About 10 percent of girls are physically capable of bearing children by 11.1 years of age. It is common knowledge that there are significant cognitive and behavioral differences between older adolescent girls and the youngest girls of reproductive age,” Sebelius said. “If the application were approved, the product would be available, without prescription, for all girls of reproductive age.”

Would twelve and thirteen year old girls taking this hormone be at risk? Does the data indicate one way or the other? I don't know. But if one is going to protest this, this answer needs to be provided. Or maybe a new application that lowers the age to maybe sixteen or fifteen; while the twelve to fourteen year olds need to consult a physician.