Slashdot Mirror
Why We Can't Have the Male Pill (bloomberg.com)
Reader joshtops shares a report: For years, headlines have promised an imminent breakthrough in male contraception. Time and again, these efforts have fallen short. Last October, for instance, researchers reported that a hormone cocktail they'd been testing curbed sperm production and prevented pregnancies. But they'd had to halt the study early because men were reporting troubling side effects, including mood changes and depression. "The joke in the field is that the male contraceptive has been five years away for the last 40 years," says John Amory, a research physician at the University of Washington School of Medicine who has been working on the challenge for two decades. A new form of male birth control would be a public-health triumph and could snag a significant piece of the contraceptive market -- which is expected to surpass $33 billion by 2023, according to research firm Global Market Insights Inc -- or possibly expand it further. In a 2002 German survey of 9,000 men in nine countries, including Brazil, France, Germany, Mexico, and the U.S., more than 55 percent of the respondents said they'd be willing to use a new form of male birth control. A later study by Johns Hopkins University estimated that the demand could yield 44 million customers in those nine countries alone. And yet major pharmaceutical companies have mostly abandoned the chase.
Women have a natural state where they no longer ovulate (pregnant or breast feeding) and female birth control works by tricking their bodies into going into that natural state. The big problem with male birth control is that there is no natural state where men don't produce viable sperm. All hormonal based male birth controls force the male body into some sort of unnatural state, which always leads to unacceptable side effects. Now physical barrier based male birth control might work better but its not as profitable because those methods are typically long lasting and more permanent, so the drug companies don't get a regular kickback as you don't have to buy pills every month.
I would think it's far more prudent (and effective) to kill one egg than a gazillion sperm.
"Vasectomies cost about $350 to $1000 — far less than surgery to sterilize a woman — and many insurance companies will cover the procedure."
How much profit do they think they'll make off these pills?
Funny that, you don't have to be the biological father to pay child support. http://clementlaw.com/child-su...
Even if the woman lies about birth control you are still liable. http://www.kidspot.com.au/birt...?
It is the woman's body, which is why it's her decision. Whether the developing proto-child is her body or not, it has to ride around in her body, and it's therefore her decision. There is plenty of medical legal precedent.
It seems reasonable to me that the man should bear reduced (or even zero, depending on the case) personal financial burden if he can somehow prove that he was lied to about birth control status for the purpose of conception. But that's about as far as that reasonably goes.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"