suzeonline

Few drugs would ever have been subjected to such exhaustive study and for such huge populations and for such long periods of time as the female contraceptive pill.

You are catastrophysing from the small number of women such as habitual smokers for whom there could be a higher risk of an event they are already disposed to through their smoking. Filter them off through basic screening and examination and thereafter healthy young women should not be obliged to obtain a prescription for the Pill, any worries can be picked up through normal visits and annual health checks.

Save the money and put it into another area of health delivery.

I cannot see any reason why you would object to that sensible approach especially in the case of developing countries. You really need to sit down and do a comparison of risks, but not over a ciggie and coffee.

Dear Cornflower, I don't smoke or drink coffee, and I don't need to sit down and work anything out about contraceptive use or supply because, as you yourself have already stated, there have already been exhaustive tests on all these problems.

I am not so naive as to believe that drug companies wouldn't want to do everything they can to supply contraceptive pills to supermarkets and other suppliers without the need for scripts.

Naturally, the powerful Pharmacist groups would not want this to happen or people could get these drugs as easily and cheaply as they now do for some analgesics.

In actual fact, I believe that specially trained nurse practitioners will soon be able to write out scripts for most contraceptive medications as well as some other medications.

They will however still be required to attend to blood pressure tests and have in depth discussions with patients before supplying these drugs.
Smoking is not the only threat to women taking these pills.

I am still a staunch advocate for suitable women being able to easily access these medications, especially in third world countries and some Catholic or Muslim countries, where women continue to be denied the right to access them.

suzeonline

We are not different in the end goal, that the sexual revolution is extended to all women, not just the fortunate in developed countries.

Unnecessary restrictions on access to the Pill remain not because of risks nor litigation concerns of pharmaceutical companies, it is linked more with governments being unwilling to relinquish control of reproduction, of women's bodies, to women.

It is about the politics of population growth and the control of people. At home Abbott provided an example with RU-486, make it prescription only he said, after other blocks had failed. Of course the doctors who make good money out of their prescription pads don't mind, they would have prescriptions for Eno antacid if they could.

pynchme,

I just prefer the direct approach rather than the exhibited female style on OLO of sly aspersions that can be cowardly backed out on due to a thin veneer of ambiguity, and patronising 'I'm just trying to help you with your emotional problems antiseptic' crap . It's just not honest.

Sure people can be nice and non-submissive, but not when they use arguments like accusing anyone who disagrees with any woman of sexism and claiming you're being silenced when people disagree with you. It's classic passive aggressive behaviour. Even examinator's one foot in one foot out 'naughty corner' crap fits the bill.

Anyway, I thought you'd be right on board with the 'woman socialised to be nice' feminist doctrine.

My point is that with this 'nice' image many women cling to, if you want to give it up by using some of these disingenuous debating tactics observed by the chicks on OLO (Or even blossom like FOxy has lately), you also must give up the 'nice' moral high ground.

You chicks constantly bang on about 'abusive tirades' from anti and co with their more direct style, but then cling to this high horse 'thoughtful and clever' passive aggressive style of the female posters.

You mention CJ as a non-abusive poster, but I see plenty of abuse and snarly comments from him to your nemesis on OLO. Looks like it's whether people agree with you or not that is the deciding factor on whether people are 'abusive'. Now if you mentioned r0bert instead of CJ, your argument would have more weight. But r0bert doesn't agree with you no matter how needy he is for your affirmation.

H

So what are you actually saying?

That the sexual revolution was positive for women or not?

Not that I am suggesting that you are using this forum for passive-aggressive denigration of women, far from it.

;-O

Pynchme

Thanks for the compliments. I kind of like my new moniker as well.

Hope that was straightforward enough for the no nonsense blokes, in case you're not sure, I was thanking Pynchme for her welcome back to OLO.

As for Cornflower's knowledge of the contraceptive pill; wouldn't fill a thimble. Glad she is not a doctor.

Hope that was clear too.

Hmmmmmm, sarcasm, I can see why Anti' likes it sooooo much.

Houellie, don't forget according to the B&T's; that more women are violent than men, so don't be lulled into a false sense of security that women are all "nice" next time you are walking alone at night and a gang of women are walking towards you. Somehow, as I write this, I am thinking I am channelling a fantasy of H's.

Cheers m'dears