The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

Intro

ROBERT MacNEIL: Good evening. Republican platform writers solved their two areas of dispute today. A compromise was reached on a tough anti-tax plank; the Equal Rights Amendment was left out. Consumer demand for retail goods dropped in July. A Los Angeles policeman who disarmed a bomb yesterday said today it was a hoax. Jim Lehrer is off tonight: Judy Woodruff's in Washington. Judy?

JUDY WOODRUFF: The stories we'll be focusing on on the NewsHour: in the aftermath of the GOP refusal to endorse the ERA, two Republicans join us to debate how the party treats women. On a controversial new painkiller, we hear from someone who says it's safe and a pharmacist who says it's not. As the dust clears from Argentina's "Dirty War." we take a documentary look at the continuing search by grandmothers for their missing grandchildren. And we close with a review of an award-winning autobiography by a man who experienced the end of an era in California in the early 1900s.Hammering Out the Platform

WOODRUFF: They were all but dotting i's and crossing t's literally at the Republican Party platform meetings in Dallas today. By inserting a single comma into some platform language, party conservatives were able to get most of their way in ruling out any tax increases next year. The conservatives had been pushing for a flat prohibition of any tax increases, but were opposed by the White House, which wanted to leave President Reagan some flexibility in the event taxes have to be raised. After the two sides reached agreement on a sentence that began, "We therefore oppose any attempts to increase taxes which would harm the recovery . . ." members of a platform subcommittee went even further and added a comma after the word "taxes" so the sentence now reads, "We therefore oppose any attempts to increase taxes, which would harm the recovery." The thrust of the change is to make any tax increases harmful. It was an apparent victory for the more conservative members of the platform committee.

Rep. TOM LOEFFLER, (R) Texas: I believe that this amendment, with the insertion of the comma between "taxes" and "which" strengthens further our resolve to not turn to taxes to resolve our problems, particularly now when the tax reductions have been such a key element in the strong recovery and something that we want to maintain.

W. CLARK DURANT, Michigan delegate: I'm not really speaking. I suppose, for or against a comma. Little did I think when I came so far that we would be debating a comma. But I think that the -- what I would like to hear comments from the committee on is, are we sending the kind of clear signal that is supported by over president and that is reflective of the success that we have had in this paragraph?

MARGARET MILLER, West Virginia delegate: I think we need to recognize that the liberal Congress has an expensive habit, and they're asking the American people to support that expensive habit. And that habit is spending money, our money. I don't think Americans can tolerate another cut in their pay, and that's exactly what the Democrats are asking them to do. And I think we are going on record as saying we will not tolerate taking more money out of our American paychecks.

WOODRUFF: Georgia Congressman Newt Gingrich and others had argued for no tax increase except in a national emergency. He had threatened to take his argument to the convention floor if necessary. But Gingrich sounded today as if the new language was enough to satisfy him, and explained in an interview with reporter Peggy Robinson his view of the importance of the comma.

Rep. NEWT GINGRICH, (R) Georgia: It changes dramatically the meaning of the sentence. The sentence without the comma basically says we're against those taxes which might affect the economy. The sentence with the economy [sic] says we're against taxes because they would affect the economy, and I think there's a big difference in how the structure of the sentence means. And what we've been trying to say all along is that we want to communicate to the White House staff, to the federal executive branch, to the news media, etc., that there is a huge gap between Walter Mondale's desire to balance the budget by raising taxes and our desire to balance the budget by combining economic growth and frugality in Washington instead of frugality for your family pocketbook. I think that there are two emerging factions in the Republican Party -- a forward-looking, opportunity society group that really is focused on an agenda for growth and on how do you change the world, and a -- what Irving Kristol once called the budget-balancers, the welfare state. If we had not had this fight for the last six weeks, the budget-balancers, the welfare state would have adopted a platform plank which would have, in effect, run the high-tax increase Mondale against the lower-tax increase Reagan. We're trying to argue for a platform, of an agenda for growth, with an effort to create jobs, with a different future for America, versus Mondale's effort to take your take-home pay in order to prop up his allies in the welfare state.

WOODRUFF: The man the White House has used as its intermediary with the platform committee is former Transportation Secretary Drew Lewis, who is now active in the Reagan re-election campaign. Even though the newest language with the comma was not his first choice, Lewis said he felt the White House could live with it.

DREW LEWIS, Reagan/Bush campaign: Essentially we want in the platform something that indicated the President's opposition to taxes. We also did not want the President locked in so tight that he could not exercise his constitutional responsibility as the chief executive. As it now reads, even with the comma in, there's been some modifying language. I don't recall the exact specifics, but essentially it gives the President an out in case there is a national emergency that he hasto do what's in the best interest of the people of this country. So the comma is not serious and we're not going to argue about punctuation. He is adamantly opposed to taxes. He's been consistent on it, and this, I think, in terms of the platform, is consistent with his philosophy.

WOODRUFF: However, out in Los Angeles, President Reagan's spokesman suggested that no matter what the Republican Party platform says, Mr. Reagan will be guided by what he said in his own statement released two days ago. In it, the President said taxes should be raised only as a last resort. At the same time, Mr. Reagan said, a president should never say never. It was the latest in a series of statements coming from Mr. Reagan and from Vice President Bush indicating a number of varying views on the extent to which new taxes should be ruled out. Robin?

MacNEIL: While the Republicans rallied round the tax compromise, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment died a quiet death. Yesterday the Human Resources Subcommittee heard impassioned pleas to include the amendment in the Republican platform. But today, when the proposal was offered, it was greeted with such silence that it died because no one would second it. Here to talk about the amendment's fate and the party's position on women's issues, we have two Republicans, Elaine Donnelly, a Michigan delegate at large and long-time opponent of the ERA, and Tom Cashill, a delegate from Rhode Island and a member of that state's Women's Political Caucus. They both join us from public television station KERA in Dallas. Mr. Cashill, as a supporter of the ERA, tell us what happened. We heard such strong arguments yesterday in favor of the amendment in the platform, and yet there was no one there to second it today.

TOM CASHILL: Well, I was disturbed by that. I was not in that particular subcommittee when it happened, but what bothers me is that it was not able to come out of committee to the main committee for a vote. To me we needed to have a vote to show the support that many Republicans have for the ERA.

MacNEIL: What is -- how do you see what happened.Mr. Donnelly?

ELAINE DONNELLY: Well, I think the real defeat for ERA was in Congress last fall. The proponents of ERA have only themselves to blame because it did not get out of Congress at that time. Many members of Congress, both the Democrats and Republicans, tried to offer amendments to prevent -- or to prevent some of the problems that we have with the amendment -- such things as the fact that it would take away women's family support rights. There was a connection with the abortion issue, the involvement of women in the military and combat duty in a future war. All those amendments were defeated on the insistence of the ERA proponents. Now, if they were willing to compromise a little bit, maybe they would have gotten an amendment that people could support. As it is now, the Republican Party has come out totally in favor of equal pay and opportunity for women. We have some exciting new ideas that go well beyond ERA, and I'm very proud of the party for being able to separate out the good issues from the bad issues and the debatable ones and do some very constructive things.

MacNEIL: Mr. Cashill, would there have been enough delegate support for ERA to have -- if it had come up for general discussion to have had a minority plank and a debate on the floor and that sort of thing?

Mr. CASHILL: That's part of the problem, by the way. I am not certain -- I talked to many people who were in favor of the ERA. But I'd like to just take a minute to say that the Republican Party has been trying not to focus just on the ERA. The ERA obviously is a symbol for women. I am totally supportive of it. But much of what I've heard in the last two days here is that we have to come out with specific planks that will assist women. And we've been able to do that. I'm very thrilled about that part to if.

MacNEIL: Well, I'll come to those in just a moment. I just want to know, on the ERA, with the Democrats, Miss Donnelly, mounting a strong pro-women campaign with Miss Ferraro on the ticket and so on, what kind of a signal does the refusal even to debate ERA in the platform committee send to the country at large, do you think?

Ms. DONNELLY: There was no refusal to debate ERA in the platform committee. There was simply not enough support for it. It is a dead issue, politically speaking. It died three times -- with the extension -- at the end of the extension period not enough states ratified. It did not get out of Congress last fall. The American people don't support it either. When it was put on the ballot it was defeated overwhelmingly by the voters, including women, which leads me to your question about Geraldine Ferraro. Anybody who would say with a straight face that all women think alike may say, well, all women are going to vote for Geraldine Ferraro just because she's woman. I think she's going to help defeat the Mondale ticket, not because she's woman but because of the very liberal views that she stands for. A lot of women have very strongly different opinions on issues like ERA, abortion, government regulation and so on. And we like to think for ourselves and make up our minds for ourselves, and remember, we won the majority of women's votes in 1980. And I think the Republicans and going to do the same, even better, in 1984.

MacNEIL: Mr. Cashill, how do you see the signal that not adopting ERA sends politically to the country in this particular election year.

Mr. CASHILL: Let me tell you what I think is a very interesting thing. I sat in on a separate subcommittee, the subcommittee on human resources and neighborhoods, for example. And I can guarantee you if the ERA plank was presented to that subcommittee, it would have not only come out of the subcommittee with a second, it would have come out of the subcommittee with the majority of people on that particular committee. So I really -- the one thing I want to make certain that you understand is that that one subcommittee that was making the judgment on ERA was not making a judgment for the entire platform committee.

MacNEIL: But the issue is dead now for this convention?

Mr. CASHILL: It's dead. Unfortunately.

MacNEIL: Yeah. Miss Donnelly, what does the Republican platform say to American women this year?

Ms. DONNELLY: Well, we've called for the end of discrimination against homemakers with regard to individual retirement accounts. If what the President has called for comes to pass, single-income couples will be able to invest as much in an IRA account as a two-income couple. And that's very good idea for homemakers. We have also called for an increase in the income-tax child deduction which is -- it has not kept up with inflation. It's only $1,000, and it should be at least double because if it had kept up with inflation since 1950, that deduction would be at least $4,000.Now, this is a heavy penalty, a tax penalty on the people who are raising children, and even though inflation makes it more expensive to raise children, we think the tax benefit should keep up with that. So we have endorsed that idea, and I think that's wonderful idea. In the administration itself we've eliminated estate taxes. That helps older women. We have called for increased child support enforcement. We've already done that. We're going to improve it. There are a whole list of things that are helpful to women, both working women and homemakers alike. The reduction in the marriage penalty is another area that helps working women, two-income couples. This is the way to go -- to look at issues in a practical way, but not go too far into areas that are genuinely not in the best interests of women.

MacNEIL: Mr. Cashill, is that a -- do you think that does sufficient for women in a year in which the Democrats are pressing, for instance, for equal pay, pay equity?

Mr. CASHILL: Well, if we had an hour show, we could go over details as to what the Republican Party has to offer women. An example of which, most of what I hear in Rhode Island -- and I happen to be in a state that has five women running for the seven major offices, including the U.S. Senate and U.S. Congress. We have eight women recently elected to our state senate. So that we -- the Republican Party is the party of the women in Rhode Island, and what I hear from them is that they are as interested in inflation rates and in interest rates and in taxes and the same economic issues that men are involved with. Frequently we tend not to focus on that. Also I hear things such as daycare. Daycare is a very important aspect of a Republican program. We've supported it, and we -- I think we will increase it. Single parents -- this is a major problem. A good portion of the people are going into poverty today are single parent females --

MacNEIL: What does the platform --

Mr. CASHILL: We will be working on this.

MacNEIL: What does the platform offer them?

Mr. CASHILL: Well, what we're looking at is a range of social issues in which the Republican Party will directly support women. The one thing that I think is interesting is, even though we may differ on the ERA plank, there is very little else that we disagree on. We're all, as Republicans, attempting to -- we know that eight to nine million more women are going to vote than men this time around. We have got to respond to women's issues, and we're going to do that.

MacNEIL: And you --

Ms. DONNELLY: Robin?

MacNEIL: Yeah? Yes?

Ms. DONNELLY: Yes, I'd like to comment about what you said about the Democrats endorsing the equal pay. I must say it again. We have done that, too. It is the law of the land, has been for over 20 years. And we certainly support that. But the concept that you called pay equity is also called equal pay for comparable work, this we have come out against because it's really not a good idea for women. What it would do is reduce the job availability for women, and it would also increase bureaucratic control -- in fact, it would result in total bureaucratic control of the wage-setting process, and it would also cause unfairness to individual workers, women as well as men. And anyone who researches this issue very carefully, looking behind the name that sounds good -- equal pay for comparable work sounds so much like equal pay for equal work -- they may not recognize the difference. But what that idea is, comparable worth, is bureaucratic control of the wage-setting process. And we're against that.

MacNEIL: Well, Ms. Donnelly and Mr. Cashill, thank you both for joining us in Dallas.

Mr. CASHILL: Thank you for having us.

Ms. CONNELLY: Thank you.

MacNEIL: Judy?

WOODRUFF: TheSoviet Union reacted for the first time today to President Reagan's weekend joke about bombing Russia. A Soviet state television commentator called it "astonishing and irresponsible." Mr. Reagan said during a microphone test before his regular Saturday radio broadcast, "I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begain bombing in five minutes." The Soviet commentator said on the main evening news. . . It is said that the level of a joke correspondents to the level of a person's thinking. If that is so, then are not both too low for the president of a great country?" The commentator added that it was a secret dream of Mr. Reagan's that he suddenly blurted out. Robin?

MacNEIL: The Los Angeles Olympics had a bizarre sequel today, or sequel to a sequel. A Los Angeles police officer who was hailed as a hero yesterday for disarmining a bomb, was arrested today for planting the device. The officer, 40-year-old Jimmy Wade Pearson, said yesterday he spotted a pipe bomb on a bus carrying Turkish athletes from the campus of the University of California at Los Angeles to Los Angeles International Airport, and disarmed it. Today Pearson confessed to planting the bomb. Police Chief Daryl Gates told a news conference how Pearson was found out.

DARYL GATES, Los Angeles police chief: We began to suspicion that there was something wrong with his story rather erly because of the very careful examination of those buses before they left UCLA and before we placed the Turkish athletes and officials on those buses. As our investigation continued, we determined that the only person who could have placed it there was the officer, and after examination of all the facts the officer has indicated that he did do that. I'm sure everyone wants to know why. We've asked him that. He indicated that he was having problems with his supervisors in Metro, his assignment, and he wanted to do something that would cause them to take notice. And so he decided that this was a way that they would notice him and certainly we have all noticed him at this point.

MacNEIL: Incidentally, a few hours before the hoax was announced, someone called the Associated Press in Paris and claimed that a group called The Armenian Secret Army had planted the bomb. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Because of the incident in L.A., the athletes were delayed an hour and a half last night when they arrived in Washington. District of Columbia police decided to conduct a thorough search of the buses that were to carry the group from Dulles Airport to their hotels after word came about the bomb in Los Angeles. Nothing was found, and the group went on its way. But today they were again treated like heroes, beginning a week of honors in four cities across the country. Here in Washington, 25,000 people turned out to watch them parade from near the White House to the Capitol Building, using the route up Pennsylvania Avenue. Many in the crowd waved American flags as the athletes passed by. Once they reached the Capitol, they walked up the west steps to a ceremony presided over by members of the congressional leadership. Senate Majority Leader Howard Baker presented a joint congressional resolution citing the achievements of the Americans in Los Angeles.

FLO HYMAN, U.S. Women's Volleyball Team: I would just like to say on behalf of all the U.S. athletes that we thank you for the privilege that you allowed us to represent you, and we're so proud that we all were able to do ourselves proud and the nation proud. Thank you very much.

TERRY SCHROEDER, U.S. Water Polo Team: On behalf of the team. I'd also like to day to the members of the Congress and other people of America, thank you very much for your support. We have felt you behind us all the way, and it's meant a lot to us.Thanks a lot.

WOODRUFF: Tonight the Olympic medalists head off to New York, where they will be honored by a ticker tape parade tomorrow. Then it's off to Orlando and Dallas before the victory tour ends on Saturday. Robin?

MacNEIL: In economic news today, government figures gave further evidence that the recovery is cooling off somewhat. U.S. retail sales dropped 0.9% in July, the first decline in four months. Commerce Secretary Malcolm Baldrige said the slower growth of the consumer spending should help to relieve pressure on the credit markets resulting from the record installment borrowing of recent months. The Federal Reserve Board said today that Americans increased their installment borrowing by a near-record $7.8 billion in June. None of this excited Wall Street today. The Dow Jones average of 30 industrial stocks closed down 5.97 points, at 1214.11. Second Thoughts on Advil and Nuprin

MacNEIL: Our next major story tonight straddles the line between business and medical news. Over the last month a rebellion has been brewing among pharmacists in at least seven states. The pharmacists are angry about the Food and Drug Administration's recent decision to allow a long-time prescription painkiller to be sold over the counter like aspirin. The drug is called ibuprofen, prescribed for millions of people for years, mainly under the brand name Motrin for arthritis, menstrual cramps and other aches and pains. Since May the drug has been available in a lower dose without the prescription under the names Advil and Nuprin. But the pharmacists say customers are not being adequately warned about the drug's side effects, which can include kidney damage. In recent ad campaigns, the manufacturers have touted the new products as the biggest breakthrough since aspirin and Tylenol.

[TV commecials]

ANNOUNCER: Aspirin was introduced in 1899, Tylenol, in 1955. Today there's Advil, a major development in non-prescription pain relief.

ANNOUNCER: This is the pain-relieving medicine for which doctors have written 100 million prescriptions, and now you can have it in a new non-prescription strength. Bristol Meyers introduces Nuprin. One tablet has the strength to relieve most minor aches and pains.

ANNOUNCER: If you're allergic t aspirin, consult your doctor before taking Advil. Advil. Advanced medicine for pain.

MacNEIL: Some druggists who are worried about possible side effects have gone so far as to remove the drugs from their aisle shelves and put them back behind the counter, where they'll only sell them after a personal warning about the risks. Judy?

WOODRUFF: One of the leaders of this grassroots rebellion is Vern Gideon, the owner of two Chicago pharmacies and vice president of the Illinois Association of Community Pharmacists. He joins us tonight from public station WTTW in Chicago. First of all, Mr. Gideon, what is the problem that you have with the drug? What's your main concern?

VERN GIDEON: Well, we feel -- we feel that the drug should not have been released for over-the-counter sale. The drug has significant side effects, and to make this drug available in supermarkets and truck stops and convenience stores and gas stations, we think, represents a health hazard to the American consumer.

WOODRUFF: What are the side effects?

Mr. GIDEON: There are certainly significant gastrointestinal problems possible. There is a very, very strong contraindication to be taken for people who are sensitive to aspirin, and yet some of the advertising, we feel, has been very misleading in indicating that it's a substitute for aspirin. Persons taking anti-hypertensive medications ought not to take the drug without an okay from their physicians. Several physicians in the United States -- Dr. Flamenbaum in New York at, I think, Beth Israel Hospital and Dr. Dornfeld in California -- have indicated that there are serious renal problems possible with persons taking the drug that should not be taking it.

WOODRUFF: Well, if it has all these problems, why do you think the FDA went ahead and approved it? What makes you think that you know more than the people who studied it at the FDA know?

Mr. GIDEON: Well, I'm not indicating that I know more than they, but I do feel that with the potential for side effects I have a professional responsibility towards my patients, the consumers that come into my store. I feel that other pharmacists also have that responsibility. And in that light, we are asking to additionally caution patients who wish to purchase the drug. We are in -- we are in no way restricting its sale.

WOODRUFF: Well, what exactly are you doing? I mean, how are you handling it? Is it out on the shelf in your --

Mr. GIDEON: Well, in my stores the drug is in plain view, but it is behind the counter. And if asked for the drug -- if somebody asks me do we have Advil or Nuprin, we certainly do, and a pharmacist is available to counsel. If, in fact, a patient were to indicate that they were not interested in that counseling, we would be certainly glad to sell the drug without it. However, our professional counsel is available.

WOODRUFF: Is it the role of the pharmacist to stand between the customer and a regularly available over-the-counter drug like this?

Mr. GIDEON: Well, I don't believe that we're standing between the customer and the drug. The drug is readily available. We are making our professional expertise available. And I do think that pharmacists on a day-in and day-out basis are so often asked questions about the use of medication, it is more the norm than not the norm, and this is just another case where that counseling is available.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Gideon, we will come back to you.

Mr. GIDEON: Thank you.

WOODRUFF: Robin?

MacNEIL: One man who believes the new drug does belong on store shelves is Dr. Sanford Roth, director of Arizona State University's Aging and Arthritis program. Dr. Roth was on an FDA advisory committee that recommended approving the drug for non-prescription sales. He joins us tonight from public station KCET-Los Angeles.Dr. Roth, you just heard Mr. Gideon say the FDA shouldn't have released it for over-the-counter sales because of the side effects and the contraindications he mentioned. What do you say to that?

Dr. SANFORD ROTH: Well, I've been listening to your program, Robin, and I've heard about the pro-woman issue, and I think we're into really a pro-consumer issue now. In Great Britain for the past year ibuprofen has been over the counter. Actually, it's been available for almost 15 years by prescription there. The most-used arthritic drug in this country and overseas and the fourth-most prescribed drug in this country. And another issue that it strikes me that comes up now is the protectionism issue within the professional circles of medicine and the pharmaceutical profession. We've had control of a drug that's been our most popular anti-arthritic drug. And now it's being taken out of our hands. But it's being taken out of our hands in a very special way -- at a very low dosage and a dosage that really is very different, with instructions that are very different than are used in the hands of the professionals.

MacNEIL: These pills are sold over the counter at 200 milligrams, is that right? And doctors -- you need, for a stronger dose, you need to get a doctor's prescription, is that correct?

Dr. ROTH: That's very -- yes, that's very true, Robin. It's most important that the consumers do read the instructions, but the question is, do our health consumers have the right to have an alternate choice for simple pain relief? Will they exert the proper responsibility and not abuse their medication? If they do do that --

MacNEIL: Well, Mr. -- I beg your pardon. Mr. Gideon and his pharmacist colleagues evidently believe that the instructions are not adequate and the advertising not sufficiently clear so that people, for instance, who are sensitive to aspirin, might not realize they shouldn't take this drug, or people who are on hypersensitive medication mightn't realize. You heard him take that argument. What's your response to that?

Dr. ROTH: Well, my response is that the FDA sent those of us that were involved on the advisory committee a very thoughtful letter before the release of the drug over the counter in which they had pointed out a very unique thing. For the first time the pharmaceutical manufacturer had cooperated with the FDA in not only agreeing on how they were going to provide information on this drug, but also making long-range plans. They did a study in which they looked at a very simple format to explain under what circumstances you should and shouldn't take this simple painkiller, and under what circumstances you should seek medical advice, versus one that listed a great deal of details, as is common on prescription drugs, and they found in the survey that the simpler explanations were much better accepted. And there has been an agreement to put it forth in this way and review this later on. We thought this was very reasonable, and we're very pleased with that.

MacNEIL: Do you think the pharmacists are wrong to raise these concerns?

Dr. ROTH: I hate to say wrong, Robin. I think that legitimately there is concern in the medical profession, in the pharmacy profession when a drug that is a very potent anti-inflammatory drug in this case is given to the public to use in their own hands. But, again, to remind you, at the low 200-milligram dosage, under the careful instructions indicating not with other disease, not with other medications, and of coure not with any allergies -- that's listed in dark letters on top. Those kinds of instructions suggest that this drug, when used properly will be a reasonable, safe alternative, and it has an important impact, of course, on the cost of delivery of medical care.

MacNEIL: Why do you think the pharmacists are doing this?

Dr. ROTH: Well, I think that it probably is best that you ask the pharmacists, but I will speak to an effect on this activity. It does frustrate the intent of the advisory committee and the FDA to put this over the counter to an open marketplace. We believe in an open marketplace under proper controls. At the same time, this kind of activity has created confusion among the consumers. Is this a more dangerous drug? We felt clearly from the evidence that exists, if any drug should be behind the counter it should be aspirin. Everybody trusts aspirin, but it has far more side effects, usually, thanibuprofen. The most common side effect with ibuprofen is a mild side effect on the stomach at this dose, much less than to be expected with aspirin. The renal effect, most people will never see under any circumstances at this dose if they follow instructions and, of course, if they use it with proper care.

MacNEIL: Thank you. Judy?

WOODRUFF: Well, Mr. Gideon, you hear what Dr. Roth is saying. The side effects, he says, are even less than they are with aspirin, especially at a low dosage, and that there's plenty of instructions that accompany the product.

Mr. GIDEON: I would like to respond, first, if I may. This is a copy of The Physician's Desk Reference, and for ibuprofen, Motrin, there are -- I don't know if you can see this -- four or five columns of contraindications and side effects that physicians are aware of with the use of this drug.

WOODRUFF: At the low dosage that it's being sold at --

Mr. GIDEON: No, Ma'am.

WOODRUFF: -- over the counter?

Mr. GIDEON: No. Ma'am. This is in the prescription dosage. However, however, both of the manufacturers of the drug have felt it reasonable to produce additional information to supply to the pharmacists for giving aid and counsel to patients and consumers. If I may quote from one of the two books, "in recognition of the important role of pharmacy in the practice of community medicine, the Bristol Meyers Company offers this brochure, A Clinical Guide to Nuprin for the Pharmacist, to assist you in answering important questions from your customers about Nuprin tablets.

WODRUFF: All right, what --

Mr. GIDEON: It seems to me that when a company produces information like that, we are in fact doing just that. We are supplying the consumer with additional information, should they want it, pertaining to this drug. In addition to which the drug is still a prescription drug in 300-, 400- and 600-milligram dosage. Now, here we have a drug which is --

WOODRUFF: Well, if you don't mind, let me interrupt and go back to Dr. Roth here. Why do you think the manufacturer, Dr. Roth, felt it necessary to put out this little booklet accompanying it?

Dr. ROTH: That's an important question. They not only put out the booklet to the pharmacists, but it's also available to consumers that directly request information, and there's a special brochure for the various retirement centers around the country.

WOODRUFF: But I mean, doesn't that signal some concern on the part of the manufacturer?

Dr. ROTH: Sure. I think that what was said was entirely appropriate, and that is that the pharmacists should supply information to the consumer to clear up any questions that any time a person takes a medication they should follow the instructions. But, again, to look at the instructions that are given with these particular drugs, we're talking about what I referred to earlier -- very simple type instructions that tell you to seek help when you need it. If you look at that same Physician Desk Reference, you see all sorts of side effects that confuse the consumer if they have to approach it without a doctor's help. It lists all sorts of unusual conditions, and that's why this type of an approach was taken.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Gideon, what about his point that all of this serves to confuse the consumer rather than to educate him?

Mr. GIDEON: I don't think -- I don't think that our intent is -- I know our intent is not to confuse the consumer. I think here that we're dealing with some inconsistencies in what the FDA has done. The product literature from both manufacturers indicates that if one tablet does not bring relief, then two tablets may be taken. Well, two tablets at 200 milligrams does in fact constitute a prescription dosage.

WOODRUFF: All right, Dr. Roth, what about that?

Dr. ROTH: Okay. In order to treat arthritis, most of us have been using in the range of 2,400 milligrams a day.That's four 600-milligram tablets. Below that level we don't get any anti-inflammatory effect. At that level, this has still been one of the safest, if not the safest, of all of the anti-inflammatory drugs. And in test after test against aspirin-type medication, it's been mush safer than aspirin, much better tolerated in the most common of side effects.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Gideon?

Dr. ROTH: Would the pharmacists like to put their aspirin behind the counter and put the Nuprin in front and the Advil in front, because it's safer? I think that's a reasonable question.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Gideon?

Mr. GIDEON: Dr. Roth, in due respect to you, I have been a community pharmacist for better than 25 years. And I know that when I sell over-the-counter medications people do not read all of the instructions. Very often, as I think in this case, the instructions are not quite adequate. And we're dealing with a drug that is available in what you call a low-dose form to be sold in any outlet at all without any counseling at all. And yet you maintain that 400 milligrams remains a prescription strength. I do not understand at all the inconsistency and how you can monitor who is buying the drug for what purpose to be taken in what way at what dosage.

WOODRUFF: Mr. Roth, a brief response there?

Dr. ROTH: Okay, fine. Aspirin has been available for almost since the beginning of the century for the same purposes. There has been only one other alternative, a Tylenol-type medication. Now there is a third. It's safer than aspirin; it's more effective, usually, than acetomenaphin or Tylenol-type medication. I think that under the circumstances that we have it available, consumers should have that choice. It's going to have an important impact, frankly, on our concerns for the costs of medicine and still allow reasonable safety.

WOODRUFF: Gentlemen, we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you both, Dr. Roth, and Mr. Gideon, for being with us. Robin?

MacNEIL: Still to come on the NewsHour this evening, a fresh documentary look at the search for the thousands of disappeared ones in Angentina. And A. C. Greene reviews A Heaven in the Eye, an autobiography by Clyde Rice.

[Video postcard -- Florence, Arizona]

MacNEIL: In overseas news today the Navy says it has detected a lot of suspicious objects in the Red Sea but no mines as yet. Both Egyptian and U.S. divers have gone down to investigate the objects detected electronically by the U.S. research ship Harkness. Seven specially equipped minesweeping helicopters are on their way to join in the hunt the mines which have damaged 16 ships. The U.S. search will concentrate in the Gulf of Suez, while British and French minesweepers will clear the lower end of the Red Sea. In Beirut, a caller claiming to represent the Islamic Holy War group which has claimed the mining operation threatened to rove its strength once again. Speaking by telephone to the French News Agency, the caller warned the United States, Britain and France against intervention. Judy? Los Desaparacidos: The Vigil Continues.

WOODRUFF: Tomorrow Argentina is scheduled to make a $125-million payment to Western banks. The payment is part of the new Alfonsin government's efforts to stabilize Argentina following eight turbulent years of military rule. The difficulties facing the government are serious. Argentina's debt totals some $45 billion, and it's economy is in shambles, despite moves to liberalize Argentina's political life, the government is faced with continuing anguish as Argentines come to learn more about what actually happened during the "Dirty War" waged brutelly from 1976 to 1980 by the former military rulers. There were "the disappeared" -- an estimated 10,000 people who vanished into secret concentration camps and secret graves. And there were the children -- infants and small children who were taken with their parents. Fred Emory of the BBC filed this report on the grandmothers' search for the children of the disappeared.

FRED EMORY, BBC [voice-over]: When eight-year-old Juan Pablo was one he disappeared. So did his parents, killed by security forces, who gave the boy away for adoption. Last year his grandmother found him and got him back. Hers has been an extraordinary case of luck. First, somebody recognized him from a large photo carried in a demonstration; second, his grandmother was able to get him back through the courts without much of a fight. Juan Pablo was a sign from heaven to his grandmother, who'd lost husband, sons and grandson.

But for others the search for lost grandchildren is just beginning. All over Argentina there are children who have been illegally given away in adoption by the military who murdered their parents. They're loved and cherished by their foster parents, but now their real families want them back.

Seventeen children have so far been reunited by their grandmothers, who've built up their own organization for a nationwide search. So far they've documented 144 certain cases of children removed from their parents in captivity and illegaly adopted. They demand reunion with these children, no matter how happy they've been.

MARILINA ROSS [singing]: "I saw the children with their mothers./They sang and they danced./Playing at being grown up."

EMORY [voice-over]: A hit song in Argentina today has caught the national trauma. It tells of the grandmothers' search in a haunting allegory.

Ms. ROSS [singing]: Todas madres/mardres que sigan.

EMORY [voice-over]: Marilina Ross, a well-known Argentine rock star, tells of the search for the children left playing in the square.

Ms. ROSS [singing]: En esa plaza/jugando, jugando a quejaer libres --

EMORY [voice-over]: And in the square outside the presidential palace every Thursday, a vigil begun defiantly under the military continues still. The mothers and grandmothers circle in silent protest. The grandmothers' vice chairman, Estela Carlotto, is herself searching for her own stolen grandson.

ESTELA CARLOTTO, deputy chairman, grandmother's group [through interpreter]: During the search I found out that my daughter had had a son on the 26th of June, 1978, in the military hospital. I think the central military hospital. I know that she was handcuffed during the birth.

EMORY [voice-over]: Handcuffed while giving birth?

Ms. CARLOTTO [throiugh interpreter]: Exactly. I know that they took the baby away after five hours. Then she was returned to the concentration camp, where she was imprisoned in a small house that she --

EMORY [voice-over]: And what happened to the baby?

Ms. CARLOTTO [through interpreter]: The baby, I suppose, when it was taken away was adopted or given away to a military family or sold.

EMORY [voice-over]: Estela Carlotto personifies the grandmothers' passion. She's found her daughter's body, but there can be no rest until the stolen grandchildren recover their identity, their origins -- what the grandmothers insist is their basic human right. And to establish it, the grueling, perhaps most painful part of their search is only just beginning. To try to find out what happened case by case throughout Argentina, the Alfonsin government has set up a national commission on the disappeared. The grandmothers, working closely with it, are demanding that all court files on adoption over the past eight years be opened up for inspection. There is already testimony that in the main naval hospital there was a list of childless navy couples waiting to adopt babies born in captivity.

Elsa Aguilar's married daughter was kidnapped in 1978 by the security forces. With her they took her two-year-old child. The grandmother has walked the playgrounds for years, convinced her granddaughter was put out for adoption. Now she says she's found her and that she's been illegally adopted by a former police inspector.In so desperate a search, many little girls like this one in the playground can be the spit image of the baby snapshots, which are all the grandmother had to go on. But Senora Aguilar is certain that she's seen her granddaughter at last, and the child has kept the same name, Paula.

Paula lives here, in the ground-floor apartment. The shuttered windows and the barred door tell of the state of siege the family's been living since the story broke. Ruben Lavellen and his wife moved here three years ago. It's all a political frame-up, he says, because he was a police inspector until 1978, the height of the repression. The couple have no other children, but what makes theirs a case apart is that they swear Paula was never adopted, that she's their own child. Senor Lavellen gradually took us into his confidence and eventually invited us into his apartment. He swore that he was never involved in "Dirty War." But, given the police's role, it's not surprising he's a man haunted by the fear that nobody will believe him. He allowed us to film Paula's bedroomn.The room tells its own story, of a much-loved eight-year-old, but one who doesn't live here anymore. Her parents have moved Paula away to try shielding her from the uproar. The father wouldn't be interviewed because he breaks down too often under the strain, but he asked his brother to speak for him.

OSCAR LAVELLEN, uncle of contested child [through interpreter]: My brother is the most honest man in the world, with friends, with his brothers and sisters, with relatives, with everybody. It is totally destroying him. The newspapers, the Argentine television are destroying him. It is destroying all the family without exception. She is their legitimate child. They have had all the papers in their hands, her documents. I don't think anything else is necessary to prove that she is his legitimate child.

EMORY [voice-over]: All the usual safeguards of registering births exist in Argentina, but like any other system it's open to abuse by fraudulent declaration. Argentine judges have told us that during the previous regime it wasn't difficult for the military to acquire genuine birth certificates for people who shouldn't have had them. And this is making it doubly difficult to prove that children were illegally adopted. Senora Aguilar also has the legal birth certificate for her granddaughter, Paula Eva, but the question is, how can it be decided whether it's the same Paula? Grandma has no doubts, and she wants Paula back irrespective of the Lavellens.

The grandmother's insistence that the child will eventually benefit from returning to its natural family is far from being universally accepted. Here at the country's leading adoption center their emphasis is to the contrary.

DELFINA LINCK, adoption expert: Well, I think of that story of Solomon -- I don't know how you say it in English --

EMORY: Solomon, yes.

Ms. LINCK: -- but when they were going to cut the piece of flesh of the child and he was going to suffer, well, then the true mother, the one who loved him, said, "Stop, I'd rather give him away." I think the only rule is not to make and not allow this child to suffer.

EMORY [voice-over]: The grandmother's claim to Paula has now gone into the courts, the first perplexing test case, which may take many months to resolve. Argentina's judicial system, based on equality, truth, justice, rights and the law, needs a massive overhaul in any case after sinking to depths of compliance with the lawless military regime. But steps are now being taken to purge the system. New judges are being nominated by President Alfonsin and sworn in to replace those who've been discredited. But looming behind these swearing-in celebrations inside the federal appeals court, some retired generals are warning the government not to go too far. Already the military code of justice has been amended to allow security forces personnel to be tried not by these new judges but by military courts. So what confidence do the grandmothers have in getting justice through the courts?

Ms. CARLOTTO [through interpreter]: What we want is that civil justice, ordinary justice should prevail, because the crimes committed are ordinary crimes.

EMORY: You don't think the time has come, perhaps now, to try to forgive and, if not forget --

Ms. CARLOTTO [through interpreter]: In no way. They have committed atrocious genocide, an atrocious repression. They have brought the country to a frightening economic crisis. To forget would mean that this would repeat itself, and very soon, too. Moreover, it is an obligation that matters are clarified to the bitter end with the appropriate punishment for the guilty. As a mother, as a grandmother, I can never forget the murder of a daughter and the kidnapping of a grandson. We are not motivated by a desire for revenge, but by strict and pure justice to the bitter end.

WOODRUFF: That report was by Fred Emory of the BBC.

A Rumanian archbishop was deported from the United States today on charges that he was involved in the massacre of Jews during the Second World War. Archbishop Valerian Trifa, the leader of a Rumanian orthodox church in Grath Late, Michigan, was stripped of his citizenship and put aboard a plane. The Justice Department did not say where he was going, but Jewish sources said he would get off the plane in Portugal. Trifa was alleged to have been associated with a fascist group called the Iron Guard which killed a large number of Jews in 1941.

Robin? Book Review: A Heaven in the Eye

MacNEIL: Finally tonight we have a book review. This time it's an autobiography called A Heaven in the Eye, and it is the first book published by 81-year-old Clyde Rice. Our reviewer is A.C. Greene.

A.C., A Heaven in the Eye. What is this book about?

A.C. GREENE, book reviewer: This book was actually written by an 81-year-old man, but it's about his early life from about the age of 16 in Portland, Oregon, when he wants to be anartist, a painter. It's autobiographical. But then he discovers that he is not really that good an artist, and he gets married at age 17 to a girl he calls Nordie[?], and they go down to San Francisco. And it's kind of a rollicking story about the life that they try to lead. He's very unsuccessful. He makes all kins of bad choices, bad moves, and then jobs keep jumping out from under him. He becomes a ferry boat -- mate on a ferry boat and they build the bridges, and that does away with the ferry boats. The Depression catches him in bad shape. He buys a fishing boat and tries to go down to the southern waters off of California and nearly gets killed, and comes ashore and nearly dies then of disease. So it's a -- it's a very unusual story, a very well-written story.

MacNEIL: But it's a true autobiography --

Mr. GREENE: Yes, it's autobiography.

MacNEIL: -- of Clyde Rice.

Mr. GREENE: It comes up to about 1932. it's a detailed story of those years of the '20s and of the Depression hitting America.

MacNEIL: Now, who is Clyde Rice?

Mr. GREENE: Well, it's not so important as to who he is. He's man who now lives in Oregon. Like I say, he's 81 years old. It's not so important as to who he is, because the story is the way he tells it and the way he writes it. It's almost like a Jack London novel. It's got that early-California feel it to, and that -- he's very appreciative of nature, and he does have enough of the artist's eye that he does a beautiful job of explaining. But you could smell the fog as you stand on the headlands of Marin County and as you look out across the Golden Gate and that sort of thing. It's very impressive as a beautiful description.

MacNEIL: And what's the writing like?

Mr. GREENE: The writing is unusual. The writing is that of a man who's full of enthusiasm and who kind of blurts it out. Like I say, it's got a lot of Jack London touches to it. It's not modernized at all. It's --

MacNEIL: And he's waited through 80 years to write his book?

Mr. GREENE: Yes, and yet it's not nostalgic --

MacNEIL: So he's not a practiced writer?

Mr. GREENE: No, he's not. He's got a style all his own. You get into the rhythm. He has a strange kind of rhythm, and he has an almost biblical use of words. Very, very unlike today's writing, but like I say, he's not nostalgic. He doesn't long for those days. He does a short epilogue which sort of brings you up to date, but not quite.

MacNEIL: How successful is it?

Mr. GREENE: I think the book is a very successful book. I think it's a very good read, as the saying now is.

MacNEIL: I noticed that it has won the 1984 Western book award -- Western States Book Award, and it was published in Portland, Oregon.

Mr. GREENE: Published by a small publisher in Portland, Oregon, and, Robin, this is a good example -- this book's a good example of some really good writing, some really good books that we have that are published by regional publishers that don't get national distribution. A lot of that is production itself because we have now so many of the chain book stores don't buy anything except out of a central ordering point, and you overlook books like this. People who really want to read a book like this have to go looking for it, unfortunately.

MacNEIL: And is this trend increasing, of the regional publishers?

Mr. GREENE: The regional publishing is increasing because it's decentralizing. Publishing in the United States is decentralizing, which means that a lot of books that at one time would be published in New York or Boston or Philadelphia are now published in places like Bryant, Texas, or this one in Portland, Oregon, and --

MacNEIL: But if the publishing is decentralized, then does it mean that the distribution hasn't caught up with it yet?

Mr. GREENE: It does. Unfortunately that's a fact. So that if you live in an area that's served by one of these very fine regional publishers -- and there are a number of them; practically every state has one -- then you're getting access to some of the best writing that's being done in the United States, in some cases.But you're not able to walk into a B. Dalton's or a Walden's and say, "I want A Heaven in the Eye, because in most cases they're not going to have it.

MacNEIL: A.C., thank you.

Once again, the book we've been discussing is A Heaven in the Eye, by Clyde Rice; the publisher is Breitenbush Publications. Judy?

WOODRUFF: A recap now of today's top stories. Republicans used a comma in a crucial sentence to win a compromise on the party's platform pledge of no tax increases next year. The Commerce Department reported June unemployment was lower in 1984 in all 50 states than it was in 1983. And retail sales dropped 0.9% in July -- further proof, analysts say, the economy is slowing down.

A convoy of British and French minesweepers entered the Suez Canal. They will join the international search to clear the Red Sea of mines that have damaged at least 16 ships.

And, in Los Angeles, police say the officer who discovered a bomb on a bus carrying luggage and some members of the Turkish Olympic team to the airport was the man who planted the bomb in the first place.

Good night, Robin.

MacNEIL: Good night, Judy. That's our NewsHour tonight. We will be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.