[sugarpile]

How do you think the two are equivalent? Hormone medications can have a profound impact on a person across the spectrum from mental to physical health. Secondly, taking BC wrong may lead to a false sense of security and subsequent unwanted pregnancies. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a, smallish, correlated increase in STDs, as well.

Neither of those are a thing someone buying tylenol has to worry about. Disingenuous or poorly considered to think it can _only_ be about politics imo.

[ericmay]

Let's get big government nanny state out of the way here. People can make their own decisions. It's not like you can't consult with a physician when taking contraceptives over the counter anyway.

Everything you said here you can apply to other behaviors, ranging from alcohol/marijuana consumption, to eating fast food, to skydiving.

OTC here is a result of politics specifically because access is being restricted or in the midst of being restricted. The reason this wasn't OTC was because there just wasn't a need to bother with it. Now there is.

> I wouldn't be surprised if there was a, smallish, correlated increase in STDs, as well.

This is really unsubstantiated and it would be nice if you didn't say things like this in the context of this conversation here unless you're going to provide a legitimate source. Even then if this were true I'm going to guess that an infinitesimal and unsubstantiated risk of higher STD rates is nothing compared to unwanted pregnancies from a public health standpoint.

[Levitz]

>This is really unsubstantiated and it would be nice if you didn't say things like this in the context of this conversation here unless you're going to provide a legitimate source.

Condoms and the pill are the most used contraceptive methods in the US, by far. Given that condoms prevent STDs, it would actually be a surprise if, everything else equal, those who use the pill didn't have slightly more STDs.

[ericmay]

Sure, and being poor is probably linked to higher rates of STDs too. Oh and alcohol use... and... and...

The problem with the unsubstantiated claim (besides the fact) is that it ignores the broad public health picture (what's worse, 5 more people/year get herpes or 5 unwanted babies in trash cans?) and injects, frankly, useless information and FUD into the conversation.

It's done so intentionally to attach negative externalities that are truth-y to a topic when their relevance and impact are quite trivial.

What I mean here is that this may cause an increase (again on the OP to substantiate this claim) of .0001% in general STD contraction, but in a given paragraph the "fact" is given much more weight than it otherwise deserves precisely because the numbers aren't provided - each piece of the claim has equal grammatical weight.

Cognitively, without the numbers (and probably with them even), you associate birth control negative externalities with "INCREASE IN STDS11!!" and now all of a sudden you find that since you are opposed to increases in STD contraction now you are sort of on the fence and maybe opposed to birth control.

"Just use a condom" (until we find some problem with those) and then it becomes "just don't have sex unless you want a baby".

This may seem conspiratorial but these are very specific debate and discussion tactics used by others to slowly chip away at rights and freedoms that we enjoy which is why it's important to call out items like this and require that if someone is going to make a claim they should provide factual evidence supporting that claim.

Until that's done, I'm going to claim that birth control decreases STD rates.

[Levitz]

So you would rather make unsubstantiated claims yourself, taking part in precisely the thing you took a few paragraphs to denounce, because you consider yourself to be right?

[ericmay]

Well I know I’m right about the general topic and requiring sources for the unsubstantiated claims.

It’s confusing that you’d focus on that specific point versus everything else I wrote though. It should be obvious that the point was to show that I can make equally valid unsubstantiated claims, not that I was making one - the claim which would be irrelevant here anyway.

[stubybubs]

"Acetaminophen toxicity is the second most common cause of liver transplantation worldwide and the most common cause of liver transplantation in the US. It is responsible for 56,000 emergency department visits, 2,600 hospitalizations, and 500 deaths per year in the United States."

Emerg docs giving out NAC like candy for acetaminophen overdoses. It would never be approved if released today, but we've got a long history with it being OTC, so I don't see that changing.

[runako]

> Secondly, taking BC wrong may lead to a false sense of security and subsequent unwanted pregnancies.

This is the political angle I mentioned. You're suggesting that easier access to birth control will result in more unwanted pregnancies than limiting access to birth control. It's so silly it doesn't really warrant a response, but I did want to highlight that logic this flimsy typically only serves political positions.

Also...it's not in FDA's remit to regulate the number of pregnancies in the US. This is really reaching.

[tialaramex]

More generously, the unwanted pregnancies can result from assuming your birth control works but actually it doesn't because you didn't read the instructions properly. At the extreme this can be "I didn't realise I need to take the pills every day even when I'm not planning to have sex". A relatively brief consultation can fix that.

In my country abortion access isn't under threat, except in the loose sense that of course there are people who insist it's immoral and would like to ban it and some of them try to intimidate patients. Nevertheless the pill isn't an OTC medication. Emergency contraception (the "morning after pill") is available from a pharmacist but I believe the pill requires a prescription.

My daily pills (my thyroid gland is gradually dying) require a prescription too. I hit "renew" in the app every couple of months, I get two more one month packs, pick them up from a self-service machine a week or so later - rinse, repeat. Seems reasonable.

[ribosometronome]

>Secondly, taking BC wrong ... Neither of those are a thing someone buying tylenol has to worry about.

Taking Tylenol wrong kills you.

[Spivak]

And 90% of women have taken hormone contraceptives at some point in their lives and that's not even counting the people who take hormone treatments for PCOS or menopause.

These medications are safe for everyone. There is noting a doctor does to evaluate whether you're healthy enough to take them. They literally just write the script and explain how to take it. Medications where the doctor visit is a formality should just be OTC with maybe an informed consent paper given to you by the pharmacist.

The opposition is just politically-religiously motivated concern trolling.

[Levitz]

>The opposition is just politically-religiously motivated concern trolling.

Then why do European countries require a prescription too?

[Spivak]

The UK allowed the pill OTC in 2021 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-57384096 which only requires a consultation with the pharmacist.

France still requires a prescription but it's theater since the doctor can't deny you. There's just been little appetite for to reclassify birth control because going to the doctor isn't that much of a burden and most countries have laws against disclosing contraceptive use to parents. But now there's momentum.

[giantg2]

"I wouldn't be surprised if there was a, smallish, correlated increase in STDs, as well."

I would highly doubt it. Contraception is already abundantly avaliable, including in online visits. I could see people switching from Rx to OTC. But I really don't think you could have a big enough increase in non-users to OTC to have any significant data.