ORTHOEVRA BIRTH CONTROL BLOG

Idaho Teen Sues J&J, Ortho McNeil Over Ortho Evra Birth-Control Patch

October 25, 2006

A new lawsuit was filed in federal court regarding the safety of the popular but controversial birth-control patch Ortho Evra. In the suit, Idaho’s Katy McKellips Braman, who was 17 when she was first prescribed the patch in 2004, claims that Johnson & Johnson and drug company Ortho McNeil failed to sufficiently test the patch before putting it on the market and that they knowingly misled consumers about the risks of the patch when compared to other birth-control alternatives. Braman’s suit is one of hundreds that have been filed throughout the United States.

Braman alleges that she developed deep vein thrombosis, a serious and potentially fatal blood-clot condition, in her left leg because of her use of Ortho Evra. She had been using the drug for little more than a month when she noticed pronounced swelling in the leg, which gradually worsened over the course of days. The condition required hospital treatment and has forced her to take anti-clotting medications on a daily basis. She is suing the companies for damages and all future medical costs related to the condition.

Discount Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at discount prices including free shipping.Discount Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order discount pharmacy online.

Only last month, the Food and Drug Administration added a warning to the Ortha Evra label, notifying consumers of the increased risks of clotting in legs and lungs for the patch as opposed to the pill. The patch works by releasing estrogen and progestin into the blood. Since it is applied only on a weekly basis, it contains significantly more hormones than more traditional forms of birth control–making the risk of side effects more severe. Last year, there were nearly 9.5 million prescriptions written for Ortho Evra.

In April of this year, the New York Post reported that “women who suffered life-threatening blood clots and strokes on the Ortho Evra birth-control patch have been receiving cash settlements from the manufacturer.� In September, the Post said that “FDA records, obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information law, show that 17 patch users, ages 17 to 30, suffered fatal heart attacks, blood clots, and possible strokes since August 2002� and added that “scores of other women using the Ortho Evra patch have suffered complications, including 21 ‘life-threatening’ cases of blood clots and other ailments, according to Food and Drug Administration reports obtained by The Post.�

Johnson & Johnson reported in an SEC filing earlier this year that roughly 500 women had filed suit against them over the patch. Earlier today, the company announced profits of more than $2.7 billion in the third quarter alone, on revenues of $13.3 billion. However, hormonal contraceptive sales declined by 4 percent, largely because of the safety issues related to the patch.

Posted by toshko under Ortho Evra News | Comments (0)

Health Law Requiring Plans To Offer Birth Control Upheld

October 24, 2006

ALBANY - The Court of Appeals yesterday upheld the constitutionality of a women’s health act that pressures some religious-affiliated employers to either offer their employees a prescription plan that includes contraceptive coverage or deny their workers any drug coverage at all.

In Catholic Charities of the Diocese of Albany v. Serio, 110, the Court rejected the claims of 10 faith-based organizations and refused to exempt them from a key provision in the Women’s Health and Wellness Act. The ruling makes it difficult, but not impossible, for an individual or group to avoid on religious grounds a neutral law of general application.

Yesterday’s Court of Appeals decisions begin on page 22 of the print edition of today’s Law Journal.

But the judges also explicitly refused to narrow the Free Exercise Clause in the state Constitution to conform with the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause in Employment Division v. Smith, 494 US 872 (1990). They insisted that the rule they adopted, while deferential to the Legislature and weighted toward “efficient government,” is “more protective of religious exercise” than the one embraced in Smith. That, experts said, remains to be seen.

At issue in this appeal is an election-year compromise bill, the Women’s Health and Wellness Act of 2002, mandating expanded health insurance coverage. The act requires coverage of such services as mammography, bone density screening and cervical cytology. It also requires employers who choose to provide prescription drug coverage to offer a plan that covers contraceptives.

Lawmakers crafted an exemption for those employers whose main purpose is the promotion of theological values. But they rejected a far broader “conscience clause” that would have permitted many more employers, such as church-sponsored or affiliated schools and clinics like those involved in the case decided yesterday, to avoid the contraceptive coverage provision.

Eight affiliates of the Roman Catholic Church and two connected with the Baptist Bible Fellowship International challenged the contraceptive provision and the narrow exclusion. They argued that the act placed them in the morally untenable position of either paying for contraception, which is repugnant to their religious beliefs, or denying their employees what they view as a basic human right to just compensation and benefits.

But the Court of Appeals, in a 6-0 affirmance of a 3-2 opinion from the Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld the provision.

Non-Believers Affected

Writing for the Court, Judge Robert S. Smith said that while the Women’s Health and Wellness Act places a substantial burden on the plaintiffs’ religious practices, that burden does not rise to a constitutional violation.

“The burden the [act] places on plaintiffs’ religious practices is a serious one, but the [act] does not literally compel them to purchase contraceptive coverage for their employees, in violation of their religious beliefs; it only requires that policies that provide prescription drug coverage include coverage for contraceptives,” Judge Smith wrote.

The decision was apparently influenced by the fact that the plaintiffs hire people of various faiths.

“[W]hen a religious organization chooses to hire non-believers it must . . . be prepared to accept neutral regulations imposed to protect those employees’ legitimate interests in doing what their own beliefs permit,” Judge Smith wrote. “This would be a more difficult case if plaintiffs had chosen to hire only people who share their belief in the sinfulness of contraception.”

Much of the decision, however, focused on the reasonableness of the legislative mandate, and whether an individual or organization can avoid on religious grounds a neutral and generally applicable law.

Deference to Legislature

In previous free exercise cases, the Court had not made clear “how much, if any, deference we will give to the judgments of the Legislature when the result of those judgments is to burden the exercise of religion.” Yesterday’s decision gave the Legislature wide berth.

“We now hold that substantial deference is due the Legislature, and that the party claiming an exemption bears the burden of showing that the challenged legislation . . . is an unreasonable interference with religious freedom,” Judge Smith wrote. Critically, the Court said it will not hold the state to a strict scrutiny standard when it defends its enactments against claims of religious interference.

“Where the state has not set out to burden religious exercise, but seeks only to advance, in a neutral way, a legitimate object of legislation, we do not read the New York Free Exercise Clause to require the State to demonstrate a ‘compelling’ interest in response to every claim by a religious believer to an exemption from the law; such a rule of constitutional law would give too little respect to legislative prerogatives, and would create too great an obstacle to efficient government,” Judge Smith wrote.

Internet Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at reasanoble prices.Internet Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order pharmacy via internet.

The Court said the rule adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Smith - that citizens must abide by generally applicable and neutral laws even if offensive to their religious beliefs - is generally a good one.

But while the Smith Court seemed to leave no leeway, the Court of Appeals said that if a citizen can meet the high burden of showing that a law unreasonably interferes with religious practice, he or she may be able to avoid a neutral and general law. It added that the burden “should not be impossible to overcome.”

Contrasting Views

Women’s rights groups praised the ruling, noting that yesterday’s decision marks the third time that a New York court has rejected the claims of the plaintiffs. They were especially heartened by the fact the Court considered the reasonableness of the legislative enactment and recognized the state interest in promoting equal health care for women.

“[I]t recognizes that it is wrong to discriminate against women,” said JoAnn M. Smith, president and chief executive officer of Family Planning Advocates of New York State. “That was at the core of what brought the Legislature to work on the issue, what brought the advocates together to work on the legislation. To find that reflected in a decision of the Court of Appeals was most exciting, powerful and important, not only to every women in New York State, but to every woman and family in the United States.”

But Albany Law School Professor Vincent M. Bonventre said that “anyone concerned about freedom of conscience and freedom to practice one’s religion should be appalled” by the rule the Court adopted yesterday.

“Now . . . the rule is that the violation of religious free exercise is fine whenever the Legislature has some reason for the law it enacted,” Mr. Bonventre said. “Freedom of religion, which has always been considered a preferred, fundamental right, has now been reduced to a privilege which may be sacrificed whenever it gets in the way of something the Legislature has some reason for doing.”

Health-Related Evidence

Here, the Court said the Legislature considered evidence that contraceptive services promote women’s health. It cited a study indicating that unintended pregnancies are associated with delayed prenatal care and aggravation of such conditions as diabetes and arthritis. The Court also noted children born of unintended pregnancies are more likely to suffer developmental problems, and that of the 3 million unintended pregnancies recorded annually in the United States about half end in abortion. With that evidence, the Court said, the Legislature had clearly demonstrated a need for the bill that could not be overcome by the plaintiffs’ religious considerations.

Richard E. Barnes, an attorney and executive director of the New York State Catholic Conference, said yesterday’s ruling could have profound implications.

“In effect, the state has declared Catholic schools, hospitals and charitable agencies to be secular,” Mr. Barnes said. “Worst of all, the New York state court system has now given lawmakers carte blanche to pass laws even more offensive to religious practice. It should come as no surprise that legislation already has been introduced that would force Catholic entities to pay for employees’ abortions. Could the Court of Appeals reject such a new law in light of today’s decision?”

Dennis Poust, spokesman for the Catholic Conference, said the plaintiffs in this case have been paying for contraceptive coverage under protest, and will continue to do so while considering an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the odds of getting the matter before the justices in Washington may be slim, Mr. Poust acknowledged, since the Supreme Court has already refused to hear a California case involving the exact same provision in the New York law.

The appeal was argued by Assistant Solicitor General Shaifali Puri for the state and Michael L. Costello of Tobin & Dempf in Albany for the plaintiffs.

Posted by toshko under Ortho Evra News | Comments (0)

Idaho woman sues drugmaker over birth control patch problems

October 18, 2006

BOISE — A young Idaho woman who developed deep vein thrombosis after using the birth control patch Ortho Evra is suing Johnson and Johnson and drug company Ortho McNeil in federal court.

Katy McKellips Braman was 17 when she began using the patch in 2004. But after a little over a month on the medication, she developed the serious blood clot disorder.

She claims the condition was caused by the patch, and that she had to be hospitalized and now must take daily anti-clotting drugs.

She’s asking a federal judge to order the companies to pay her damages and to cover the costs of any future medical treatment.

Discount Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at discount prices including free shipping.Discount Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order discount pharmacy online.

Ortho McNeil spokeswoman Julie Keenan said the company could not comment on pending litigation. Officials with Johnson & Johnson did not immediately return calls requesting comment.

Last month, the Food and Drug Administration updated the label on the Ortho Evra birth-control patch to warn women that their risk of blood clots in the legs and lungs may be higher if they use the patch instead of the pill.

Posted by toshko under Ortho Evra News | Comments (0)

Ortho evra

October 16, 2006

The Ortho Evra birth control patch has been linked to serious injuries including strokes, heart attacks, blood clots, pulmonary embolism, and death. Ortho Evra Lawsuits are being filed and settled. The PH Lawfirm is investigating cases nationwide.

Seattle, WA (PRWEB) September 30, 2006 — The PH Lawfirm of Seattle Washington (www.phlawfirm.com) is investigating ortho evra lawsuit cases involving strokes, heart attacks, deaths, blood clots, pulmonary embolism and other serious injuries for young women who were taking the birth control patch Ortho Evra. The Ortho Evra patch has been shown in studies to cause many times more of these injuries than the ordinary pill.

These types of injuries are very uncommon in young women. When a woman in her 20’s or 30’s has a stroke, you have to wonder what is going on.
Ortho Evra birth control patch lawsuits have been filed nationwide alleging the manufacturer of the patch alleging that it was aware of these serious risks and yet continued to aggressively market it to young women. Many of these lawsuits have been quickly settled by the manufacturer. The Ortho Evra settlements are confidential and the amounts have not been publicized.

According to Seattle lawyer Charles Paglialunga, Ortho Evra lawsuits involving strokes, heart attacks, and other blood clot related injuries can be won. “These types of injuries are very uncommon in young women. When a woman in her 20’s or 30’s has a stroke, you have to wonder what is going on.”

Drugs Online - Buy Drugs Online at reasanoble prices.DrugOnline.cc provides confortable and easy way to order drugs online including drugs free shipping.

On November 10, 2005, the FDA warned women that the Ortho Evra birth control patch increased the risk for blood clots compared to women taking the pill. The FDA warned that the patch causes about 60 percent more estrogen than with a typical birth control pill to be released into their bodies. This higher level of estrogen results in a higher risk for dangerous side effects, like blood clots and strokes.

According to an FDA announcement made on March 2, 2006, the FDA launched a review of the safety of the Ortho Evra birth control patch due to evidence that the patch is linked to an higher risk of side effects than previously thought.

In 2001, when Ortho Evra was first released on the market, Ortho McNeil, a division of Johnson and Johnson claimed that the risks associated with the birth control patch were about the same as the risks of using the birth control pill. Lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in Ohio allege that the company knew at the time of the increased risks to women, but concealed these risks for financial gain while aggressively marketing to young women. Now it seems the company wants to settle cases.

At a May 2 status conference with U.S. District Judge David Katz in Cleveland, where lawsuits from states around the county are consolidated into multi district litigation (MDL), a lawyer for the company revealed that they were prepared to settle all suits in which plaintiffs were hospitalized for heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolisms or deep vein thrombosis. The Federal lawsuits are filed in U.S. District Court in Ohio, case caption, In re Ortho Evra Products Liability Litigation, 1:06cv40000.

The PH Law Firm is a personal injury law firm with offices in Seattle, Washington and exclusively represents people in personal injury lawsuits nationwide. The PH Law Firm represents individuals in pharmaceutical liability cases such as Vioxx lawsuits, product liability cases such as Guidant Defibrillator lawsuits, Benzene AML lawsuits, asbestos mesothelioma lawsuits, car accidents, crashworthiness, and construction accidents. The personal injury lawyers at the PH Law Firm, Paglialunga & Harris, PS, are dedicated to protecting the rights and rebuilding the lives of those who have been injured through negligent and other wrongful conduct.

Posted by toshko under Ortho Evra News | Comments (0)

J&J Can’t Settle Ortho-Evra Birth Control Patch Cases Fast Enough

October 11, 2006

More than 500 claimants are seeking “substantial compensatory and, where available, punitive damages,” from Johnson & Johnson for injuries and deaths related to the Ortho Evra birth control patch, according to the company’s Second Quarter Report filed with the SEC.

However, if legal analysts are correct, J&J ain’t seen nothin yet.

Based on the millions of prescriptions written for the Ortho Evra patch since it came on the market in 2002, critics say there are thousands of victims who do not yet realize that an injury or death was caused by the patch.

All total, in 2005, J&J raked in $1.1 billion in sales of contraceptives products but the company says it expects a decline in 2006 because of “labeling changes and negative media coverage concerning product safety,” in the company’s 2005 annual report said.

However, in July 2006, J&J took measures to make up for the lost sales by drastically increasing the price of contraceptive products paid for by Medicaid programs.

Medicaid purchases contraceptives for low income persons covered under the public health care program. For instance, West Virginia provides contraceptives to about 59,000 low income people each year and J&J was the supplier of 75% of those products.

Suddenly and without any warning, J&J created a budget crisis in West Virginia, and many other states, by increasing the price of birth control pills 20-fold, and raising the price on the Ortho Evra patch from $12.15 to $22.46, according to the Associated Press.

When asked about the price hikes, company spokeswoman, Julie Keenan said the pricing for the pills and the patch was in line with federal Medicaid pricing formulas that change every financial quarter.

Considering the fact that Johnson & Johnson has sold patches to about 5 million women since the device came on the market in 2002, according to Bloomberg News on May 13, 2006, a $10 increase times by 5 million women would make for quite a haul.

In response to the dramatic increase in prices, family planning directors across the country began accusing the company of price gouging government funded health centers. “Nobody believes that Ortho-McNeil had any reason to increase these prices by this amount,” said Lon Newman, director of Family Planning Health Services, which operates seven clinics in Wisconsin.

“It’s clearly a market manipulation on Ortho’s part,” he stated.

The increase in costs forced many family planning agencies to stop providing Ortho products to women. In the end, rather than lose all the sales, the company dropped the price of the Ortho patch down to $15, or about $3 more than it was before July 1, 2006, when the company raised the price.

Mainly to suppress negative publicity about the Ortho patch that would have an adverse effect on sales, Johnson & Johnson attorneys have been trying to settle the Ortho Evra lawsuits almost as quickly as they are filed by offering substantial settlements that require the plaintiffs to sign a confidentiality agreement in order to keep the damaging information out of the public eye.

In addition, legal experts say J&J attorneys are fully aware that the cause of the injuries and death alleged in the lawsuits will be easy to prove because the plaintiffs have a “signature disease,” described as a condition closely linked to the use of a drug that is otherwise very rare. In this instance, they point out, blood clots, heart attacks and strokes are extremely unusual in teenagers and women of childbearing years, with the only commonality among the victims being the Ortho Evra birth control patch.

Many litigants have already settled their lawsuits and J&J has made it clear to attorneys for other plaintiffs, and the various judges handling the cases, that the company is ready to negotiate settlements in many more cases.

However, the problem with this legal strategy is that J&J no sooner settles a group of lawsuits before another batch get filed. Seven lawsuits were filed in one day in January to include:

Plaintiff, Maral Annayeva, alleges she was prescribed the Ortho patch between January and May 2005, and used it for 18 days before suffering from bleeding, heart pain, headaches, nausea and general malaise.

Plaintiff, Brandy Houk, used the patch from February to October 2005, and alleges that she suffered shortness of breath, fatigue, excessive bleeding, and large clots as a result.

Plaintiff, Melody Miller, alleges that on December 21, 2003, she suffered multiple blood clots which resulted in the miscarriage of her child in the fifth month of pregnancy.

Plaintiff, Tanya Lowe, alleges that she suffered blood clots in her right leg which shattered and spread into her lungs in January 2004, while using the patch.

Plaintiff, Reannon Tutkus, charges that on December 24, 2004 and January 1, 2005, she suffered blood clots.

Plaintiff, Stephanie Curtis, alleges that in March 2004 she noticed a red spot just above the patch so discontinued the patch and immediately became pregnant. In June or July of 2004, she alleges she developed a blood condition which predisposed her to blood clots that required the use of blood thinners while pregnant.

Plaintiff, Kristine Bailey, claims in late October to early November 2005, she suffered blood clots, dizziness and fatigue.

The plaintiffs also allege that J&J violated consumer fraud statutes with the use of false and misleading misrepresentations in the marketing, promotion and sale of the patch.

Specifically, since January 2006, Johnson & Johnson has been willing to negotiate out-of-court settlements in lawsuits that involve women who have been hospitalized for the following conditions:

* strokes;

* heart attacks;

* pulmonary embolisms; and

* deep vein thrombosis.

In layman’s terms, all of these conditions involve injuries caused by blood clots. According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke: (1) thrombosis is the formation of a clot within a blood vessel of the brain or neck; and (2) embolism is the movement of a clot from another part of the body to the neck or brain.

Hormonal birth control products are known to increase the risk of blood clots because estrogen promotes coagulation. Clots usually form in the legs and cause serious problems when they travel to the heart, lungs, or brain.

A blood clot in the lungs can cause the inability to breathe (lung embolism) and a blood clot in the heart can cause a heart attack or heart failure. A blood clot in the brain can cause stroke by interfering with the free flow of blood to the brain, according to the NINDS:

“A stroke occurs when the blood supply to part of the brain is suddenly interrupted or when a blood vessel in the brain bursts, spilling blood into the spaces surrounding brain cells. Brain cells die when they no longer receive oxygen and nutrients from the blood or there is sudden bleeding into or around the brain.

There are two types of strokes: (1) ischemic - the blockage of a blood vessel supplying the brain; and (2) hemorrhagic - the bleeding into or around the brain. According to the NINDS:

“The symptoms of a stroke include sudden numbness or weakness, especially on one side of the body; sudden confusion or trouble speaking or understanding speech; sudden trouble seeing in one or both eyes; sudden trouble with walking, dizziness, or loss of balance or coordination; or sudden severe headache with no known cause.�

Discount Pharmacy - Buy Pharmacy at discount prices including free shipping.Discount Pharmacy provides confortable and easy way to order discount pharmacy online.

A common disability from a stroke, NINDS says, is complete paralysis on one side of the body. A related disability that is not as debilitating is one-sided weakness. Strokes may also cause problems with thinking, awareness, attention, learning, judgment, and memory.

According to NINDS, stroke survivors also often have difficulty understanding or forming speech and may have problems controlling or expressing their emotions and many people experience depression.

Stroke survivors may also experience numbness, strange sensations, and pain in their hands and feet, made worse by movement and temperature changes, especially cold temperatures. And, about 25% of patients who recover from a first stroke, NINDS says, will have another within 5 years.

The serious health problems caused by the Ortho patch first caught public attention on January 9, 2004, when an article titled, “‘Sex Patch’ Tied To 17 Deaths,” appeared in the New York Post, stating, “A trendy contraceptive patch which has been aggressively marketed using sexy ads, fashion models and Olympic athletes has been linked to the deaths of at least 17 young American women in the past two years.”

Citing FDA reports, the Post said that “scores” of other women using the Ortho Evra patch have suffered complications, including 21 “life-threatening” cases of blood clots and other ailments.

Ten months later, on October 10, 2004, the New York Post published another article titled: “The Patch of ‘Death,’” that stated: “A popular and profitable contraceptive patch promoted by sexy TV ads caused 11 times as many fatal or life-threatening blood clots as a leading birth-control pill,” quoting a complaint filed in a Texas lawsuit by a mother of 2 who had suffered a massive stroke and was left paralyzed after using the Ortho patch for 12 days.

The lawsuit described FDA records obtained with an FOIA request, that showed that in a one-year period, at least 46 women suffered blood clot related injuries or death while using the patch and that only half that number of women taking birth control pills suffered clot related problems, even though 6 times more women used the pill.

Less than a year later, another lawsuit filed in New Jersey in September 2005, on behalf of a woman who suffered a pulmonary embolism after using the patch, disclosed that between April 2002 and September 2003, the FDA’s Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS), had recorded 9,116 adverse events related to the patch, but that with the birth control bill for a period of more than 6 years, there were only 1,237 adverse reports recorded even though the pill was used by almost six times more women.

The AERS is a computerized database, designed to support the FDA’s post-marketing surveillance program for all approved products, that stores and analyzes the adverse event reports that are submitted to the agency.

However, experts say, when considering the number of adverse events reports related to the Ortho patch, its important to know that according to FDA officials, only between 1% and 10% of all adverse events are reported. Which means at best, the number of adverse events reported above must be multiplied by 90%, and at worst by 99%.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys maintain that J&J has long known about the serious risks of using the patch. According to a CBS New report in November 2005, citing documents obtained in a lawsuit, Johnson & Johnson’s own records show the company received 500 reports of serious problems in women wearing the patch between April 2002 and December 2004. And the company records also showed that even though 3 times as many women were taking birth control pills during the same time period, only 61 similar reports were received on women taking the pill.

The records reveal that there were four times as many strokes in women using the patch, and according to the Associated Press, the medically confirmed cases indicate that the risk of blood clots was 14 times higher among women using the patch.

Many experts believe that the increase in health problems is due to the patch delivery system because the medications and dosages in the patch are the same as in the pill and prevent pregnancy by: (1) altering ovulation so that an egg is not released for fertilization; (2) thickening cervical mucus to stop sperm from entering uterus; and (3) changing the endometrium to reduce the likelihood of egg implantation.

However, a European study in 2005, measured the hormone levels among 32 women who took the pill versus those who used the patch, and determined that women who used the Ortho patch had 60% more estrogen in their blood streams than women taking the pill.

Expert say that although estrogen is important in the regulation of the reproductive cycle it provokes clotting and if too much estrogen is released via the patch it can cause excessive clotting, particularly in the arteries and veins of the lower extremities.

Estrogen in birth control pills must travel through the digestive tract before it is absorbed by the body and a great deal of the dosage is lost in the process. With the patch delivery system, full-strength estrogen is absorbed through the skin directly into the blood stream continuously for 3 weeks each month, while the dose of hormones in the once a day pill leaves the body in a matter of hours after the pill is ingested.

Experts say another problem may be that the level of hormones released increase when the patch becomes heated through exercise, or bathing in a hot tub, or a high fever. “Most people don’t realize that heat is going to increase absorption rates, even to toxic levels,” according to Michael Cohen, director of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices.

Studies have shown that heat has a distinct effect on medication patches. As far back as 1986, a study found that 20 minutes of bicycling while wearing a nitroglycerin heart patch increased the drug’s concentration two to threefold. Similar results were found with people sitting in the sauna for 30 minutes.

Despite having first-hand knowledge of the number of women being injured and killed, the FDA did not officially alert the pubic to the high risks associated with the patch until November 10, 2005, when a “Black Box” warning was added to the product label that said the device could expose women to estrogen levels 60% higher than oral contraceptives and that the increased dosage was associated with a greater risk of blood clots.

Unfortunately for the thousands of young women who have already died or been injured, this action by the FDA represents another case where the agency charged with protecting consumers from the profit driven pharmaceutical industry has done too little to late.

Posted by toshko under Ortho Evra News | Comments (0)

Free birth control under fire in Chile

October 10, 2006

After years of social unrest, a recent mandate for free birth control promised young Chilean women reproductive control as well as a reduction in teen pregnancy, but the decision resulted in controversy and political maneuvering.

According to the Inter Press Service (IPS), the Chilean Ministry of Health passed legislation on Sept. 5 requiring that public clinics provide birth control to females over age 14, Chile’s age of sexual consent, without parental consent.

Statistics compiled by the Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre showed that the number of births among mothers ages 15 to 19 rose from 24,000 in 1950, to 36,000 in 1970 and to 41,000 in 2000. Despite the rise, the Chilean Health Ministry amended their rule on September 13, changing the age at which a girl can receive contraceptives without her parents’ permission to 18.

Chile’s President Michelle Bachelet, who has fought for universal birth control since she served as the minister of health in 2000, told IPS that the Ministry’s decision to raise the age constraint contradicts their mission to reduce teen childbearing.

“If little girls aged 12, 13, 14 and so on are getting pregnant, we all need to play appropriate roles in this matter,” she said in a statement she released on Sept. 6.

Freshwoman Chibo Shinagawa, a member of the reproductive rights group Choice USA, also disagreed with Chile’s decision to increase the amount of time a teen must rely on their parent’s decisions.

“It’s the teenager’s right, not the parent’s,â€? she said.

Shinagawa also said that she believes parental restriction is the first step towards decreasing the use of birth control and making it illegal.

According to IPS, opponents of free contraception in Chile said that a decrease in birth control use may be beneficial in light of the declining birthrate.

According to the Latin American and Caribbean Demographic Centre, the average birth rate in Chili dropped from 5.44 children per family in 1960 to 2.67 in 1980 and then to an all-time low of 2.21 in 2000.

Other Chilean groups used the mandate as a spur to make birth control illegal. The Episcopal Conference of Chile, a Catholic organization of bishops, released a statement on Sept. 7, saying that the free morning after pills offered at clinics were abortions, which have been illegal in Chile since 1989.

Drugs Online - Buy Drugs Online at reasanoble prices.DrugOnline.cc provides confortable and easy way to order drugs online including drugs free shipping.

Maya Ingram, public affairs manager for Planned Parenthood: Golden Gate, disagreed with the statement. She says the morning after pill, emergency contraception meant to be taken within seventy-two hours of unprotected intercourse to prevent pregnancy, is not an abortion because it “does not harm an existing pregnancy.�

The Episcopal Conference of Chile also released a statement called “¿Hacia donde camina Chile?â€? translated as “What Direction Is Chile Headed In?” The statement said that while the church supports women rights, the birth control mandate is unconstitutional since it allows federal law to control personal decisions.

The bishops said that by forgoing prescriptions and parental/spousal permission, the Ministry of Health forced decisions onto its constituency and did not allow the family, the core unit of society, to make moral judgments.

In a statement released on Sept. 6, President Bachelet denied allegations of complete government control.

“I am not going to impose my beliefs on anyone; I am offering alternatives,â€? she said.

She added that free birth control will give teens another option to having uninformed sex, which typically results in abortions or unwanted pregnancies.

Despite the controversy, Professor Deborah Santana, head of the Ethnic Studies department at Mills, praised Bachelet and the Chilean Ministry of Health’s development in female reproductive rights.

“Chile has long had a tradition of activism for human rights,â€? she said. “The right-wing military dictatorship under General Pinochet … reversed many of the gains that women had been steadily making. However, this latest decision … [is] evidence that Chile is once again leading the way towards full human rights for women.â€?

Junior Daisy Gonzales, who led a Mills protest in Juarez, Mexico to lessen the high rate of female murder victims, said that the issue is complicated since the pros and cons of receiving free birth control are different for each woman; however, she encourages Mills women to be involved with situation.

“Mills women should be aware of what happens to women everywhere,� Gonzales said.

Posted by toshko under Ortho Evra News | Comments (0)