Why Care About Plan B?
August 24, 2006
Earlier today, the FDA approved an application to allow women 18 and over to purchase, without a prescription, the emergency contraceptive Plan B. As described by an AP report,
“[Plan B] pills are a concentrated dose of the same drug found in many regular birth-control pills. When a woman takes the pills within 72 hours of unprotected sex, she can lower the risk of pregnancy by up to 89 percent. If she already is pregnant, the pills have no effect.”
Let me get this straight. Plan B is nothing more than a high dose of a commonly-used birth control pill. And if a woman is already pregnant, taking Plan B will have no effect. Why has the religious right been fussing about this? Where is the moral crisis?
The seller of Plan B, Barr Pharmaceuticals, has published some information that might shed some light on the controversy. The Plan B website conspicuously declares, like the mainstream media, that the drug “will not work if you are already pregnant.” Notice that they use the word “pregnant,” a condition which, medically speaking, is not present until a fertilized egg implants in the uterus. That raises the question of whether Plan B has any effect on a fertilized egg that has not yet implanted.
The Prescribing Information for Plan B says, in part:
Thus, if Plan B fails to prevent ovulation and fertilization, it “may inhibit implantation” – that is, prevent a pregnancy, resulting in the destruction of the fertilized egg. Given these facts, I have a difficult time understanding how one could argue that Plan B avoids the serious moral questions presented by abortion.“Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium).” (Emphasis mine.)
And there’s more. The Important Safety Information intended for physicians discloses that Plan B “is contraindicated in women with known or suspected pregnancy . . . .” As I understand it, this information counsels against prescribing Plan B to a woman who is “suspected” to be pregnant. My first question is, why? My second question is, does this not describe the entire target market for Plan B?
Comments
Who is Z.
Oh.
RamZ
cool
GREAT article. I disagree. Hope to have a response soon.
Emeril
Posted by: Mike | August 25, 2006 12:15 AM
Who is Emeril?
Posted by: zwilson | August 25, 2006 06:04 AM
Emeril = M.R.Hill
Your moral opposition infers that all fertilized eggs are worthy and viable humans. In the course of routine, even marital sex, many fertilized eggs pass unpurterbed through the womb without implantation. This can be due to a defect in the womb, or intense physical activity, or even "bad luck". My loaded question: is intense exercise the moral equivalent of plan B if undertaken with the intention of avoiding implantation?
(don't have time for the research... let's ASSUME that there is such an activity that even minutely affects the probability of implantation.
Emeril
Posted by: Mike | August 28, 2006 08:58 PM
Emeril,
Yes, I believe that a person's state of mind is relevant to their culpability. If I were to engage in certain conduct with the intention of decreasing the likelihood of implantation, I would be morally culpable for endangering the safety and health of my neighbor (the fertilized egg).
Would engaging in that hypothetical conduct be morally equivalent to ingesting Plan B? I'm not sure I know how to measure equivalence here. But I can say that I don't believe either road is a morally safe one to travel.
Posted by: zwilson | August 28, 2006 09:35 PM