Plan B - Why 18?

For those of us who have been wondering why the FDA concluded that Plan B can safely be used by 17-year-olds, but should only be sold to those 18 and over, there is finally an answer: the FDA is afraid that pharmacists and pharmacy cashiers cannot correctly subtract. If you go to the FDA's latest website on Plan B, you will find links to pdf files for two memos, one by Center for Drug Evaluation and Research director Steven Galson, and one written by Acting FDA Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach.

The Galson memo is largely silent on the 18-year-old age restriction, saying only:

Regarding the restriction on OTC use to age 18 and older, Dr. von Eschenbach decided that this was the appropriate age for OTC use for the reasons described in his memorandum of August 23, 2006. I have read that memorandum and, although I previously concluded that OTC use should be restricted to women 17 or older, I have now determined that for the reasons Dr. von Eschenbach outlines, the approval of this application should reflect a restriction to OTC use for those age 18 and older.

The entire Eschenbach memo is a justification for increasing the age restriction from 17 to 18, and I will not quote the entire rambling thing here. Instead, here are a couple of the low points:

The state regulated pharmacies that will be dispensing Plan B under Barr's voluntary CARE program (as well as society as a whole) are more familiar with 18 as a cutoff age. I understand that in all 50 states, 18 is the age of majority...and retail outlets, including pharmacies, are familiar with using 18 as the age restriction for certain products. ... This approach builds on well-established state and private-sector infrastructures to restrict certain products to consumers 18 and older.

That's right, folks. The FDA decided to use 17 instead of 18 because they were afraid that people couldn't learn to deal with a new age restriction. How's that for full of ....

I guess we should just be happy that they didn't decide to use the 21 year old alcohol restriction instead.

More like this

This morning, I find posts at both Terra Sigillata and Pharyngula discussing the FDA's announcement that they are planning to reopen discussions with Barr Labs, the maker of the Plan B morning after contraceptive, regarding Barr Labs efforts to gain permission from the FDA to sell Plan B over the…
After re-reading my post on the latest Plan B foolishness, I think I might have been too angry to make my point clearly. I'm still pretty damn pissed off, but I'm going to give it another shot. There's little about this thing that doesn't make me mad, but right now I'm angriest about the FDA's…
Yesterday, FDA announced that it has approved Teva Women's Health, Inc.'s application to market its Plan B One-Step emergency contraceptive for women ages 15 and up. The press release notes that this application was pending before a federal judge ordered the agency to make Plan B available without…
Back in 2005 and 2006, I wrote a few posts about the insanely arbitrary decision making process that the FDA was pretending to use to justify its obviously pre-determined conclusion to restrict the availability of the Plan B "morning after" pill as much as they thought they could get away with.…

It's because "FDA" stands for Ministry of Vice and Morals.

By somnilista, FCD (not verified) on 24 Aug 2006 #permalink

"Well-established infrastructures"? That means those little signs with calendars on them, that say, "You must be born on or before..."

I can see his point. It would cost a fortune to make all new signs.

Snark aside, it is difficult to understand how we could trust a pharmacist to decipher a doctor's handwriting, but not trust them to figure out how old someone is, given the birthdate.

The age at which one gains access to Plan B w/o a presciption is a distraction from the fact that nobody (of any age) has access without going through a pharmacist. OTC, indeed.

By bob koepp (not verified) on 25 Aug 2006 #permalink