Accutane is a godsend for anyone who has cystic acne, a horribly disfiguring skin problem that causes social as well as health problems for young people who suffer from it. Unfortunately, it also causes pretty awful birth defects in children whose mothers took it while pregnant. The ideal use of the drug is for 4 months at relatively high doses, but some doctors prescribe it for longer periods at lower strengths--not sure why. The drug itself is packaged interestingly--not just in a bubble pack, but a package that is almost impossible to open, and to do so, you have to break a seal that has a little picture of a pregnant belly with a big red cross through it.
A new program by the manufacturer called, iPledge, restricts prescribing for the drug to those who promise to use birth control, make doctors do pregnancy tests, and in general increase surveillance on patients using the drug so that they do not get pregnant while on it. Some men have been asked to take a pregnancy test and there are many complaints about how cumbersome the process is.
And with all this attention, and money, "Nothing has worked," according to a New York Times article Feb. 11th."The federal government has undertaken more than 40 efforts over the last 23 years to prevent women from becoming pregnant while taking Accutane." About 170,000 people take accutane, half of them women. I appreciate this admission that even when you pay attention, when the consequences are horrible, when you put the weight and money of the government and a pharmaceutical company behind your efforts, it is STILL very difficult to NOT get pregnant!!!
It is very hard, because getting pregnant is as natural for humans as it is for rabbits and cats and all of God's creatures. You have to work really hard not to get pregnant, and no one makes that easy--not the drug companies that keep even generic birth control very pricey. Not the Planned Parenthoods who cut people off their pill if they miss an appointment. Not the schools, churches, and parents who fail to tell kids how to protect themselves. Not the legislatures who don't fund sex education and family planning, but who do fund abstinence only education which not only don't teach the facts kids need to know, but actually MISLEAD kids with messages like "condoms are not effective."
The one group that I know that consistently tries to push birth control, educate women on health, and contraception, and pregnancy are ABORTION CLINICS!! And we might have some more suggestions for the makers of Accutane: Talk about abortion in your literature. Don't just say, "Don't get pregnant on this medication." which is pretty useless advice. Say: "You must use birth control while you are on this medication if you might possibly be sexually active, either voluntarily or not, during the time you are on the medication. If you become pregnant while taking Accutane, you must get an abortion due to the severe side effects associated with the drug. If that is not acceptable to you, DO NOT TAKE THIS MEDICATION." That's what we would call informed consent, and we would probably throw in a description of the problems of these deformed babies.
Unfortunately, the intersection of politics and medicine precludes such honest discussion of risk. So, what we have is expensive posturing that does no good. Bad politics and bad medicine yielding heartache for real people.
--bon
Maybe I was blessed with a really good Planned Parenthood local to me, but not only did they never cut me off of my pills, they'd give them to me no matter what. If I hadn't been there in a year and called and said I needed to pick up pills, they'd say "Come on by." They'd have them for me at the desk. They worked with me to make them affordable. Once when I needed emergency contraception they stayed after closing time to make sure I got it, on a Friday night. I don't think they are perfect (what is?), but Planned Parenthood deserves some props in my mind.
Posted by: JoAnna | Wednesday, July 05, 2006 at 08:32 PM
Have any of you ever heard of the right to autonomy? Apparently not. It goes to abortion, to that Accutane medication. The whole process is so simple. You are able to make your own dicisions and choices. You can choose not to get pregnant. You can choose not to wear a condom. LIkewise, you can choose to wear one. Do not put the blame on schools, doctors, and abortion clinics. It makes perfect sense for abortion clinics to promote safe sex. It prevents women from coming back for abortions. Some women I have met have had up to 5 abortions! I don't agree with it as a method of birthcontrol... but if the circumstances are right. Do you know the quality of life a neonate with extreme birth defects will have and the costs? Doctors and nurses and clinics are a wealth of information if people would follow their advice. And, as I say people are autonomic and will make their own decisions. As we are all of a sound state of mind.
Posted by: Manders | Monday, June 26, 2006 at 08:37 AM
I misspelled ridiculous. Sorry.
Posted by: GangGrene | Thursday, March 16, 2006 at 09:04 PM
I haven't managed to read all of the comments, got a bit frazzled about half way through, but I think I get where everyone is coming from here. I have a question for the pro-lifers. What do you think about those eggs that get flushed out monthly by periods? Aren't we murdering them by 'consciously' deciding not to get pregnant with each one of them and give them a chance to fertilize with the sperm and develop into life? What about the thousands and thousands of sperm men get rid of every day? Are they not 'murdering' them, denying them the potential to become life? There is a point, I fear, where the miniscule details of this argument become rediculous. You may believe that life begins at 'conception'. What I want to know is, why at this point? Is it because the mingling of chromosomes makes this cluster of (approx) 4 cells a 'whole' human being suddenly? I agree, it has the 'potential' to develop into a human being, with a fully functioning brain, SOME weeks along the pregnancy (I myself was a premature baby, 32 weeks). But at these very early stages, its just a collection of tissue matter. You cannot talk about 'murdering' the potential of an embryo to become a human being without thinking about murdering the potential of an egg or a sperm to fuse and become a human being. In my humble opinion. You cannot take a stance at one level if you are unable to hold your argument at another level. And I would not believe for one moment that all pro-lifers believe that EVERY sperm and egg should be fertilized and brought to term. Its a matter of stepping back and getting some perspective people. I'd be glad to hear opinions on this. Peace out.
Posted by: GangGrene | Thursday, March 16, 2006 at 09:03 PM
I was on accutane about 7 years ago, and I remember that I not only had to go on birth control, but I had to sign something about getting an abortion if I got pregnant, AND, every pill I took was in a blister pack with both foil and cardboard, where the cardboard had a drawing of a pregnant woman with a red line through it. Was that just my doctor? I thought it was the standard of care for accutane.
Posted by: cara | Thursday, March 09, 2006 at 08:00 PM
Anyone who is cold-hearted enough to question a woman's most personal and important decision she will ever make is a coward and an abuser.
I don't feel that there is a "principled, moral stance" for someone who wants to control a woman's reproductive choices. At all. These people have the worst intentions. They want to hurt, blame, demean good women.
Notice how the embryos they insist on "defending" are always in a woman's uterus. They don't go after fertility clinics or other labs that create human embryos and sometimes destroy them with the same zeal.
Is a frozen embryo in a lab any less of a human being than one in a uterus? Why? Because it isn't "on its way" to being born? Because in order for it to become a baby it first has to go through some steps like being implanted in the womb of a woman who wants to be a mother.
Well guess what! An embryo in a woman's womb isn't guaranteed to be born either, not if the woman does not wish to do the work of developing it. It is not in line for birth automatically.
To the anti-choicers, a woman's will is a negligible thing. Something not worth taking into consideration. But to the embryo it holds the possibility of a future. It is not like a soldier, who would live anyway if you don't kill him. Creating a baby is a full-time job, that completely engulfs the life of the woman who actively participates.
Why don't the harrassing anti-woman anti-choicers just support a law against sex, that would make more sense.
Posted by: Diana S | Wednesday, March 08, 2006 at 08:11 AM
I agree with Bon's statement that the warning messages need to be more graphic and provide more information. Although "you MUST get an abortion" is a bit heavy-handed. (Not to mention a sentiment that should be just as illegal as saying you must NOT have an abortion)
I'd go for a description of the resulting deformations and a strong message about aborting any pregnancies discovered while taking the medication. The mere inclusion of "The resulting deformities are of such a severe nature that we recommend you abort any pregnancies that occur while on this medication" just slams the message home. "Discuss two forms of birth control with your doctor for concurrent use. Make sure that they are compatible, and always use both forms at all times. Also realize that there is always a chance that birth control will fail, and you are strongly advised to abstain from sexual intercourse while taking this medication".
By having many and graphic warning messages that delinate the consequences and that provide the woman with all of the options related to pregnancy and the drug, it makes it a bit more obvious that the "birth defects" that are being discussed are not a simple extra finger or cleft palate that can be repaired with a little bit of surgery, but serious, grotesque, and painful life-long deformations and disabilities.
An IUI or injectable-form of birth control may also be a good thing to recommend for any woman who is taking accutane. Something that the doctor retains some amount of control over, and that has a lower rate of user-failure than the pill and barrier methods.
Posted by: moonbatty | Sunday, March 05, 2006 at 09:04 AM
The article I read about the Netherlands described an infant girl with skin cancer and open sores all over her body. She could not eat or be touched without causing her excruciating pain. Morphine didn`t help -- her face was even clenched in her sleep. The only time her parents ever saw her face relax was after she was given the extra morphine... which also stopped her heart.
Okay, cases like that are extremely rare, thank god. I think we can agree on not killing healthy born children, if not healthy unborn embryos. But you think killing a fertilized egg or an embryo is exactly the same as killing a baby in a cradle, whereas I think the woman`s body surrouding and supporting the embryo makes a crucial situational difference.
Would you ban birth control pills, because women can stockpile them and attempt to use them as abortificients?
Posted by: L. | Saturday, March 04, 2006 at 09:01 AM
By the way, most prolifers think abortion is murder (hence they are pro-life). You say that I imply you are a murderer by saying I think abortion is murder. Have I just used the word murder too much? Besides this entry to reply to you, I have used it TWICE (and murderer, once to ask you when I had used that term before) Because I don't see why you'd say I've called you a murderer so much more than anyone else when I've never directly (even even indirectly) called you anything.
Actually, if you look back, I referred to abortion as murder only twice, one of those times to answer your question about neligent homicide vs. murder. If you'll notice, you, Nina and the other prochoice voices have used the phrase murder many, many more times than I have. From one count, you've used it 6 times, and Nina 3 times.
You also used the phrase murder first, and I concurred.
So you see, it's nothing personal.
Posted by: Christine | Friday, March 03, 2006 at 12:46 PM
All of them.
Wow, I guess we do disagree on killing born people. Pain control is available in abundance. When in doubt, drug them. If they are terminal, they'll die anyway. I don't get the rush. Control the pain and let them die naturally.
I don't see mercy killing as merciful at all.
Posted by: Christine | Friday, March 03, 2006 at 10:43 AM
Chris, you say abortion is always murder. I say I would have one under certain circumstances. Therefore... see? That`s what I mean.
I would guess we would also have some difference of opinions on the killing of born children, too. Have you read about infant ethanasia in the Netherlands? It is very disturbing, but if I was the mother of an infant with an indisputably terminal condition, in terrible pain that medical science couldn`t relieve, I can`t say for sure that I wouldn`t opt for a fatal morphine injection.
Since you equate "abortificient" contraception with murder weapons, do you favor banning their use? If so, which ones?
Posted by: L. | Friday, March 03, 2006 at 10:15 AM
Laura-
I didn't say what you said that I said- at all. But I'm not going to point that out line by line.
I will say that women never ask to be raped. They have a right to dress as the want and act as they please without someone violating them. If they said NO, it's rape. Period.
Nina supports legal abortion for grown women regardless of circumstance, not only in cases of rape and incest. She just chose to argue the rape circumstance because it was the most convienent for her, but it says nothing about the bulk of her ideology. That's like having a conversation about how to make a birthday cake, how to bake it, etc and someone talking incessantly about one gum drop on the top. It's not disregarding the pain raped women feel at all. And the "on topic" thing was merely about Nina's initial tantrum about staying on topic. I asked her to follow her own advice. Apparantly her standards apply to everyone but herself.
I do not disreguard the plight of raped women. I do however disregard Nina's gratuitous filthy language and immaturity.
Posted by: Chris | Friday, March 03, 2006 at 08:45 AM
L.-
When have I ever called you a murderer? You asked why abortion is murder and not negligent manslaughter...etc. I have never called you a name.
Yes, the newly concieved humans that die from "contraception" count also...but that wasn't the topic. There is no distinction. Human beings are human beings regardless of their stage of development: embryo, fetus, newborn, toddler, child, adolsecent, young adult, adult, older adult, elderly...All are human beings. You certainly wouldn't agree to kill anyone past the first 2, but killing those are fine to you.
As for common ground, we agree on not killing born people. Does that make you feel better?
Posted by: Chris(tine) | Friday, March 03, 2006 at 08:31 AM
Christine, I have to agree with Nina. You came here looking to start an argument. You asked her her position, she gave it, and you sneered at her and condescended to her in response, and now that she's rightfully annoyed by your infantile behavior, you're continuing to attack her personally.
She holds a position shared by many Americans, probably even the majority of Americans. Most Americans agree that there should be more restrictions placed on the availability of abortion but want exceptions made in rape/incest cases.
You asked her her position, she gave it, and you told her she was "off-topic" because you don't count rape situations as part of the debate.
Sounds to me like you're the one looking for a fight, not Nina.
It's easy to get confused about names here, especially when there's already been some very sad deception on this thread.
Christina seems to be a more pleasant person, although I disagree with her analogy, just as I disagree with your refusal to acknowledge rape/incest cases as part of a legitimate position on abortion.
To continue with the military analogy, the resulting pregnancy of a rape is more analagous to a soldier sent in by an invading government. A woman who has been raped has had her body invaded. Removing the resulting pregnancy is the same as killing a soldier in an invading army. He may be innocent, he may be a good person, but it is our right as human beings to defend ourselves against invasion. The same rationale applies to personal self-defense. If an intruder breaks into my house, I can rightfully shoot him to protect myself.
The rapist makes the decision to invade, and he leaves an intruder - he leaves something in the woman's body against her will. She removes it. This is her right. You can't allow men to make women pregnant against their will and then refuse them the right to remove that pregnancy.
It's unfortunate that a human life ends in the process of removal of the pregnancy, but it is my belief that God will take care of that soul.
I personally find it quite frightening that there are those who would call a woman who has been raped and finds herself pregnant and chooses to abort "selfish". She didn't ask to be raped. That act was violently forced upon her person. The only selfishness involved in this situation is on the part of the rapist.
Please also remember - it is the religious right who has usurped the abortion debate. It is also the religious right who perpetuates the concept that women "ask for it" when they are raped, either by their dress or their actions.
The same people who would deny a woman the right to remove a violently and criminally forced pregnancy are also the same people who create an environment in which rape is considered a man's right.
Clean up your own house. As small as the percentage point is when you calculate the number of pregnancies resulting from rape (in this country - the numbers are greater elsewhere, but this debate has also become quite American-centric, too), that percentage point still represents thousands of victimized women. "Real" women, as Nina has put it.
They are not to be discounted or brushed aside.
Posted by: Laura D. | Friday, March 03, 2006 at 07:38 AM
Chris, how is abortion any different from the many fertilized eggs that likely died against he coils of my IUD?
And why do you make NO DISTINCTION between a born baby, and an unborn embryo? It is as if the woman surrouding it simply does not count for you.
The reason I keep pounding comment threads on blogs like this one is A) I like to see how other people think and why they think that way, especially people I disagree with, and B) if I keep at it long enough, I can usually find some common ground with even committed pro-lifers. Chris, you might be a first -- I`ve never had anyone so persistently call me a murderer before.
Posted by: L. | Friday, March 03, 2006 at 07:12 AM
Nina says she'll go away, but she never really does. Don't hold your breath.
This is Christine. I'm going my Chris now as to avoid confusion. I would think the 'e' versus the 'a' would be enough to distinguish us, but evidently not.
L. The goal is to end a pregnancy, the only way doing by killing the child. Suppose your goal is to rob a 7-Eleven. The only way to get the money (the goal) is the kill the clerk and so you do. Is the clerk any less dead? Just because you would have opted for not killing him if you could still get the money doesn't change the fact that he's dead and you killed him. Now, killing him wasn't the goal, getting the money was but you realized killing the clerk was the only way to get your money and you were fine with that. You realize that killing your child is the only way to end the pregnancy and you're fine with that. So how is that not murder?
I'm still caught up on how you talk about your child "not getting to be born." You put that like, "the child won't get to go to the movies." It's not that you're depriving the child of a single event. You're killing the child. The child won't get to do anything. Why not call it what it is? It's not just that the child won't get to be born, he won't get to live. Do the euphemisms make you feel better?
Posted by: Chris | Friday, March 03, 2006 at 06:59 AM
Christina, sterilization for the intent of birth control is a sin, and doing it pretending you can confess it later and 'get it out of the way' while congratulating yourself on the fact that you are still reapin the benefits of that sin only compounds the sin and probably falls into the category of mortal sin. For you to encourage L. to do this is sinful on your part.
Not that I'm Catholic anymore or believe any of that hogwash, but I do find it pretty amusing that the people who claim they're Catholic are always looking for technicalities they can use to get around the sin thing while still committing it.
A woman who aborts after she's been raped is removing an intruder from her body. A woman who aborts after she's been raped is preserving her freedom and her health and well-being.
A woman who insists another woman who has been made pregnant against her will must carry that child is as bad as the rapist himself. It's just a continuation of the original rape.
The goal of the mission, as you so callously put it, is for her to end the trauma that has been forced upon her against her will.
People who insist women must carry the children of their rapists are heartless, soulless animals. Period.
Like I said, I'm not budging on this issue and the more people like you and your alter ego and your sick, crazy, crackwhore protege go on and on with your selfish, egotistical, uncaring bullshit, the more I move over to a hard pro-abortion stance.
I'd rather open an abortion clinic on every corner in America and have the services offered for free than see rape victims who've become impregnated through an act of violence be denied the option to abort.
Don't dare tell me you're prolife and then tell me that rape victims who become pregnant are "irrelevant" because their numbers don't stack up high enough to suit your agenda. Do not dare to tell me you care about other people when your "caring" depends on a mathematical figure.
Now I really am done here. The prolifers are making me sick. You just don't give a flying fuck about real women in real situations. It's all just a word game to you. Real human beings don't count in your book. They're messy and complicated and they have very real dilemmas that require real caring and real compassion to solve, not just words on some stupid blog somewhere.
Posted by: ~Nina | Friday, March 03, 2006 at 03:43 AM
Wow. Interesting discussion. L., know that my personal opinions are not completely formed. If I have to preach officially you know what I might say (well, maybe not, since I would try to be compassionate).
Posted by: jw | Friday, March 03, 2006 at 12:30 AM
Christina, I believe it WAS timing that made me love my children. If my one unwanted pregnancy had resulted in a birth, I believe I would have had a very hard time loving that child. Of course, I will never know, but I base this on how long it took me to develop any feelings for the planned child that came after.
Sorry about your brother. As I said, I don`t question that some people, in some situations -- and probably some that involve abortions -- do face survivors` guilt.
Is the main goal of procuring an abortion to maliciously kill an embryo, or is the goal to end a pregnancy? Can it ever be "manslaughter," or "negligent homicide," or is it always "murder?"
Posted by: L. | Thursday, March 02, 2006 at 08:12 PM
Christine, since I want to set an example for my children that abortion is an acceptable alternative, you better believe that if I ever have one, they will know about it.
L, I get to live with the survivor guilt from a freak accident that killed my brother. It's a whole lot of no fun. Imagine getting to know that it was purely the timing of your conception that made your mother love you, and not just that you're her child?
Posted by: Christina | Thursday, March 02, 2006 at 07:21 PM
~Nina, a woman who aborts is deliberately killing a noncombattant, which is by definition a war crime and therefore doesn't fit into any "just war" theory. The death of the fetus is not "collateral damage." It's the goal of the misson. Abortion is deliberately killing somebody who is helpless, unarmed, and in need of care. In fact, it's targeting somebody specifically because the person is helpless and in need of care. (And I bet you'd have a hard time getting doctors to go in after fetuses who could fight back with lethal force!)
A woman who aborts because of rape is killing an innocent bystander. Mafiosi may kill family members of people who've tread on them, but that's not a behavior I think society at large should emulate.
Posted by: Christina | Thursday, March 02, 2006 at 07:16 PM
L., abortion isn't an option for a devout Catholic. Nor is any form of artificial birth control. So how is it relevant? Might was well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb, if you're already contracepting with abortion as a backup, that's continued sin with a planned future sin. One sterilization and the sin's out of the way!
Posted by: Christina | Thursday, March 02, 2006 at 07:13 PM
Christina is different from Christine -- two different people.
Christina is pro-life, but also wages a campaign to show that some women are victims of legal abortion (which is true -- but I think medical malpractice is the culprit, not the laws).
Christine is the one who thinks that all people think alike, and that my children will have "survivors` guilt" if I tell them I will not be having any more babies.
Funny, I know lots of people whose mothers had abortions (it was very common in post-war Japan) and not a single one seems to have this "survivors` guilt" of which you speak. I`m not saying no one has ever had it -- I wouldn`t be surprised if some people, somewhere, did -- but I don`t think you can accurately predict that the children of pro-abortion mothers are going to grow up with complexes.
Posted by: L. | Thursday, March 02, 2006 at 04:23 PM
Buaaahhahahahahahaha....
Man, you are one sore loser...
I already said I wasn't going to argue this with you. I'm not "fighting" with you. That's you. That's what you came here to do, just like I said.
I'm merely pointing out what a moronic little hypocrite you are.
Boy, the prolifers are doing a spectacular job here - Teri the crackwhore and Christina/Christine the schizophrenic paranoid.
Hehehe
Ah, well...I'll take my infantile self off to where these issues are being dicussed on a much higher level...
Posted by: ~Nina | Thursday, March 02, 2006 at 03:59 PM
Nina,
You are infantile and I am not going to fight with you. Sorry. I know you desperately want me to. I'm through speaking to you, regardless of what you say or think.
L,
That's what you want them to think, but actions speak louder than words. What they'll really think is that they were lucky to have been born before you decided that they weren't worth pregnancy and childbirth. They'll think that they weren't worth pregnancy and childbirth because their brother or sister wasn't. They'll wonder if what they had was a little brother or a little sister. They'll have survivors' guilt, thinking that their little sibling was killed because you expended all the energy and pain to birth them and had nothing left for the last child. They'll think, "What if she stops wanting us? What then?"
I hope they don't, but some of the above will inevitably go through their heads. Ask kids of aborted siblings.
Prevention? Didn't you prevent? If you abort it's because prevention failed. So you're not teaching any lesson there.
Posted by: Christine | Thursday, March 02, 2006 at 03:47 PM