RACHEL JOHNSON
Perspectives Assistant
The Food and Drug Admin-istration, more commonly known as the FDA, has numerous responsibilities to uphold and maintain. Among some of these responsibilities are seeing that food is wholesome and nontoxic, cosmetics will not harm people, and medicines and medical devices are safe and effective. However, the FDA’s job does not include determining which products are allowed to be sold solely based on moral reasons.
Unfortunately, though, this is the situation that has arisen in the case of the popular contraceptive, Plan B. The Morning After Pill, as it’s known, is used by women to prevent pregnancy after having unprotected sex. Conflicts have been surfacing for the past two years because the FDA wishes to allow the sale of the drug only by prescription.FDA officials argue that over-the-counter sale of the drug encourages young teenagers to use it without the guidance of a practicing physician.
Although the FDA presents a legitimate concern in its views, its basis for doing so is not in accordance with the purpose of the organization. The purpose of the establishment is merely to test foods, drugs and other substances to determine if they are safe for public consumption. Creating ethical boundaries for society is not part of its job.
The FDA has not stated that it has taken these actions based on morality, but its arguments imply otherwise. What makes the case interesting is that the FDA’s scientists call the pills extremely safe, encouraging an estimated 2.4 million American women to use the product. In December of 2003, FDA scientists enthusiastically backed the over-the-counter sale of Plan B. Why, then, would they want to retract their allowance of the sale of the drug without a prescription? Without evidence showing that the drug is harmful, there isn’t a logical answer.
It seems, then, that their basis for wanting to partially prohibit the sale of the contraceptive lies in moral and ethical concepts. This new stand on the issue has dangerous implications for women everywhere. Restricting the drug’s sale to a prescription basis is, in a way, restricting their freedom of choice. If the drug is available to everyone, women have more freedom to make decisions regarding their sexual life and pregnancy. If women must obtain a prescription to purchase the product, their options become limited.
Additionally, women’s rights to privacy become restricted. While physicians are sworn to confidentiality with patients, many women do not want to relinquish information regarding their sexual lives to anyone, even a licensed doctor. Having to go to a doctor to get a prescription for Plan B could inhibit this right.
Responses to the issue have been overwhelming. Most significant of all is the resignation of Susan Wood, director of FDA’s Office of Women’s Health, in an attempt to protest the agency’s refusal to permit over-the-counter sales of Plan B.
“I can no longer serve as staff when scientific and clinical evidence, fully evaluated and recommended for approval by the professional staff here, has been overruled,” Wood wrote in an e-mail, released by contraceptive advocates, to colleagues at the agency. As reported by cnn.com, her decision reflects her beliefs that products such as Plan B serve to improve women’s health care, while creating limitations would greatly worsen that goal.
Though the reasons for the FDA’s urge to withdraw Plan B from the public market have not been specified as a moral issue, the organization is clearly overstepping its bounds and infringing upon women’s rights. The FDA’s job is only to determine the safety of products.
09-08-2005