(no subject)

[taerowyn]

So, my first reaction to the whole Forever Pregnant thing was to jump up and down and cry foul. Then, ronebofh pointed out that the WaPo reporter was being a little inflammatory when compared to the actual CDC study. I agreed that the reporter had gone for the sensationalist bent, but still worried that it was a dangerous precendent to set.

I'm even more worried now.

I've been doing a bit more reading of the original study and there's some frightening things popping out at me. I'm thinking the WaPo reporter may have actually left out one of the more frightening implications of the study:

[Clinical practice guideline]s have also been developed for women being treated with teratogenic medications to guide the transition to safer medications.

Different guidelines recommend eight to 10 specific areas for preconception risk assessment, including: 1) reproductive history; 2) environmental hazards and toxins; 3) medications that are known teratogens; 4) nutrition, folic acid intake, and weight management; 5) genetic conditions and family history; 6) substance use, including tobacco and alcohol; 7) chronic diseases (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, and oral health); 8) infectious diseases and vaccinations; 9) family planning; and 10) social and mental health concerns (e.g., depression, social support, domestic violence, and housing) --Emphasis is mine

[W]omen who have conditions treated with medications that are known teratogens (e.g., anticonvulsant or anticoagulant medications and isotretinoins) might need to change prescriptions.

So, say for example I am a woman who is not planning on having a baby for whatever reason and I have disease or condition that could best be treated by a drug that, as one of its known side-effects, can cause malformations in a fetus. Because it's possible for me to have a baby, I might be prescribed a second-tier drug that might not treat my illness as well solely based on the fact that it will protect the unborn child I never plan to have?!?!?

Oh yeah, back to pissed.

Remind me next time to just get angry and move on. This whole revisiting thing is just not healthy for me...

Probably not good for my hypothetical unborn children either.

Comments

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

One thing that Dan Savage pointed out in his latest column was that there was no corresponding recommendations or guidelines for men to avoid things that can harm their ability to sire children. So we can just booze up and do whatever we want. As ever!

[ronebofh.livejournal.com]

Here's the exact quote:

Oddly enough, Bush's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention doesn't urge straight men to regard themselves as existing in a perpetual state of "pre-fatherhood." Smoking, obesity, asthma, and diabetes could seriously hamper a man's ability to do the heavy lifting that comes with fatherhood. But Bush's CDC doesn't seem that interested in regulating the behavior of all those fat, smoking pre-fathers out there.

[taerowyn.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, just one of the many teeth-gnashing aspects of this whole thing.

[sagespot.livejournal.com]

Oh my Gods! I must have missed #4! That's horrifying!!

[sagespot.livejournal.com]

(Sorry, I ment #3.)