Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Male Birth Control Shot Found Effective (bbc.com)

Posted by EditorDavid on from the I'm-on-the-shot dept.

An anonymous reader quotes the BBC: A hormone injection has been shown to be a safe and effective method of contraception -- for men. U.S. researchers say the jab was almost 96% effective in tests on around 270 men who were using it, with four pregnancies among their partners. However, a relatively high number developed side effects, including acne and mood disorders... Because men constantly produce sperm, high levels of hormones are needed to reduce levels from the normal sperm count of over 15 million per milliliter to under one million/ml.
One professor pointed out that despite the side effects, "75% of the men who took part in the trial would be willing to use this method of contraception again."

16 of 372 comments (clear)

  1. Going by the data in the summary... by gTsiros · · Score: 5, Insightful

    and taking into account the risks (unwanted pregnancy) i'd say 96% effectiveness is really, really horrible.

    Unless i'm mistaken in my interpretation of statistics, this is a complete failure. In this case, i'd like to know the chance that intercourse will lead to pregnangy, using this method (and only this method)

    --
    Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    1. Re:Going by the data in the summary... by geekmux · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It depends... What is the effectiveness of the competing methods?

      Based on the summary, I'd say that despite the side effects, at least 75% of men hate condoms enough to put up with the side effects and the reduced effectiveness.

      So, the real question is...What is the difference in the sexual experience when using competing methods?

      Men have been waiting for quite a long time to lose the latex that has been identified as a rather unfair sexual damper. For anyone who has used condoms, it's rather obvious just how much it reduces sexual pleasure, regardless of technological advances which are often nothing more than sales gimmicks.

    2. Re:Going by the data in the summary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with the abstinence argument is that it misses the point.

      What is the safest way to cross the street?
      You can do it at a designated crosswalk and look both ways before crossing, but it isn't 100% safe.
      The safest way is to not cross the street.
      The problem with the not crossing option is that you don't end up on the other side.

      In the same way the easiest way to cook dinner is to not cook dinner.

      People arguing for abstinence appears to have jumped into the second part of the discussion.
      The first part was that people want to have sex. The second part was how to avoid having children while having sex.
      Abstinence doesn't address the first part and isn't a viable solution.
      Young people are going to have sex no matter how much you argue for abstinence.
      That is why the rate of teen pregnancies are the highest in areas where abstinence is preached the most.

    3. Re:Going by the data in the summary... by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Abstinence has a much higher failure rate than any other form of birth control.

      No, that's almost-abstinence. If you actually maintain it, it is the only 100% successful type of birth control. Just like if you use condoms correctly, they are 99% effective. But most people don't. I can't, because I'm large, uncut, and fat. The combination makes normal condoms just not work for me. Sometimes I have used the female condom, which is only a bit like porking a hefty bag. Mostly I have used serial monogamy.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:Going by the data in the summary... by brantondaveperson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Humans have bodies, a physical existence in the world. That physical existence has needs, such as food and water. We also need other things that you might identify as un-necassary, such as friendships, creative outlets, self-expression, talking, listening, tasting, being accepted for who we are, being forgiven our wrongdoings if we make amends, love, time to ourselves, time with others, etcetera etcetera. None of these things are needs. it's quite possible to be alive, and never experience any of those things. But a poor existence it would be. Sex is like those things, but it's even more. it's also a biological imperative, something our bodies are very much programmed to want very much indeed.

      Telling young people to just not do it will fail. Coupling that with also not telling them how to do it safely, is, and always has been, demonstrably disastrous.

    5. Re:Going by the data in the summary... by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sex is an act with a defined purpose, well its actually two fold, its first to procreate and second to strengthen and forge the bond between the patriarch and matriarch of the family.

      When you use it differently than that less favorable outcomes occur. Just like if you try to use a chisel for an application that calls for a screw driver. Misuse of a thing has consequences. Even if you can remove the unwanted pregnancy risk you still have not addressed all the STDs, and you add the risk of all kinds of side effects from the birth control. All hormone bases birth controls in women do carry non negligible risks of impacting decision making, and possibly elevated risks for certain cancers and other disease. Even condoms may trigger an allergy.

        There is way to enjoy sex safely, that is inside a permeate, monogamous, committed relationship, where children while possibly unplanned will not be unwanted.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    6. Re:Going by the data in the summary... by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "That is why the rate of teen pregnancies are the highest in areas where abstinence is preached the most."

      Which is beside the point.

      The too long didn't read version of your post is:

      Abstinence only education doesn't work, but you don't care.

      You and your 1.5 billion you've siphoned from the US guvmint have given the US the highest unwanted teen pregnancy rate in the developed world. And you don't care because somehow, it doesn't matter.

      Because we were sold the idea that Abstinence only works. And when it turns out it doesn't, you don't care. Just make up more crap like scabies. Yeah, scabies is a STD now?

      Because Abstinence only is a religion based social and personal control mechnanism that attempts to regulate one of the main drivers of survival.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Going by the data in the summary... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most women don't view abortion or giving up a child for adoption as an easy option.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Going by the data in the summary... by wisnoskij · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The too long didn't read version of your post is:

      Sexual freedom, and teaching condom usage to infants don't work, but you don't care.
      Decades latter, billions spent, and the US has many times worse statistics for divorce rates, for children raised by single parents, and only really horrible third-world countries have worse rates of STDs. Their are places in the US, the big cities where this is really pressed on the children, where 90% of the children are raised by single parents. Making stability and the chance at a bright future literally a single digit percent of that for children raised in nuclear families. So yes, I don't care how many teens get unwanted pregnancies, I care how many children are denied a future free of jail and drug abuse because their parents are not married. I care that STDs are running rampant, and will continue to do so no matter how many condoms we manufacture. I care that all of these trends started around the same time.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  2. Great success! Only 19-39 of 270 failed badly! by LoneTech · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There's certainly no reporting bias here - among 270 men in the trials, 11 simply didn't reach the chosen threshold of 1/15th normal sperm count in six months, 8 didn't recover within a year after stopping the treatment, 20 dropped out because of side effects while many more reported them (to the degree they stopped taking on new participants - back in 2011), 4 achieved pregnancies within a year while under the chosen threshold. All durations reported are in "up to" form, and the fertility of their partners was not indicated (around 10% have issues while trying, per womenshealth.gov). Only 66-69 of them (by somebody's rounding) stated they would refuse to ever attempt the method again, "so perhaps the side-effects weren't all that bad after all" according to Alan Pacey (whose connection to the study was left unclear). It's unclear if this was before or after they learned of how well other subjects did. The article also carefully describes the women only as "partners", despite heterosexuality being quite relevant to the study. The journalist went with "safe and effective", quoting "extremely effective" also from Allan Pacey, while not addressing the "need for ... reversible" part. I'm mildly curious where the "safe" came from.

    The worst part? Compared to regularly used hormonal treatments for women, this probably is "safe".

  3. Re:Uhhh.. by StormReaver · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The secondary headline from this study is, "75% of men who participated in this study are fucking morons." This contraceptive has horrendous side effects, but some people are too stupid to care.

    What I find even more remarkable is that the moron who wrote this story, despite the severe side effects, still uses the term, "safe and effective." Hmm...where else have we heard this bullshit phrase?

  4. Re:How do they solve the credibility problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the same credibility problem that exist for the female pill? and a women has a choice if she gets pregnant, the man doesn't. If she doesn't want a baby she can have an abortion he can't prevent that, if she wants a baby and he doesn't he will have to pay child support for the next 18 years he can't get out of that

  5. Re:How do they solve the credibility problem? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So guy and girl are on their third date, they're on the cusp of sex and the girl says she's not on the pill and the guy says "It's OK, I'm on the shot".

    Does she believe him?

    Who cares? Seriously, if she doesn't want a kid she should refuse sex unless she is on the (female) pill. Males won't be taking this pill to convince a woman to have sex with them, they'd be taking this pill to prevent the woman from getting pregnant.

    IOW, they won't be lying "trust me, I'm on the pill", they'd be lying "of course I think we're ready for a baby".

    Currently the ability to produce/prevent a pregnancy via deception is only available to females. A male pill would give that same ability to males (produce/prevent a pregnancy via deception).

    Can you imagine what would happen if males could string along a woman with "we've been trying for a year"? When males get to lie about trying for a pregnancy?

    --
    I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
  6. an increasingly little something for the ladies by Pseudonymous+Powers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In females, hormonal birth control mostly works by tricking the body into thinking it's already pregnant. For humans, it's a significant evolutionary advantage not to become double or triple pregnant, so the body does most of the work for you. It's fairly "natural" because you're basically just reproducing a situation that the female body is designed for.

    For males, though, there's no evolutionary reason to ever stop producing sperm. So any cocktail of hormones that shuts off fertility in males has not been through those same millions of years of QA. So I would want to see at least a couple more decades of testing on this before injecting it into my body.

    Experience has taught me to be very skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry, so I also can't help but wonder if researchers are saying it's safe only because they, for example, consider a 15% occurrence of male breast enlargement and/or lactation an acceptable side effect.

  7. Re:Fag control shot by alvinrod · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Just because there may not be a genetic component to homosexuality doesn't mean that it isn't fixed or is somehow a choice. Neuroscientist, Simon LeVay found evidence for sexual orientation being connected to brain structure decades ago. It's entirely possible that homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics, but is rather the result of aberrations during fetal development that result these deviations from the norm.

    To claim that it's a choice though is just wrong. If you believe otherwise, ask yourself if you you could change your sexual orientation. Sure, you could probably have sex with someone outside of your preferred group, but you wouldn't be attracted to them or have any imperative desire to do so of your own natural volition.

  8. Re: Fag control shot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find that the most hostile gay bashers tend to be closeted homosexuals themselves.

    Instead of being angry at the mixed feelings you have, just be honest with yourself. Do you find yourself watching lots of sports involving sweaty men touching each other? Do you go to a gym and workout around other men? Do you only listen to songs sung or "rapped" by men? Are most or all of your friends men? Do you prefer the sight, sound or company of men? Do you like the cock?