Jump to content

Low sexual desire is not a disease. Stop FDA approval of Flibanserin.


Lord Happy Toast

Recommended Posts

By the way, let's not forget that men get raped, too. Sometimes by other men, but also by women.

Furthermore, this issue should never have turned into a battle of the sexes. While it's true that women may be coerced by men into taking this drug, they could equally well be coerced into doing so by their lesbian lovers. And that wouldn't be any less wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it never was supposed to be a battle of the sexes michael

until some started flaming males and found it as an exscuse to generalise all men as rapists and using tyrany against women

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prismatangle
By the way, let's not forget that men get raped, too. Sometimes by other men, but also by women.

Yes, but in this context, that's irrelevant. This is a drug aimed at WOMEN, not men. And while it's certainly possible for women to be raped by other women, the cultural assumption is that men will always be the aggressors, and that it's RIGHT because it's NATURAL for men to rape, because that's just what men do. That's what I was addressing. (By the way, since people seem to have a problem understanding what my point is, I'm saying THAT MINDSET IS WRONG.)

Oh yes, it's completely unavoidable, we're all going to be raped and there's nothing that can be done. That's TOTALLY what I said! <_<

Way to twist words around.

All I'm saying is that it's going to happen with or without this pill. I didn't say any of the things you just suggested, nor do I think the way you suggested I do. I'm a firm believer that sex is a want and that some people are too weak and childish to think "Well I want it, but I guess I can't have it right now." These people need to be corrected. Even without the pill, these people will find other ways to make others have sex with them. They've been doing it for years: alcohol, date rape drugs, flat out holding them down and forcing them. You can't demonize this one drug as some big horrible thing that makes people behave like that. There are women out there who really want this drug, who have hopes that maybe it will solve whatever problem they're having, but you'd take that away from them because some people might do something they've been doing without it anyway.

I certainly never implied that you thought that we are ALL going to be raped. However, you seem to think that nothing can be done about ANY type of coercion, never even mind rape. But social values cause a lot of cases of coercion, and social pressure will significantly increase if there is a drug out there purported to "cure" low sexual desire. Lots of people will be pressured into taking this drug unwisely, without doing the research to find out for themselves whether or not it will have bad side effects (or whether their condition is even physiological at all). If it is approved by the FDA, many people will assume it works, because they will assume that the experts have weighed it carefully and found it to be safe and effective, whereas that may not be true.

I think that we can have an impact on that kind of pressure by pointing out how wrong it is. It may not be a big impact, but every little teaspoon counts. You seem to disagree.

If these women had hopes that were WELL-FOUNDED, I wouldn't have nearly as big of an issue with this drug. But all evidence points to minimal if any benefits and significant risks. Therefore it is a false hope to begin with, and it's better to point that out and educate people rather than let them suffer the delusion that it will cure them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but in this context, that's irrelevant.

well I am sure the victims of rape and in particular , men...will thank you for that

because it's NATURAL for men to rape, because that's just what men do.

what an ignorant sexist and scurrollous thing to say...true colours coming out...that is incredibly offensive...remember this..."I don't see how any of my comments constitute "man-hating."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prismatangle

I don't see how any of my comments constitute "man-hating."

clearly

the same way one of the suns message of ...."Totally agree with this... It's sexual tyranny of women in a new disguise"... is now just an information share

do not generalise about all or most men in such a negative way then proclaim you mean nothing by it

Okay, READ before you post please? I'm not the one doing the generalizing. I'm ATTACKING THE GENERALIZATION. As in, I think it's WRONG to say that men are or should be tyrannical towards women. They're largely not and shouldn't be, and I think it's a huge smear against men to say that. But people do it all the time, and I think it's worth considering why society apparently views them as natural tyrants, and how that dynamic is going to play into this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prismatangle
because it's NATURAL for men to rape, because that's just what men do.

what an ignorant sexist and scurrollous thing to say...true colours coming out...that is incredibly offensive

Dude, stop taking my words out of context and READ THE WHOLE SENTENCE that they're in. Yes, that's offensive. Other people say that, other people believe that, and if you want some evidence of that? Go here.

Again, I'm arguing AGAINST that viewpoint.

Yes, but in this context, that's irrelevant.

well I am sure the victims of rape and in particular , men...will thank you for that

Edit: Reading back through this topic, I realized I forgot to say what I was going to say to this in this post, which is... yes, some of them have thanked me for raising awareness about their issues, in other places. But they are off-topic to this particular discussion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it never was supposed to be a battle of the sexes michael

until some started flaming males and found it as an exscuse to generalise all men as rapists and using tyrany against women

I understand why you're upset, but I don't see that getting angry really achieves anything. Maybe adding people you find annoying to your block list would be a better solution? (I've already done that once this thread.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just get pissed Michael when some brand all males as rapists and abusers and support tyranical sexual abuse of women then backpeddle away from the comments once they realise they have been just as sexually unequal as any claimed male could ever be

Link to post
Share on other sites
...

...

However, you seem to think that nothing can be done about ANY type of coercion, never even mind rape. But social values cause a lot of cases of coercion, and social pressure will significantly increase if there is a drug out there purported to "cure" low sexual desire. Lots of people will be pressured into taking this drug unwisely, without doing the research to find out for themselves whether or not it will have bad side effects (or whether their condition is even physiological at all).

I agree completely that coercion into taking such a drug is wrong, that we should stand against it and it's not unrealistic to think such a stand might make a difference.

But what I question is whether the right way of going about that is to deny ALL women the right to choose whether they want this drug, because some women might be coerced if it's allowed.

It's rather ironically reminiscent of an argument you sometimes hear from pro-lifers. Abortion shouldn't be allowed because what if the male partners don't want the baby and therefore pressure the woman into aborting?

Or: people who are living in constant agony shouldn't have the right to end their own life, since if we give them that right then old people will come under pressure by their families, who don't want them as a burden, to end their lives.

In both cases, the solution is to tackle the problem of coercion head on, not to deny everyone the choice simply because some unscrupulous people will exploit the existence of that freedom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly never implied that you thought that we are ALL going to be raped. However, you seem to think that nothing can be done about ANY type of coercion, never even mind rape. But social values cause a lot of cases of coercion, and social pressure will significantly increase if there is a drug out there purported to "cure" low sexual desire. Lots of people will be pressured into taking this drug unwisely, without doing the research to find out for themselves whether or not it will have bad side effects (or whether their condition is even physiological at all). If it is approved by the FDA, many people will assume it works, because they will assume that the experts have weighed it carefully and found it to be safe and effective, whereas that may not be true.

I think that we can have an impact on that kind of pressure by pointing out how wrong it is. It may not be a big impact, but every little teaspoon counts. You seem to disagree.

If these women had hopes that were WELL-FOUNDED, I wouldn't have nearly as big of an issue with this drug. But all evidence points to minimal if any benefits and significant risks. Therefore it is a false hope to begin with, and it's better to point that out and educate people rather than let them suffer the delusion that it will cure them.

It's called hyperbole. Look it up.

And now I would like to say: Stop trying to tell me what I think! I never said there was nothing to be done. I have opinions on how to deal with rape and abuse, but this is not the place for that, this is a place to argue why this particular drug should or should not be banned. I don't think it will have a significant effect on the amount of rape and abuse in the world, therefore, I don't think it is a reason to ban the drug.

Let me summarize it for you, so you can comprehend it better, since you're having such difficulty: If you want to stop sexual abuse by banning something, you might as well just ban sex. Otherwise, it won't work.

I wonder why I bother, since you will most likely twist my words around again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the double post, but I just wanted to say... I'm waiting for this thread to get closed because we're all fighting. XD

Honestly, some people just have TOO much anger. As for me, I just like a good argument...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me summarize it for you, so you can comprehend it better, since you're having such difficulty: If you want to stop sexual abuse by banning something, you might as well just ban sex. Otherwise, it won't work.

I think just banning sex, period, is a great idea. Seriously. I'd sign such a petition, even though it wouldn't be any more effective than the one talked about here. Just think how nice it would be to live in a world for a while that didn't throw sex at you constantly. The world would empty out a bit and the other animals would have a chance to repopulate themselves because their habitat wouldn't constantly be threatened by overpopulation, we could eat cake and gain weight without being faced with skinny models on every magazine because no one would care about what you looked like, you could have friends without people making assumptions, asexuals would never have to have "the talk" with their sexual boy/girlfriends...

*sigh*

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest fridayoak

I wasn't thinking about the impacts on the asexual community when I signed the petition... If libido were the issue, then we should have the same complaints about Viagra. I signed because this is another case of men and corporations exploiting women.

This seems to be where all the shit hit the fan. I can't understand why you say you signed it just cos it was exploiting women, as if it was exploiting men you wouldn't sign? Seems pretty sexist to me. This sort of stuff gets posted on Aven all the time it seems, gets pretty hard to stomach as a man, as it seems there is one rule for women and another for men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
oneofthesun

....how? If there's a legitimate argument here I'd like to hear it, but right now it just looks like another case of people hearing "women" and "sex" in the same sentence and freaking out.

If anyone has ever doubted your asexuality, you just proved them wrong :lol: . You don't think that men do everything they can to manipulate women into having sex? This is putting a more "scientific" sounding tool in their toolbox.

I believe the difference between male and female sex drives is biological. Sex is much more risky for a woman - She can get pregnant, she can get raped, she can get physically hurt even when she's isn't raped, she can get cervical cancer. It simply doesn't make evolutionary sense for her to want sex as much as a man does.

Imagine for a moment what would happen if some expert claimed that men with high sex drives are diseased and tried to market a drug to treat them.

And if you think I'm in the habit of making anti-male comments, head on over to the gender forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if you think I'm in the habit of making anti-male comments,

no one said your in the habit of it..but on this occasion you generalised in a way that if a man did it ..women quite rightly would be offended

" I signed because this is another case of men and corporations exploiting women." is not acceptable

Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePieMaker

I just want to remind everyone to keep this on topic, please.

Your friendly neighborhood mod,

GoAllyGoGo

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would low sexual-desire even be considered a Disease?

Oh Yea, because eeeeeeeveryone likes sex. -__-

No, because drug companies frame EVERYTHING as a disease and thus can sell drugs for it!

*Stalks off muttering about how people just don't understand marketing...*

Link to post
Share on other sites
:rolleyes: As if the people who want lobotomize themselves don't know what they're doing.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

On the subject on staying on topic...

The New View Campaign is aiming for at least 500 signatures for their petition. As of writing this, they have 424, so those of you who haven't signed, I would definitely encourage you to consider doing so. I feel that this is a very important issue inside and outside of the asexual community, but it is one that asexuals have particular reason to be interested in. (My own view is that there are serious problems with regarding lack of interest in sex itself as a disoreder--even if there is the requirement that it's only a disorder if it causes distress; a lot of people just want to ignore these problems and hope that they go away, which they won't. The asexual community is in a unique position to highlight these problems and force discussion of them.)

To help out with this campaign--and to increase awareness of it in the asexual community--I posted here, on Apositive, on my blog, and on the asexual community on LJ about it. Many people were supportive, but many were not. To a large extent, I was genuinely surprised by a lot of the negative feedback that I got, so I made a second blog post address the many concerns people raised, and to correct misunderstandings. I'm copying large portions of those here:

I'll summarize the main arguments against my position:

1) Even though asexuals aren't distressed about not being interested in sex, many people are distressed about it. It's not our place to prevent them from getting help.

2) If the drug works, the FDA should approve it. If it doesn't, they shouldn't. Why should potentially bad consequences (especially bad consequences for a small minority like asexuals) play any role?

3) No one is going to force us to take it, so why should we care?

4) Even if this is a bad idea, why would the FDA even care about this petition?

I'll address these in reverse order.

Even if this is a bad idea, why would the FDA even care about this petition?

On the New View Campaign Website they explain the purpose of the petition:

Please go to Change.org and look for the Low Sexual Desire petition and sign it and circulate it to others. ASAP, please. We will take these petitions to the June 18 Flibanserin hearing.

It seems that the purpose of the petition is to bolster support for their position, giving them more credibility in making their arguments. I don't know how much this petition will help, but I doubt it will hurt.

No one is going to force us to take it, so why should we care?

This objection can take either one of two flavors, and, for those making it, I'm not sure which was intended. One version is a "live and let live" approach. If it's not hurting me and it helps others, great. Why should I prevent that? This version essentially boils down to (1) above (addressed below.) The other flavor this can take is, "It's not my problem, so why should I care?" If that's your position, I probably can't do much to change it.

If it works, the FDA should approve it. If it doesn't, they shouldn't. Why should potentially bad consequences (especially bad consequences for a small minority like asexuals) play any role?

I think that the social effects are a legitimate concern. Essentially, the question should be "Will approving this do more good than harm?" For the possible harm of approving it, cost, side-effects, and social consequences are all legitimate areas of concern.

Neuroskeptic copies a chart about side effects, summarizing it as follows:

100 mg flibanserin nightly caused 14% of patients to drop out due to side effects, vs 7% in the placebo group - so an extra 7% decided it wasn't worth it. It caused dizziness, nausea, fatigue, somnolence - and bizarrely, also insomnia. Notably, 50mg daily was much worse than 100 mg nightly, which suggests that taking this at night, rather than in the morning, is a good idea. But given what it is meant to treat, you'd want to do that anyway, right?

Further troubling facts about this drug have to do with how it's marketed. If you look at the site Sex, Brain, Body (with hard to read text at the bottom saying, "This content was developed with the support of a sponsorship from Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc."), it's clear that they're painting a picture of this "disorder" that fits with what the drug supposedly does. As Dr. Petra explains:

In the past five years we’ve seen some interesting (and worrying) developments in the area of drug development for HSDD. For several years the general view was women’s lack of desire was linked to hormonal deficits (specifically Testosterone) with hormonal patches designed to ‘treat’ the problem. These performed poorly at trial and were not approved by the FDA (although did get approval for use in Europe). A systematic review of all trial data indicated the Intrinsa patch was not effective at dealing with low desire in women.

The focus has now shifted to seeing women’s lack of desire as a neurological problem, with Flibanserin working in a similar way to an antidepressant (indeed it was developed as an antidepressant but was not fit for purpose). The naming of the promotional site as ‘Sex. Brain. Body’ particularly shifts attention towards female desire problems as being psychological, complex and emotional.

Intrinsa was only designed for women who had low desire following surgical menopause, whereas Flibanserin can be taken by any woman diagnosed with low sexual desire. Already we have seen practitioners associated with Boehringer Ingelheim working on Flibanserin also suggesting the contraceptive pill reduces desire which is one market which may benefit from having a pill to boost arousal.

Furthermore, the troubling social consequences of this would not be limited to the asexual community (not remotely). It is largely sex-therapists troubled by the medicaliaztion of sexuality--setting up a universal sexual norm, and ignoring relational, social, and political factors--who are leading the work against this. For an interesting perspective on a related issue, I would suggest an article by Allen Frances: Should Practical Consequences Influence DSM5 Decisions? Yes, Of Course.

Even though asexuals aren't distressed about not being interested in sex, many people are distressed about it. It's not our place to prevent them from getting help.

I am most certainly not opposed to people distressed about lack of interested in sex from getting help. In my history of Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder and the Asexual Community (which provides useful historical background for those interested) I explained the position members of the AVEN DSM Taskforce (as we called ourselves) found ourselves in:

[One] big difficulty is that a lot of people to see therapists complaining of low sexual desire. In the US, being diagnosed with something is an important part of getting insurance reimbursement, so simply advocating that the diagnosis be deleted did not seem a viable option. We knew we wanted a more asexual-friendly way of diagnosing low sexual desire, but we weren’t even sure what that would be.

The objection to this drug is largely that it barely does anything positive, but the negatives are considerable.

As before, I feel that this is something that we, in the asexual community, should be very concerned about, which is why I strongly encourage people to sign the petition. I would also encourage bloggers to read up on it and blog about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

but why do we need a petition?

if the drug doesn't work once the novelty has worn off people won't take it

on the"it will portray asexuality not as a orientation"...did that happen with viagra? any one here think viagra stopped them being asexual becuase other people used it?

Viagra if anything was far more of a danger to asexuals in making it a disease rather than an orientation

men more than women are expected to be sexual so using your argument men should have been pressured into taking it

i saw no one force feeding asexuals/sexuals viagra ..people in general said yes i'll take it or no i won't

viagra's been out many many years....but here we all are

still a community..still an orientation..still making our own choices

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

but why do we need a petition?

if the drug doesn't work once the novelty has worn off people won't take it

on the"it will portray asexuality not as a orientation"...did that happen with viagra? any one here think viagra stopped them being asexual becuase other people used it?

Viagra if anything was far more of a danger to asexuals in making it a disease rather than an orientation

men more than women are expected to be sexual so using your argument men should have been pressured into taking it

i saw no one force feeding asexuals/sexuals viagra ..people in general said yes i'll take it or no i won't

viagra's been out many many years....but here we all are

still a community..still an orientation..still making our own choices

First of all, about the novelty thing, I would encourage you to go and read some of the links that I and others have provided about this drug. It is supposed to be like an anti-depressant in that you have to take it for about a month before it is supposed to do anything. Also, there are lots of desparte people out there who really want to be more interested in sex, and there is great fear that they'll go and take this as a cure...the problem is that it would be a false cure. (By your logic, we should expect that no one would ever be interested in bogus cures for anything... Protecting the public against these is one of the main reason the FDA exists.)

With regards to Viagra, Viagra does nothing for sexual desire. It is for men who want sex but have difficulty getting or maintaining an erection. This drug deals with the "disorder" of not being intererested in sex, which is a very different thing.

From the number of comments that you have made on this thread, it is clear that you are very interested in this subject, which is good. I'm very interested in it too. However, you give the impression that you haven't gone and done your homework on the matter. I think that your arguments would be much stronger if you went and read up on it more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, about the novelty thing, I would encourage you to go and read some of the links that I and others have provided about this drug. It is supposed to be like an anti-depressant in that you have to take it for about a month before it is supposed to do anything.

Having had a long personal experience with most kind of drugs..in particular prescription...I can assure you when it comes to depression and many other drugs.....they all do that

Also, there are lots of desparte people out there who really want to be more interested in sex, and there is great fear that they'll go and take this as a cure...the problem is that it would be a false cure. Protecting the public against these is one of the main reason the FDA exists.)

I can also assure you people desperate for sex has gone on since the invention of man...there is nothing new in this..and over the centuries have taken all kinds of shit to boost the sexual needs...anyone remember spanish fly? I would certianly trust the fda more than a non medically trained opiniated petitionist

With regards to Viagra, Viagra does nothing for sexual desire. It is for men who want sex but have difficulty getting or maintaining an erection. This drug deals with the "disorder" of not being intererested in sex, which is a very different thing..

different as in the cause but no different in wanting sex and using medication to get it

From the number of comments that you have made on this thread, it is clear that you are very interested in this subject, which is good. I'm very interested in it too. However, you give the impression that you haven't gone and done your homework on the matter. I think that your arguments would be much stronger if you went and read up on it more.

It's clear when someone points out the perspective to which this scare mongering is being projected you choose to try and belittle those with a different opinion

your petition will be tommorows chip paper..as this drug will not affect the asexuality movement and I for one trust the fda more than I trust the petition and will certianly not try and stand in the way of those that this drug..if it works...may help people

Link to post
Share on other sites
Prismatangle
...

...

However, you seem to think that nothing can be done about ANY type of coercion, never even mind rape. But social values cause a lot of cases of coercion, and social pressure will significantly increase if there is a drug out there purported to "cure" low sexual desire. Lots of people will be pressured into taking this drug unwisely, without doing the research to find out for themselves whether or not it will have bad side effects (or whether their condition is even physiological at all).

I agree completely that coercion into taking such a drug is wrong, that we should stand against it and it's not unrealistic to think such a stand might make a difference.

But what I question is whether the right way of going about that is to deny ALL women the right to choose whether they want this drug, because some women might be coerced if it's allowed.

It's rather ironically reminiscent of an argument you sometimes hear from pro-lifers. Abortion shouldn't be allowed because what if the male partners don't want the baby and therefore pressure the woman into aborting?

Or: people who are living in constant agony shouldn't have the right to end their own life, since if we give them that right then old people will come under pressure by their families, who don't want them as a burden, to end their lives.

In both cases, the solution is to tackle the problem of coercion head on, not to deny everyone the choice simply because some unscrupulous people will exploit the existence of that freedom.

I think this is a good point, so I wanted to address it.

I don't think your analogies work here, because in order for them to work, you would have to assume that the drug company is being honest about their product (edit: just to elaborate so as to be clear, I say you would have to assume the company is being honest because if you assumed they weren't, you wouldn't be asking that question). The question should not be "should we ban all women from having the right to take this just because some people might be coerced into doing it," but rather, "should the drug company have the right to produce and market this with the claim that it will help women increase their libido?" If you read the things that mandrewliter has posted, you will see that there is barely, if any, ground for them to make this claim. So basically, we're questioning whether the drug company should have the right to lie.

The FDA exists to prevent them from lying and providing unsafe or ineffective products to the public. Nevertheless, they slip up sometimes. I'm too young to have lived through it, but I remember hearing about a pill that was marketed to pregnant women (in the '70s?) as a way to cure/prevent morning sickness which ended up creating a massive amount of birth defects.

The concerns I am raising are part of the COST of allowing them to make such unethical claims. It is not the ONLY cost, but it is one of them. It's a way of reminding everyone that this is very important to get right, and the costs will be high. The drug has not been tested extensively enough to prove that it works for what they are claiming it works for, or that it has a large enough impact on how frequently enjoyment of sex happens to warrant such an aggressive campaign. So it has minimal benefits, and a very high cost, including a high social cost. If anything, it seems more like a sleeping pill that has a slight side effect of an increase of libido for some people.

Now, IF the drug had been proven without a doubt to be effective for what it is being marketed for and safe for everyone, I would not have a problem with its FDA approval, but rather would only target the HSDD diagnosis and advocate for providing proper guidelines for its use and education about what is normal and healthy with regard to sex and relationships. But as it stands, the risks are way greater than any possible benefit that may come from approving it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
oneofthesun

" I signed because this is another case of men and corporations exploiting women." is not acceptable

LOL Sorry, I wasn't aware my opinions had to meet your approval. But if this is your definition of sexist then I'll take it. I stand behind my views.

The objection to this drug is largely that it barely does anything positive, but the negatives are considerable.

The more I read on this, the more I agree. Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if the drug was a total flop - The clinical trials weren't promising and the incidents of side effects significant. Using Viagra as a basis for comparison again, at least it does what it's advertised to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites

" I signed because this is another case of men and corporations exploiting women." is not acceptable

LOL Sorry, I wasn't aware my opinions had to meet your approval. But if this is your definition of sexist then I'll take it. I stand behind my view

as mine do not need yours but make no bones about it

had a man said what you had said about women...they would have been called ignorant, biggotted and sexist

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Happy Toast

If I man said that trying to get this drug approved was an example of women and the corporations exploiting men, people would have been like "wtf?" not "you're sexist."

Granted, I have my suspicions that there have been a fair number of women involved on the corporation's side and I think it is better seen as corporate greed than sexism. (I'm sure they'd be just as willing to exploit men if it meant profit.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure they'd be just as willing to exploit men if it meant profit.

Oh yes, Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, China's poor tigers who are being killed into extinction so their organs can be used as aphrodisiacs, etc.etc.etc. from the dawn of time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Noskcaj.Llahsram
Oh yes, Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, China's poor tigers who are being killed into extinction so their organs can be used as aphrodisiacs, etc.etc.etc. from the dawn of time.

Actually the Tiger has been an important to all parts of Chinese folk medicine, not just sexual prowess.

the_more_you_know2.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would low sexual-desire even be considered a Disease?

Oh Yea, because eeeeeeeveryone likes sex. -__-

No, because drug companies frame EVERYTHING as a disease and thus can sell drugs for it!

*Stalks off muttering about how people just don't understand marketing...*

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/medicatedchild/

http://www.internationalreportingproject.org/stories/detail/598/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...