The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men • Hacker News Board

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#41

Post by bakbak » Tue, May 31, 2011, 4:30 PM UTC

ph0rque wrote: post #32

spidaman wrote: post #26

Yet another illustration about how broken the health care system is in the US. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies are disincented to produce cost effective treatments, it's really an outrage. Medicine in the US is geared towards costly treatments that are needed on a recurring basis; we're inundated with marketing and profit driven medicine. IMO, the NIH and FDA should be promoting a research-rewarded system…

Yeah, I was thinking this would be a great kickstarter project. "Pledge $100 or more: get this procedure done for no additional cost, once available."

Fantastic Idea - crowd financing at its BEST !!

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#42

Post by solarmist » Tue, May 31, 2011, 4:30 PM UTC

puredemo wrote: post #36

solarmist wrote: post #33

The world has been promising male birth control for decades now and the techniques (There are several that all work at almost 100% and are fully reversible) are proven (numerous long term trials, I can think of two from a decade ago off the top of my head, one in Washington state and one in Australia, in their final stages, with fewer side-effects, complications and failures than female birth control) and much more e…

If enough people want it, and they will, there is incentive.

But apparently not enough to bring it to market. This is just another example of a male birth control that won't even make it to clinical trials in the G8 nations for another two decades at a minimum.

Are people just that much more skittish about messing with male birth control that it needs 10x the evidence of female birth control before it comes to market, or have government agencies just gotten that much more strict/paranoid?

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#43

Post by hoprocker » Tue, May 31, 2011, 4:33 PM UTC

grantbachman wrote: post #18

I would sign up for this procedure in a heartbeat, but it still doesn't get around the (albeit not perfect) STD protection condoms can provide. If this takes off, people probably won't wear condoms most of the time, and the number of people being diagnosed with STD's will skyrocket.

Could be. The question you suggest is then: do we keep this off the market to protect humanity from itself? Should we retract oral contraception on the same grounds? There are many inferences that could be hand-waved here, but, fundamentally, RISUG increases the range of options related to reproductive choice, no more.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#44

Post by frossie » Tue, May 31, 2011, 4:34 PM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #37

solarmist wrote: post #33

The world has been promising male birth control for decades now and the techniques (There are several that all work at almost 100% and are fully reversible) are proven (numerous long term trials, I can think of two from a decade ago off the top of my head, one in Washington state and one in Australia, in their final stages, with fewer side-effects, complications and failures than female birth control) and much more e…

The problem is there isn't (enough of?) an incentive to actually put out these treatments. I guess the money just doesn't compare to female birth control One issue is that public health authorities are (probably quite legitimately) concerned that improved male birth control methods will lead to a decrease in the use of condoms and an increase in STDs.

Aside from the STD issue, a condom is a contraception method that is instantly verifiable. "It's okay baby, I have had the invisible sperm destroying procedure" is a bit harder to check.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#45

Post by lucasjung » Tue, May 31, 2011, 4:34 PM UTC

HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #30

rmc wrote: post #21

Will this cause an increase in sexually transmitted diseases? If straight men don't have to wear condoms for pregnancy-avoidance, and straight men & women don't like to pretend/boast that they've had lots of sex (unlike gay couples), then the pressure to go bareback (without a condom) increases and there might be more HIV/AIDS/STIs

Probably not. Insurance already covers vasectomy since it's much cheaper than paying for a pregnancy/childbirth/child medical expenses/etc and it doesn't seem to have resulted in increase in STD. Odds are, if you have medical insurance, you can get a vasectomy for a co-pay of $20 and the procedure only takes about 15 minutes. I'm fairly sure that Planned Parenthood in the US also does it cheaply. My gut tells me that…

There's an important difference between this procedure and a vasectomy: a vasectomy is not reliably reversible. Because of that, the only men who get vasectomies are those who are done having children. Some men might make that decision on their own, but most men don't make that decision until they are married (or in at least in committed, long-term monogamous relationship) and have discussed it with their spouses/partners. People in relationships like that are generally at a much lower risk of STDs because of the monogamy.

If you roll out a treatment that is just as effective as a vasectomy, but is 100% reversible, and a whole new class of men will enter into the picture: men who aren't yet ready for fatherhood, but who want to be fathers someday. Many of them will not be in monogamous relationships. Some of them will not consider the risks of STDs as rationally as they considered the risks of pregnancy.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#46

Post by jonprins » Tue, May 31, 2011, 4:35 PM UTC

Sukotto wrote: post #28

haberman wrote: post #20

In its report, the WHO team agreed that the concept of RISUG was intriguing. But they found fault with the homegrown production methods: Guha and his staff made the concoction themselves in his lab, and the WHO delegation found his facilities wanting by modern pharmaceutical manufacturing standards. Furthermore, they found that Guha’s studies did not meet “international regulatory requirements” for new drug approval—…

Do these "modern pharmaceutical manufacturing standards" actually buy us extra safety? Yes, but we pay a price: * Evaluations take a really long time. So it's hard to get the drugs into the hands of people. * Development is now extremely expensive. That forces just about everyone except the largest drug mega-corporations out of the market. * Drugs that would be a net benefit to the world sometimes never make it throu…

"We also have far fewer snake-oil salesmen ripping people off for cures"

Yet we still have chiropractors and homeopathy.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#47

Post by solarmist » Tue, May 31, 2011, 4:36 PM UTC

hugh3 wrote: post #37

solarmist wrote: post #33

The world has been promising male birth control for decades now and the techniques (There are several that all work at almost 100% and are fully reversible) are proven (numerous long term trials, I can think of two from a decade ago off the top of my head, one in Washington state and one in Australia, in their final stages, with fewer side-effects, complications and failures than female birth control) and much more e…

The problem is there isn't (enough of?) an incentive to actually put out these treatments. I guess the money just doesn't compare to female birth control One issue is that public health authorities are (probably quite legitimately) concerned that improved male birth control methods will lead to a decrease in the use of condoms and an increase in STDs.

Maybe, but that's a social issue not an FDA (in the US) issue, it shouldn't (ideally) hold up approval. (But it will.)

Every time male birth control is brought up all these same (social) issues get touted about. Women won't trust guys that say they're on the "pill", STDs will become rampant, etc. But they are by no means unique, every new treatment(in a new area) has social issues to begin with, but they usually turn out to be overblown once it becomes accepted.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#48

Post by solarmist » Tue, May 31, 2011, 4:39 PM UTC

frossie wrote: post #44

hugh3 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is there isn't (enough of?) an incentive to actually put out these treatments. I guess the money just doesn't compare to female birth control One issue is that public health authorities are (probably quite legitimately) concerned that improved male birth control methods will lead to a decrease in the use of condoms and an increase in STDs.

Aside from the STD issue, a condom is a contraception method that is instantly verifiable. "It's okay baby, I have had the invisible sperm destroying procedure" is a bit harder to check.

Why are women on the pill any more trust worthy? I've known women who say they're on the pill just because they didn't wanna use/buy condoms. Surprise, surprise I now know people that have kids that probably shouldn't.

Also, condom misuse is a big problem in general and is the cause of the low rate of success for condoms 85% vs proper use 98%. The people that need condoms the most (uneducated/young people) are the ones that just throw them on without making sure they know how to properly use them.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#49

Post by mattdeboard » Tue, May 31, 2011, 4:39 PM UTC

Sukotto wrote: post #25

ComputerGuru wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.

Sign me up! I have 3 kids and the existing methods available for ensuring we don't have a 4th are, at best, inconvenient. (Condoms are annoying; the pill messes with my wife's emotions; and either of us getting snipped seems scarily irreversible.) I'll be keeping an eye open for trials here in the US and on any more news about this procedure trickling out from India. hooray for science!

Plus vasectomy sounds scary painful and potentially dangerous. I'm done having kids but I don't wanna get snipped. Granulomas? In MY testicles? It's more likely than I think.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#50

Post by yahelc » Tue, May 31, 2011, 4:40 PM UTC

Sukotto wrote: post #25

ComputerGuru wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes.

Sign me up! I have 3 kids and the existing methods available for ensuring we don't have a 4th are, at best, inconvenient. (Condoms are annoying; the pill messes with my wife's emotions; and either of us getting snipped seems scarily irreversible.) I'll be keeping an eye open for trials here in the US and on any more news about this procedure trickling out from India. hooray for science!

Bizarre to be giving contraceptive advice on HN, but you should really look into IUDs. They're far less hormonal than the pill, and only require maintenance every 5 years.