A non-hormonal, reversible and non-toxic male birth control could be a step closer, with scientists successfully targeting a protein that's crucial in making fertile sperm. Knocking this protein out for a period of time would give men control over their protection window, much like oral…
  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    6 months ago

    The hippocratic oath, in this case. Medicine is all about risk management, the worse the “disease,” the more tolerant we are of side effects for the cure. Pregnancy and birth are still pretty traumatic events that, while much safer than they used to be, are still dangerous. Female BC just has to be less risky than that. Male BC on the other hand, has to be as low the risk for a man impregnating a woman, which is to say, almost zero. Pretty much any negative side effect is worse than that, so it’s very difficult to pass. I would gladly take one with comparable side effects to female BC, but sometimes unflinching ethics are inconvenient. Better than the alternative, but still.

    • howrar@lemmy.caEnglish
      3·
      6 months ago

      Somehow, we manage to accept organ transplants despite it hurting one healthy person a little to help an unhealthy person a lot. What’s stopping us from treating birth control the same way?

    • Pips@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      2·
      6 months ago

      It’s medical ethics, not the Hippocratic Oath. Most doctors swear to an ethical standard. Besides, “first, do no harm” is a bit unhelpful if you’re a surgeon.

      Otherwise you’re right, the risks of pregnancy outweigh the side effects of birth control, which is why birth control for women doesn’t have as high a standard for mitigating other consequences.

    • Norgur@fedia.io
      211·
      6 months ago

      The Hippocratic oath is not a thing in most countries and not applicable anyway. If it was, kidney transplants would be done without a doctor present (in the US that is, don’t overestimate your little made up oath ritual internationally)