Providing more birth control options to men distributes the responsibility and side-effects between partners. For many, it would be a long overdue departure from the responsibility falling on the woman. A recent study released in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism set out to establish whether a hormone injection to suppress spermatogenesis (creation of sperm) was a viable and safe option for birth control.
In essence, the injection is the rough equivalent to female hormonal contraception, which is known to cause unwanted side-effects in some who take it. Huge online outcry erupted when articles started appearing highlighting the early termination of the study. For many, this represented gender inequality. Some writers and bloggers were quick to condemn double standards saying the side-effects were only acceptable for women.
Now, it seems everyone is weighing in on this issue. Every tedious Facebook argument I’ve read shows that both sides are completely unable to refer back to the actual report, ignoring the science which underpins our trust in birth control, and medicine as a whole. This is an issue to me.
It is very easy to agree that the men wimped out of the study as is currently being shared across the web…except if you are actually able to read the very first page. No page turns necessary, just the (remarkably rare) motivation to substantiate your belief with evidence.
In reality, the study was terminated early due to an “external safety review”. These are regulations that are in place for safety of the people being researched on. This fact has been ignored for a more sensationalist cause. Again, a brief read of the study shows that most men were entirely satisfied with the results:
“Acceptability questionnaires Responses to key acceptability questions by male participants and female partners demonstrated high rates of satisfaction with the method of contraception applied in this study (Table 3). Most of the couples would use a method of contraception like this with highest positive response rates of 87.9% for male participants and 87.5% for female partners at the beginning of efficacy phase of this trial (Table 3).”
So no, there was no wimping out. In fact, it was probably tedious yet necessary ethics regulations which forced the conclusion of the experiment. Remember, no scientist wants their experiment terminated. So it wasn’t fault of the men in the study, nor any of the men conducting the study. (It should also be noted that there was an approximately equal ratio of men and women actually doing the research.)
The frustration is justified, because the female-equivalent study was not terminated back when the female pill was conceived. It is unfair, but science progresses. Every modern human and animal study is under stricter guidelines. Let’s please not deny the ethics of modern science, that is a very dangerous road.
Back when cigarettes were recommended by doctors, there weren’t the same regulations on determining safety. It certainly wasn’t fair that we let young people smoke – they didn’t know how detrimental it was. Does that mean we have to make kids today smoke? I mean it’s only fair, right?
We simply cannot allow modern science to reject ethics on the basis of their inclusion in past studies.
You see, the real wimps are people that are too scared to read a scientific study which could contradict their confirmation bias. Neither side of the argument seem immune to this idiocy.
To anyone who wants to argue their point, I don’t care what side it’s on, just please refer to the study. The whole text is available online and a simple “ctrl + F” allows you to search for the parts you want to argue. It’s not hard and you are free to come to your own conclusions. If you are unable to evaluate the actual science, please understand that views based on internet loudmouths tend to be dubitable and dangerously shareable. This is a bad combination. Let’s not have “vaccines” all over again. Please.
Featured image – Annabelle Shemer on Flickr
- Behre, H.M., Zitzmann, M., Anderson, R.A., Handelsman, D.J., Lestari, S.W., McLachlan, R.I., Meriggiola, M.C., Misro, M.M., Noe, G., Wu, F.C.W., Festin, M.P.R., Habib, N.A., Vogelsong, K.M., Callahan, M.M., Linton, K.A. and Colvard, D.S. (2016) ‘Efficacy and safety of an Injectable combination hormonal contraceptive for men’, The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, , p. jc.2016–2141. doi: 10.1210/jc.2016-2141.
- com. (2016). [online] Available at: http://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7B241d62a7-fe6e-4c5b-9fed-a33cc6e4bd7c%7D/cigarettes-were-once-physician-tested-approved [Accessed 5 Nov. 2016].
- Martha N. Gardner, A. (2006). “The Doctors’ Choice Is America’s Choice”: The Physician in US Cigarette Advertisements, 1930–1953.American Journal of Public Health, [online] 96(2), p.222. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470496/ [Accessed 5 Nov. 2016].
- Guttmacher Institute. (2005). Patch Is as Effective as Pill; Weekly Dosing Schedule May Improve Compliance. [online] Available at: https://www.guttmacher.org/about/journals/psrh/2001/09/patch-effective-pill-weekly-dosing-schedule-may-improve-compliance [Accessed 5 Nov. 2016].
