getting under one's skin

[novapsyche]

I'm afraid of medications advertised on TV that say that women shouldn't even handle it for risk of a "certain birth defect." I can't even hold it in my hand? Why is this being sold? Silly men and their enlarging prostates.

Comments

[helenangel.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure which drug you're talking about, but some in any amount can be very harmful. Propecia, for instance, can't be handled by women who are pregnant or could even get pregnant. So much so that if you want to do research with it and are a woman of childbearing age who does not have a doctor's form stating you are unable to have children, you have to sign a slew of OSHA forms, liability wavers, and wear a face mask & gloves whenever handling it (even in pill form). I'm not kidding. The thing is that even the small amounts of the chemical can pass quickly into the placenta and cause birth defects by either warping the placental environment or blocking nutrient absorption. Some may even change dna structure and cell replication, depending on the drug.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

That's just frightening. If I were living with a man who needed these drugs, I would require that he have his own bathroom and/or medicine cabinet.

[helenangel.livejournal.com]

A friend of mine is a pharmacist and she boggled at the precautions she had to take when filling the prescriptions of some drugs. She has a healthy 2-yr-old, so I do think some exaggeration on the company's part may be done to prevent lawsuits.

[xterminal.livejournal.com]

Why is this being sold?

I'd like to believe it's because the FDA is finally becoming a more rational entity (thalidomide is in widespread use around the globe; I believe we're one of three countries where it's still banned). But it was probably just an oversight.

Just because some particular substance is deadly to one segment of the population doesn't mean it can't be useful to others. If that isn't true, we'll be seeing a ban on Jif soon. And god help the poor lobster.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Yes, I understand that. (I do feel for people with peanut allergies. We put peanuts in everything.) Still, a medication that could affect half the population just by touch? Seems a bit... extreme.

I don't mind seeing the Levitra and Cialis ads, you know. I don't mind that medicine is seen from the perspective of the middle-age Caucasian male. Fine. But what if I come across a pill I can't identify and happen to pick it up? Bang, just like that, kids have defects.

This is something that on the one hand shouldn't need to be advertised on TV, and yet on the other because it is advertised women are told that they need to stay away. Such a Catch-22 there.

I'd like to believe it's because the FDA is finally becoming a more rational entity

You keep on believing that. They may have been rational 100, even 50 or 30 years ago. But why emergency contraception isn't available over the counter even though it's safe, that I don't understand. That FDA. They're for the consumer. Yep.

[aiela.livejournal.com]

I didn't realize any of the "male enhancement drugs" had that warning - the only one I knew of was Propecia, and that's for hairloss.

But I do agree that it's a bit scary.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

No, the male enhancement drugs don't have that caveat. I was just talking about male drugs in general there. Ranting. I don't do that very often.

[xterminal.livejournal.com]

Still, a medication that could affect half the population just by touch?

I am assuming here that the specific med being discussed is Propecia, so if I'm wrong, I'll dig up some other research (or, more likely, untenable claims by the drug's makers). Everything in the commercials, and on the maker's website, leads me to believe that only women who are pregnant at the time they handle the drug are at risk (a la thalidomide), which cuts the at-risk population down quite considerably. Of course, what constitutes an acceptable level of risk varies from person to person...

oh, and since rereading whatI wrote I didn't make it as clear as I could have, obviously this discussion would be far more relevant (and important) if the drug involved were something that, say, treated a certain kind of cancer, or wiped out ebola. I have no use for Propecia and its discontents (as my hairline shows, when I allow it to be seen), but it's good practice for when such a drug does show up, and the FDA yanks it as quickly as they yanked Bextra/Vioxx/any other drug capable of helping my family (fibromyalgia in most of my wife's female family members, arthritis in me).

This is something that on the one hand shouldn't need to be advertised on TV, and yet on the other because it is advertised women are told that they need to stay away. Such a Catch-22 there.

I'm not a fan of prescription drug advertising at all. I'd rather the doctor talked to the guy (and, in a case like this, the guy's female family members, for obvious reasons) about it. It's basic marketing... the ratio of the number of people who might actually have a use for the product to the number of people who will potentially see the ad is way, way too low.

I'd like to believe it's because the FDA is finally becoming a more rational entity

You keep on believing that.

Thus my somewhat sardonic tone. If there is a single government agency as corrupt as the United Way, it's the FDA...

But why emergency contraception isn't available over the counter even though it's safe, that I don't understand.

Continuing my rare and exceptionally odd strain of optimism today (must be this headache), I'd like to think that the reason it's not available has less to do with the FDA than it has to do with morons in high places like Bush and Ashcroft taking the top FDA dogs aside and saying "if you allow this to be put on the market without a prescription-- and heavy counseling--, you're going to experience drastic funding cuts in FY07." But then, I have a tendency to blame most everything on religion, exacerbated for the next who-knows-how-long after my reading Sam Harris' The End of Faith (which I will be reviewing in such a way as to say "every one of you needs to go read this book yesterday").

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

It's a new med, along the lines of Avodart or something like that. It's specifically for an enlarged prostrate.

[xterminal.livejournal.com]

Well, it has more importance than a receding hairline, at least. Of course, doctors may be full of it, as they are on more than one subject, but I've always gotten the distinct impression that enlarged prostate = suicidally higher risk of prostate cancer. Which I'm certainly willing to think could well be an exaggeration a la the sex ed teacher in Mean Girls ("...if you HAVE premarital sex, you WILL die!").

[silversliver.livejournal.com]

Thalidomide is used in the U.S. in treatment of leprosy and cancer. It is kept far far away from women likely to become pregnant, though.

[xterminal.livejournal.com]

Thalidomide is used in the U.S. in treatment of leprosy and cancer.

When did they start using it again? Quite excellent.

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Er

Are you serious?

Were the genders reversed, would you feel the same way? If the treatment for endometriosis required extra care when handled by men, would you feel that it should not be sold?

[chai-tease.livejournal.com]

why not? it is still dangerous to half the population, requires crazy precautions just to FILL the rx and what if your husband or SO accidentally touched it? i know my brother in law takes the medication which she is speaking of for prostate enlargement, and he literally keeps it in a seperate bathroom, in a locked box, just so my sister doesnt *accidentally* touch it. the dr and pharmisist were *that* specific to him. "do not let your wife or any other female touch this. put it in a locked box away from their reach and wash your hands WELL before going near them."

[guttaperk.livejournal.com]

Well, I look at it this way.

We routinely use medications that are dangerous for *anyone* to handle- why should we freak out about medications that are only dangerous for half the population?