They aren’t allowed to consider the emotional and financial burden of fatherhood or being a non-consensual sperm donor. As such any side effects have no benefits to offset them. They need to change how drug benefits are measured or make an exception.
Which is why it’s really kind of demeaning when it’s phrased as “haha men won’t tolerate the same side effects women put up with”. It’s likely true to some extent, particularly given the [rates of female sterilization vs male sterilization](https://oss.jomh.org/files/article/20230928-93/pdf/JOMH2022122401.pdf)
https://www.malecontraceptive.org/blog/shared-risk-addressing-the-ethics-of-male-contraception
https://www.bioethicsproject.org/ethics-of-male-birth-control/
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230216-the-weird-reasons-male-birth-control-pills-are-scorned
That and the media is so overhyped.
A cervical and ovarian cancer blood test has been “just around the corner” for 20 years
A vaccine for dental cavities has been in the works for about that long. Almost got into a trial once. That and living bacteriophages to kill the bacteria that cause cavities
And they’re always just months away from a “new pancreas” for diabetics.
Latest Answers