A hormone-free pill, called YCT-529, that temporarily stops sperm production by blocking a vitamin A metabolite has just concluded its first safety trial in humans, getting a step closer to increasing male contraceptive options
At first read that came off as callous, but I see your point. I had that thought as well regarding improving female birth control. Where’s the research into a hormone-free pill for women?
It is a bit callous. I’m old enough to have seen this pop up a dozen or so times.
Every time the depression, weight gain, acne and libido changes are deemed too severe for approval and women are sitting here like… yeah, it’s all that plus increased occurrence of stroke and heart attack for us, but ok.
I actually interpreted it as callous to the suffering women endure at first read for some reason. But yeah, there’s very much an element of, “The stakes are higher for women, so they can deal with the side effects,” which is awful.
Callous or not, it’s hard to justify trials ethically for that reason. Yes, it would be better for society as a whole, even if it could potentially be worse for an individual; but is it ethically right to burn up an individual for the sake of society? And now if you’ll excuse me, I have to walk away from Omelas.
Edit: Pre-empting a question: Yes, I walk. I recognize that the trolley would be quicker.
At first read that came off as callous, but I see your point. I had that thought as well regarding improving female birth control. Where’s the research into a hormone-free pill for women?
It is a bit callous. I’m old enough to have seen this pop up a dozen or so times.
Every time the depression, weight gain, acne and libido changes are deemed too severe for approval and women are sitting here like… yeah, it’s all that plus increased occurrence of stroke and heart attack for us, but ok.
I actually interpreted it as callous to the suffering women endure at first read for some reason. But yeah, there’s very much an element of, “The stakes are higher for women, so they can deal with the side effects,” which is awful.
Callous or not, it’s hard to justify trials ethically for that reason. Yes, it would be better for society as a whole, even if it could potentially be worse for an individual; but is it ethically right to burn up an individual for the sake of society? And now if you’ll excuse me, I have to walk away from Omelas.
Edit: Pre-empting a question: Yes, I walk. I recognize that the trolley would be quicker.