An argument, from a libertarian perspective, that "morning-after" contraception should be available over the counter (OTC):
Something is off when access to contraception depends on who is working the late shift at Walgreen's. The real scandal is not that women are being denied birth control, but that they have to ask for it. There is no reason why a woman's access to contraception should depend on a single Roman Catholic with a conscience, or why a pharmacist should have to weigh the decision between denying a woman her prescription and violating deeply held moral beliefs.Contraception doesn't belong behind the counter; it belongs over-the-counter. A woman's access shouldn't hinge on whether she has health insurance, whether she has a doctor she can call at 5 a.m., or how her neighbors feel about the culture of life. Women should be able to order stacks of the stuff off of the internet to keep in their medicine cabinets
In my limited experience, I just called in the prescription after talking to the patient on the phone, so I don't really see why not.
In a similar vein, many patients are apparently willing to bear the risk of increased cardiovascular disease to keep taking Vioxx or Bextra.
I suspect this is the triumph of marketing over science. I am unaware of any data showing the Cox-2 inhibitors are more effective than traditional NSAIDS (which inhibit both forms of cycoloxygenase --abbreviated COX), and none of the people in the article were reported to have had GI issues with NSAIDS, which is the one advantage the COX-2 inhibitors have.
The article comically degenerates in the second half into the idiosyncratic comments of patients with minimal, if any, medical knowledge. We learn that naproxen (Aleve) makes Yankee outfielder Garry Sheffield drowsy and that Denver golfer Robert Arnold felt anixous after taking Vioxx and Bextra. No word if this only started after he learned of the cardiovascular risk. Neither of these are common side-effects of these medicines.