If the Abortion Pill: Why Not Most Drugs?

I will be writing soon on this topic, but from a different perspective.

iWe (View Post):

Whatever your views on abortion and the abortion pill, this specific drug comes with some real health risks. If those risks can be undertaken by a patient without medical supervision, then can we not draw a line at risks of that magnitude, and argue that ALL drugs that are that dangerous (or less) should be available without a prescription?

Almost all effective drugs come with real risks. If patients actually read the two or three pages of "full-disclosure" information that come with all of them, we'd probably never take anything. (I say this as a person recovering from near-pneumonia, and the recent recipient of prescriptions for four drugs I'd have taken even if "immediate death" were a possible outcome of any of them (Oh, wait. Anaphylactic shock. Apparently it was a possible outcome of at least one of them. The other possible outcomes aren't so pleasant either), if only they'd have stopped the wheezing, the coughing, the breathlessness, the flashing lights in my field of vision, the headaches, and the pain. Thankfully, they did stop all those things, apparently without killing me, and I seem to be (slowly) on the mend.)

It's unfortunate that--over the past few years--the regular FDA warnings about widely-prescribed drugs haven't been considered important when it comes to drugs approved by those determined to impose sanctions on the little people. And so, even though we're regularly subjected to fast-moving and detailed advertisement information about how drugs for eczema, pneumonia, Peyronie's Disease, ED, flu, psoriasis, acne, and Lord knows what else can harm us, any information on the malign effects of the Covid vaccine seems to skate and is never mentioned. I'll go on the record here as someone who's in favor of transparency all round.

WRT the abortion pill, I might agree with your general principle that "relatively" safe medicines should be available without a prescription. But I do not find in favor of a woman who takes that decision, absent really extraordinary circumstances which--I do not believe--is regularly the case.

Also, I think there's been a general trend towards allowing OTC access to medicines that were--once--only available with a prescription. My own experience, that with something once known as "Flonase" is one of them. "Allegra" (fexofenadine) is another. There are many more. This isn't really a new thing.

The ethical argument, when abortion is part of the equation, is another thing altogether.

She (View Comment):

Also, I think there’s been a general trend towards allowing OTC access to medicines that were–once–only available with a prescription. My own experience, that with something once known as “Flonase” is one of them. “Allegra” (fexofenadine) is another. There are many more. This isn’t really a new thing.

But a legal ruling on the threshold is what interests me. I would welcome clarity as to which drugs need a scrip, based on a quantifiable risk/benefit. Because if that happened, then a whole range of other options would open up that are currently locked down by the FDA - including not just medicines, but also stuff like toothpaste and sunscreens. And perhaps even medical devices like self-diagnosis solutions that the FDA hates.

One out of 25 patients that take the abortion pill have to get emergency treatment. That seems pretty high to me and I don't see why you would sell it over-the-counter.

iWe (View Post):

P.S. I would include addictive drugs as remaining under the thumb of a prescriber – they are clearly more dangerous than the abortion drug is to the pregnant woman.

I was on Demerol for 24 hours and I thought I was the Dalai Lama. Good God that stuff is dangerous. Supposedly that's one of the lower opioids in terms of "fun".