The courts again have pushed aside moral and ethical values in the interest of business. Just this month the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to reconsider its decision under the Bush Administration to limit access to emergency contraception. The court stated that the agency allowed politics to interfere with its usual decision making. The court also ordered the FDA to allow 17-year-olds to buy the drug, called Plan B, without a prescription. The Morning-after pill and Plan B are a form of contraception in which a woman will take after having unprotected sex or other contraception failure. Could abstinence not play a huge roll here? The Morning-after pill and Plan B act both to prevent ovulation or fertilization and possibly post-fertilization implantation of a blastocyst (embryo). The Morning-after pill could be considered an abortifacient which is a substance that induces abortion. This is another way to legalize abortion. The court stated that the FDA deviated from its own standard procedures for reviewing over-the-counter products and that they favored politics over science, ideology over women’s health. What about moral values? Could they have not played a part in the FDA’s actions? Barr Pharmaceuticals, who make Plan B, had originally sought over-the-counter access without any age requirements. Wouldn’t this be a drug for adults? How could someone, under the age of 18, make such a huge decision as this? Barr, who was recently purchased by Teva Pharmaceutical, believes that timely access to Plan B is extremely important, as the sooner Plan B is taken the more effective it is. Is there any consideration for the newly developing baby? How will these drugs affect women who take them over a period of time? Will there be any long-term physical or mental effects? The Morning-after pill and Plan B are new drugs to our market. Could they do more harm than good? (Washington/New York-Reuters)(Reporting by Maggie Fox in Washington)
Stacy Allen
Posts
