Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday March 20 2017, @05:39PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-makin'-babies dept.

A review has reiterated that oral contraception is safe and effective for adolescent females, and found that negative side effects are rarer among teens than adult users. The review also found no evidence linking the use of oral contraceptives to increased or riskier sex:

Nearly five years ago, the nation's leading group of obstetricians and gynecologists issued a policy statement saying the time had come for oral contraception to be available without a prescription. We wrote about it and everything.

In the intervening years, some states have changed their laws. California authorized pharmacists to distribute most types of hormonal birth control. Oregon passed a similar law covering both pills and patches. But neither law changed the status of birth control pills from prescription to over-the-counter. Only the Food and Drug Administration can do that. And in Oregon's case, the law does not apply to people of all ages. People under 18 are still required to get their first contraceptive prescription from a doctor.

But researchers say there is no evidence that adolescents are at greater risk from birth control pills than adult women. A review of oral contraceptive research [DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.12.024] [DX] presents the most comprehensive evidence yet that, as the authors state, "There is no scientific rationale for limiting access to a future over-the-counter oral contraceptive product by age."

"There is a growing body of evidence that the safety risks are low and benefits are large," says Krishna Upadhya, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and the lead author of the review, which was published this week in the Journal of Adolescent Health. In fact, she says, some of the potential negative side effects of oral contraception are less likely in younger people. For example, birth control pills that contain both estrogen and progestin come with an increased risk of a type of blood clot called a venous thromboembolism, but that risk is lower in teenagers than in older women. As a result, the pill is "potentially safer the younger you are," says Upadhya.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @08:40PM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @08:40PM (#481757)

    "Steal their stuff." That is indeed your position.

  • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday March 20 2017, @10:39PM (7 children)

    by Zz9zZ (1348) on Monday March 20 2017, @10:39PM (#481826)

    I would like you to repay every cent of public money you've used. That includes any public schooling, calls to the police/fire department, paying for however many years (how old are you?) of lower food prices due to government subsidies. Oh, you owe a lot for all the gasoline you've used, those cheap prices required a massive military budget to lock in. Are you ready to pay back the many thousands of dollars in pubic services that you've benefited from? Your cell bill should be higher too after all the billions that we gave the telecoms for no good reason, since they just took the money we'll have you send the money back to the gov instead of your telecom.

    Hmm, I'm sure I've left something out, but basically I don't want a turd like you receiving any of the societal benefits if you think your personal morality is more important than the well being of other humans.

    --
    ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @10:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @10:56PM (#481833)

      > I'm sure I've left something out

      Roads. Bridges and every consumer good shipped across them.
      The internet, the web and everything else developed with public money.

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday March 20 2017, @11:45PM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 20 2017, @11:45PM (#481855) Journal

      Are you ready to pay back the many thousands of dollars in pubic services that you've benefited from?

      Oh, wow! That's quite an expensive cunt or dick. :) :)

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Monday March 20 2017, @11:54PM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Monday March 20 2017, @11:54PM (#481864)

        Nice Freudian slip brain, neuron high fives all around!

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:21AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:21AM (#481885)

      He wasn't arguing that taxes have never funded useful things. Also, you haven't shown that taxes were NECESSARY to bring about such things.

      • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:57AM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:57AM (#481947)

        Nope it isn't a straw man.

        "Steal their stuff." That is indeed your position.

        The stealing part is obviously referencing taxation. He is a supporter of the phrase "taxation is theft". While that can be true (corruption), ideologically it is a naive phrase. If there are no taxes in this hypothetical reality then they must repay, and continue to pay, for all the services they use. This naive person doesn't seem to comprehend the scope of what modern civilization provides and I tried to explain it with the concept of repaying the 18 - 80 years years of services they've enjoyed so far (I'm hoping they are legally adults, if it is the AC spewing vile flamebait crap then it is quite possibly some teen) . I used that example because they think their personal costs would be lower. Likely it would cost more since private businesses love their profit!

        Also, you haven't shown that taxes were NECESSARY to bring about such things.

        How ironic, now THAT is a straw man! "A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent." My point was that in a world without taxes there are a ton of services that would suddenly become a part of your daily/weekly/monthly bills and many costs would increase since businesses would not have the benefits of public infrastructure and government assistance. Did NOT say taxes were necessary to achieve a modern society.

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
    • (Score: 2) by Justin Case on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:46AM (1 child)

      by Justin Case (4239) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:46AM (#481895) Journal

      Repay what's been stolen from me in taxes at all levels, with the rate of return I could have obtained elsewhere, and I will happily pay for the government services I wanted out of a small fraction of that reimbursement.

      • (Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:29AM

        by Zz9zZ (1348) on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:29AM (#481932)

        I will happily pay for the government services I wanted out of a small fraction of that

        See, there are fundamental government services that are a required cost. Your claim of a "small fraction" is simply incorrect. The basic requirement of living in a nation, with a government OR even corporate entities with which you enter into contract, is "a lotta money". You can't choose to not fund the military, you can't choose to fund road building, etc. Whether it is a government or various corporate entities you will be paying. This perfect freedom idea is a myth. What you want is sometimes irrelevant. Remember, just walking down the street will cost you money since every road is privatized. Basic costs will increase for individuals since there is no longer a massive network that absorbs the shock of large ticket needs. If nearly everyone participates (being good responsible citizens) you may as well call it taxation. It becomes a requirement of existing.

        After it is all said and done you will be paying. The evidence is in, most countries with a high taxation rate that provides for extensive common services happen to also have the happiest population index. You can dream of some magical world where free markets and choice fix everything, but the evidence is in from that experiment as well. Companies will gauge you, and the services from corporate entities will cost more than from government entities. Why you may ask? Because the CEO and the rest of everyone that works there wants a damn bonus and to afford nice lifestyles! Profit baby! Also, how will you stop these corporate entities from slowing buying out the competition? Corporate states is where that will lead, and then its back to a form of government. Want to exist within their domain? You pay. History shows that when a business gets that level of power, you pay everything just for the privilege of working there and they can end up owning you through debt.

        There is no "small fraction" for anyone that wants to live in an advanced society. In this society (US since they talk about ACA) we choose some of the shared costs. Your opposition to the idea of funding birth control is noted, but the smart people (on this issue) are going to oppose you since the data shows that it would be more beneficial and efficient for the entire country to do so.

        Any moral issues you have want to bring up are irrelevant, because again we are talking about reality here and there is simply no way you're ever going to get teenagers to not have sex. From a moral perspective at least access to birth control will limit the societal issues that surround teen pregnancy.

        Your hypothetical choice to pay only SOME taxes is not congruent with reality.

        --
        ~Tilting at windmills~
  • (Score: 2) by Nobuddy on Monday March 20 2017, @11:04PM (1 child)

    by Nobuddy (1626) on Monday March 20 2017, @11:04PM (#481836)

    Anonymous posting has SO improved the quality of content here.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:43PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:43PM (#482159)

      Not a single one of those stupid posts has been scored past 1, most 0 or less.
      But tons of nonymous idiots get their vicious, bigoted shit posted at 2 over and over again.
      Its more accurate to say that nonymous posting has not improved the quality of content here.