[ OUR OPINION ]
FDA choice is clear:
OK morning-after pillPOLITICAL calculations should not interfere with the Food and Drug Administration's approval of nonprescription sales of an emergency contraceptive that could prevent as many as 1.5 million unintended pregnancies a year in the United States. Despite his ties to the Bush administration, FDA commissioner Mark McClellan should not succumb to pressure from conservative and anti-abortion camps and follow the recommendation of the agency's two advisory committees.
THE ISSUE
Two expert committees say an emergency contraceptive should be sold over the counter.
Granting broader access to the so-called "morning-after pill" would make implementation of a state law that does the same thing unnecessary. Hawaii is one of five states that will allow pharmacists to provide the contraceptive without a prescription. The progressive measure that Governor Lingle signed in June is awaiting development of rules expected to be in place in mid-2004.
The drug, also known as "Plan B," consists of two high doses of birth-control medication and has been used safely for more than 30 years. It should be taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse if a couple's chosen method of contraception fails, and it can reduce the chance of pregnancy by 89 percent.
The emergency contraceptive also gives rape victims assurance that the assault won't be horribly compounded by pregnancy. Plan B is certainly safer and less onerous than abortion.
Opponents argued that making the pill available would encourage promiscuity. Women who use emergency contraception display an "inability to control themselves," said Jennifer Taylor of Human Life International, an anti-abortion group. That ludicrous position is unsupported. In fact, research suggests that access to the drug is a neutral factor, neither fostering more sexual activity nor encouraging its use in place of other birth-control methods.
The committees, composed of experts in pharmacology, obstetrics, gynecology, pediatrics and internal medicine, counseled that labels clearly explain that the drug usually works by preventing ovulation and fertilization and possibly by stopping a fertilized egg from being implanted.
In the past, the FDA has followed its committee's advice, but the final decision is McClellan's, who served as Bush's top adviser on health policy before the president picked him to head the FDA. McClellan, whose brother Scott is Bush's press secretary, rebuffed questions about political considerations, saying the decision will be a "science-based process." In that case, his choice is clear.
BACK TO TOP |
Medical pot needs
court endorsementPATIENTS smoking marijuana to ease their pain from a variety of ailments have won an important court victory that will allow them to continue its use. This week's decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals provides a reprieve from fear of federal drug prosecution of patients in Hawaii and six other states that have laws allowing use of marijuana as medicine and which are under the court's jurisdiction. The ruling deserves to be upheld by the Supreme Court.
THE ISSUE
The federal appeals court has ruled that federal law outlawing marijuana cannot be used to prosecute patients using it as medicine in states where it is allowed.
The high court often has overturned decisions made by the liberal 9th Circuit Court, and the marijuana ruling will be scrutinized. The Supreme Court ruled by an 8-0 vote two years ago that a federal law classifying marijuana as an illegal drug carries no exception for ill patients who regard it as a "medical necessity." However, in doing so, the court specifically declined to rule on the constitutional issues involved in the current case.
Two California women who use locally grown marijuana for medicinal purposes filed suit to prohibit the federal Drug Enforcement Administration from prosecuting them for violating federal marijuana laws. The California law allowing pot for medical use was approved by voters in 1996. The Hawaii Legislature enacted a similar statute four years later. Ed Kubo, the U.S. attorney for Hawaii, said recently that he had yet to decide whether to prosecute such cases.
The women challenged the agency's authority to prosecute them under the federal Controlled Substances Act because their actions did not involve interstate commerce. In a 2-1 ruling, a 9th Circuit panel agreed that the medical use of marijuana grown by one of the women and given without charge to the other by two unidentified people does not involve interstate commerce.
In addition, the panel ruled that the public interest and potential hardship from the women being deprived of marijuana medication were considerations. That caveat would prevent users of home-grown marijuana for nonmedical purposes to gain similar protection from federal narcotics agents.
In a 1990 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that "local criminal cultivation of marijuana" affects interstate commerce. The carefully crafted 9th Circuit decision should allow the high court to carve out an exception because of the hardship and public interest involved, allowing patients to use what many regard as important medicine.
