out an exception to the prescription drug rule in the case of oral contraceptives. See MacDonald v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 394 Mass. 131, 475 N.E.2d 65, 70, cert. denied, 474 U.S. 920, 106 S.Ct. 250, 88 L.Ed.2d 258 (1985). In MacDonald, the SJC decided that oral contraceptives require direct warnings to patient consumers because, unlike most prescription drugs involving substantial risks: (1) a patient usually takes an active role in the decision to choose oral contraceptives; (2) direct warnings by the manufacturer to the consumer are feasible; and (3) doctor-patient contact is limited — i.e., oral contraceptives are generally prescribed for a full year without any interim appointments. See id. 475 N.E.2d at 69-70. Cf. Lukaszewicz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 510 F.Supp. 961 (<HOLDING>), amended on other grounds, 532 F.Supp. 211
holding prior drug deals admissible to prove knowledge of the drug trade holding a fiveyear old drug conviction is probative of a defendants state of mind in a drug conspiracy case recognizing departure from prescription drug rule in the case of oral contraceptives where plaintiff can show that defendant deviated from food and drug administration fda regulations holding that defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on causation because plaintiff presented peerreviewed scientific studies showing that drug prescribed to her reduced efficacy of oral contraceptives holding that referring the issue to fda would be wasteful and duplicative in case where fda had filed seizure actions after rejecting premos attempt to file drug with agency