Jayplay ran an article Thursday about the experimental male contraceptive pill H2-gamendazole ( Balancing the burden of birth control). The social and cultural issues raised in the article are significant, and I don’t disagree that male contraceptives would be a revolutionary advancement.
But asking whether male contraceptive pills are good is premature at this point: The first issue should be the health of the user, and the article did not fully address that.
Male birth control pill temporarily reduces fertility by inhibiting genes that produce sperm, according an article published in the Biology of Reproduction. The sperm count rebounds after treatment with mild side effects.
However, the drug has only been tested on rats. Animal drug testing is a relatively good indication of human reactions to drugs, but some variance between humans and rats will undoubtedly occur.
The ability for sperm production to resume and for few side effects to occur depends on how the drug binds to multiple genes. The report notes that these mechanisms are not yet fully understood, which may lead to irreversible sperm production and higher rates of side effects.
The article in Jayplay portrayed the pill as a godsend to libido-laden young adults who are uninterested in procreation right now. Yet how appealing will it look to those same users five or 10 years later if fertility is permanently reduced?
Some say using condoms is a hassle. Few women on birth control would buy the logic that using rubber every time you have sex is more irritating than remembering to take a daily pill.
Likewise, promoting male contraceptives as substitutes for condoms is a dangerous assertion. Although condoms do block ejaculate from entering the female body, they also protect against most sexually transmitted infections. Male contraceptives may relieve the fear of pregnancy, but they could also exacerbate the transmission of STIs if condoms are abandoned.
The Jayplay article asserts that only people in monogamous, STI-free relationships would use the new pill instead of condoms.
However, that certainly isn’t the case with female birth control. Why would male contraceptives be any different?
Male contraceptives are highly experimental and shouldn’t be touted as a miracle drug yet. We shouldn’t have a rash sense of hope without considering all the medical drawbacks.
More research is needed to address its safety. We should ask about those same issues now and worry about cultural acceptance later.
Oberthaler is a Wichita junior in English.
Discussion
All comments are moderated by Kansan.com staff. For our full user policy, click here.
Clearly, safety is not the first issue here. The first issue is in fact the morality of the technology. Just as in the development of the atom bomb, the question should be 'Should we be destroying [insert noun here]?' and while in the case of WWII, the answer was 'Yes, we should wipe out two cities.' the answer here is 'No, we should not prevent the creation of sperm.' because every sperm is sacred, and inhibition of genes which produce sperm is an abomination in the eyes of the virile, manly Lord.
I really like that commercial from europe- you know the one with the screaming kid in the grocery store. At the end it says "use a condom. every time."
Pantheon your argument is ridiculous. First of all the atomic bombs not only destroyed the cities, but killed many of the people in those cities and had other lasting side effects. Remember that when you compare apples and oranges next time.
If every sperm is sacred why wouldn't just one sperm at a time enter the womb and fertilize the egg. Isn't it counter to your argument that millions of sperm die even when they are used for their "intended purpose"
Well, obviously those are the inferior sperm. I mean, I'm not saying the Lord didn't make Japanese people, am I? This analogy is more like ashes to ashes.
Share your 2¢
Requires free registration.