Talk:IPLEDGE program

I have submitted basic information about iPLEDGE. Philiphughesmd 18:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC) I have edited it to make it more "neutral." Philiphughesmd 04:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a parent of a child that takes accutane and a victim of the iPLEDGE nightmare I vouch for the authors neutrality. He had much nicer things to say about iPLEDGE then I do. Eric Pedersen, parent. tisabooks@hotmail.com

This article is not biased! The iPLEDGE program is a disaster according to the American Academy of Dermatology. Philiphughesmd 03:49, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I do not necessarily support iPLEDGE (indeed, there are huge failures to the system), this article could include information about the purpose of the program, including information about the birth defects caused by accutane, the discussion leading up to the program and its governing body, and the rationalization for a governing system, while avoiding incendiary language such as "requirements to get it are intrusive, bewildering, and byzantine!" or unsubstantiated claims such as "waits "on hold" of easily 2 hours or more." Customer and dermatologist complaints notwithstanding, an obstetrician may yet say that the program is far from a disaster. I say that this article is still far from neutral. -hedge, 03:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As an 18 year old participant of the iPLEDGE system, I wholeheartedly agree with this author's take on the program. Not only is this a neutral article, but a correct one. I am an extremely punctual, conscientious, and responsible person, and I have had two skip 2 months of my treatment just because of glitches and errors in this ridiculous system full of short windows of time and endless authorizational processes. This medication is changing my life - I have been on antibiotics for more than a decade, and the freedom that this gives me is beyond words. The iPLEDGE system is archaic and abusive, and needs to be removed. Anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly not had an acne problem. abateman@wisc.edu

I've completely revamped the article to make it largely NPOV, while adding relevant links, keeping all the present criticisms, and adding a few of my own. The previous version of the article was loaded with vitriolic terms and didn't really tell me what iPLEDGE was or why it was instituted. Reading the actual website makes it clear that it was badly implemented. One thing this article still needs is an actual linked quote from a named physician, the paragraph with the RxDerm reference is still presented as hearsay (though it may well be true). User:keno 19:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]