I am perfectly capable of determining for myself if a particular medication will be useful to me for a particular purpose. And if I have a medical question, I am perfectly capable of consulting with a physician, or a pharmacist, or a nurse, or a good medical text, to help make that decision.
It may well be that in this case, the questions are difficult enough that no reasonable person could be expected to make a decision without professional medical advice. Remember, I'm arguing about religion here, not about whether scientifically it makes sense. This is a religion forum. But too many people are willing to cede their own freedom to make choices for themselves to the government, or in this case to the government's determination that you need professional help to make a decision.
Suppose a package of medicine lists the side effects, and recommends that you consult a physician before starting to take the medication (just a generic medication here, it's a general argument). I can choose to follow the warnings, or decide I know enough to act without help. That is actually a libertarian position, not that I am actually a libertarian -- to be allowed to decide for myself how much risk I am willing to take, and to do what I want with my own body, so long as it does not impair the freedom of others.
Prescription Drugs are a way for government to dictate to individuals what level of control they have in making their own decisions. No doubt this provides safety to the consumer, preventing harmful side effects and death, as well as addictions, and fraud. But it does nothing that a person could not have done on their own, by choice.
You are saying we should treat contraception the same way we do aspirin.
No, I was saying, in a religious thread, that the determination of whether contraceptive drugs should be prescription or OTC should be determined in the SAME WAY that we determine whether drugs like aspirin should be prescription or not -- by scientific determination. There are many painkillers, some are prescription, some are OTC. Aspirin is pretty much OTC, but it has dangerous side effects if taken in too high a dose, and some people shouldn't take it at all -- all things that a doctor would know, and which might suggest that making aspirin prescription-only would make it safer for people. But the cost and trouble, the violation of our freedom, would be far beyond the benefit.
That’s a pretty subtle argument. So you are saying it’s better to turn a blind eye then to provide appropriate regulation?
I think you have missed that I am NOT MAKING an argument about scientific risks of the pill. I am discussing the religious aspects of making a pill OTC. While I would argue that most everything government regulates is actually over-regulated, I'm not arguing that there should be no regulations, nor is "appropriate regulation" germane to my argument about whether advocating OTC contributes to sin.
The reason I used the term sin was that seems the point of the article, that Jindal has betrayed his religious beliefs somehow by modifying the method by which a person might obtain medication that in most cases is used "sinfully".
Nope, we don’t have to finance it whatsoever.
My point was more subtle than the obvious "we are paying for other people's pills". But I will note that I agree we shouldn't, but the law as it stands forces us to, and there seems no chance in the near future to change that law, no matter how much we hope to. Jindal presented a method by which that law (or executive order) could be circumvented, by making the pill OTC so it is no longer something government regulates via prescription drug laws.
My more subtle point was that we pay the government salaries of the people who decide how to regulate prescription drugs, and we pay taxes for medicaid and medicare which cover prescription drugs, in addition to paying for a host of programs which give away contraceptives at the federal, state, and local level.
I'm not saying I like that -- I'm saying it is a fact, and making the pill OTC might well lessen the degree to which we pay.
but instead, you are more interested in making sure you get your fair share of government goodies than fighting the increasing size of the state.
I fail to see how an argument to remove government regulation of birth control, making it an OTC drug rather than prescription, has ANY bearing whatsoever on getting a "share of government goodies". I expect the government to be LESS involved in giving away contraceptives if they are OTC than government is now with the drugs being prescription. But in any case, making it OTC wouldn't possibly lead to them giving it away MORE.
Occasionally you come across someone who gets it, like Rand. But sadly few read her let alone understand her and take her writings to heart.
If you believe that Rand would support the use of government power and regulation to artificially inflate the price of goods, or to make it harder to obtain those goods, especially for the goal of legislating a religious tenet of the Catholic Church, I think you have a profound misunderstanding of her philosophy. I don't particularly hold to a Rand philosophy of life, but to suggest that she would support regulations, even IF the government imposed them to protect people from their own choices regarding the use of drugs, indicates that you probably don't adhere to her philosophy either.
“I am perfectly capable of determining for myself if a particular medication will be useful to me for a particular purpose.”
Great. You aren’t Catholic. I’m explaining to you why this position isn’t an acceptable one for a Catholic to take. You would have to provide a doctors recommendation that the pill was a correct prescription to correct a medical condition that couldn’t be treated otherwise. It’s not just enough to say, “I’m not using it for contraception”. Can it be done? Absolutely, but you have to go about the right manner. Picking it up OTC doesn’t permit this regulation to be fulfilled, in all effect is it the complete circumvention of it.
Which, obviously, was your point in advancing that particular argument.
It’s perfectly ok for someone who isn’t Catholic to do whatever they like, but someone who is Catholic has a different set of standards. They are supposed to obey the Church. Some people have issues with that which is why they aren’t Catholic. It’s a free world and that cuts both ways.
“Remember, I’m arguing about religion here”
Yes, and you are simply wrong here. Canon law is pretty clear, you have to obtain the doctor’s prescription with an explanation for the condition being treated. Your ‘say-so’, just isn’t enough. :)
“But too many people are willing to cede their own freedom to make choices for themselves to the government, or in this case to the government’s determination that you need professional help to make a decision.”
Now we are talking science, not religion. Science is very clear that the pill has singificant side effects, sufficiently so as to warrant it being available by prescription.
“That is actually a libertarian position”
The correct libertarian argument in this instance is: “people should pay for their own damn contraception”. Insofar as the state is forcing people to pay for contraception, the primary concern is to end this travesty. Arguing, “oh but the state should make it happen OTC”, is no more a libertarian position than arguing that there should be no oversight of food stamps, and that everyone should be given a card they can swipe whenever they want food.
“and to do what I want with my own body, so long as it does not impair the freedom of others.”
Insofar as people are required to pay for contraception, - they are no longer free to do what they want with their own body. They are being forced to supply their labour for the benefit of others. They are also being forced to disobey, through state coercion, their own conscience.
“Prescription Drugs are a way for government to dictate to individuals what level of control”
Ah, so the real issue here is the typical, “I want my dope argument.” I should have suspected this. Fine. Since pharmacies aren’t needed, they should all close down. Go ahead, mix all the drugs you like. :)
“No, I was saying, in a religious thread, that the determination of whether contraceptive drugs should be prescription or OTC should be determined in the SAME WAY that we determine whether drugs like aspirin should be prescription or not”
And science is how we determine such things. Science is pretty clear on this that contraception should not be dispensed OTC because it has serious side effects that it would not be reasonable for someone who is a layperson to anticipate.
“there seems no chance in the near future to change that law”
Absolutely there is a chance, but not if we have people like you giving up.
“and making the pill OTC might well lessen the degree to which we pay.”
The same way that giving people food stamps is lessening what we pay. Making it easier to take from the public has exactly the opposite effect. Insofar as it is covered by the people, we should not be removing what barriers do exist in prescribing it. In fact, that’s exactly what Obama wants, to get rid of these barriers, and Jindal is helping him.
“If you believe that Rand would support the use of government power and regulation to artificially inflate the price of goods, or to make it harder to obtain those goods, especially for the goal of legislating a religious tenet of the Catholic Church, I think you have a profound misunderstanding of her philosophy.”
If you believe that Rand would assert that making it easier to take from the state would lessen, not increase the overall cost to the state, you are profoundly mistaken. That is the point here. Making it easier will simply ensure that more people take advantage of it for their own ends, that wastage and spoilage go up dramatically, since there is no punishment for waste. Use it or lose it.