In present day 2015, the available options for contraception aren’t great, and the burden still rests largely on women to mitigate the damages of our wanton impulses. Aside from the copper IUD, all the birth control devices and pharmaceuticals available to women alter our hormones with various weird side effects. When it comes to birth control for men, aside from condoms and pulling out (neither of which are very reliable in practice), a vasectomy has been the only other option for preventing unwanted pregnancies. Though there’s about a coin-flip chance of it being reversible, those odds aren’t enough to make it something guys under 40 typically consider. A few other male contraceptives are being explored, but there are no approved male contraceptive drugs in the United States.
But what if there was a simple way a man to fire blanks until he and his partner were ready to have a kid—without the snip snap?
The process takes about 15 minutes. A doctor injects a tiny dot of a synthetic gel into the sperm-carrying tube just outside of each testicle. Once injected, the gel sets in the tube and acts like a filter, allowing fluid to pass through but not sperm. “Like water might percolate through Jello,” said Elaine Lissner, director of the Parsemus Foundation.
This isn’t like a Depo-Provera shot you have to get once every few months either—once injected, the sperm-filtering gel would remain in place for 10 years. If the recipient decides he wants to take a shot at having kids at any point in between, all it takes is another injection of sodium bicarbonate (aka baking soda) to dissolve the liquid, and the sperm factory becomes operational again.
It may sound too good to be true, but clinical and animal trials in India have shown that the method works with near-perfect results and no serious side effects. And unlike the birth control pill and condoms, which have a real-life efficacy rate far lower than the ‘perfect use’ scenarios advertised on the packages, the birth control injection, like an IUD, comes with virtually no room for human error.
So why isn't this in widespread use? Well, one reason might be that commercially, there is more money to be made selling contraceptive pills than a 10-yearly injection, and secondly, I guess "needles in close proximity to testicles" is not something that many men like the sound of...
Related Stories
An experimental new type of male contraceptive that blocks sperm flow with a gel has been successful in monkey trials.
Vasalgel acts as a physical barrier once injected into the tubes that sperm would swim down to the penis.
The company behind it says a two-year trial, published in Basic and Clinical Andrology , shows the gel works and is safe - at least in primates.
It hopes to have enough evidence to begin tests in men within a few years.
If those get funding and go well - two big "ifs" - it will seek regulatory approval to make the gel more widely available to men.
It would be the first new type of male contraceptive to hit the market in many decades.
Vasagel is thought to have the same effect as a vasectomy — but another injection should dissolve the gel plug.
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38879224
Related: The Perfect Birth Control for Men Is Here. Why Can't We Use It?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @06:47AM
Just wear a rain coat...use protection. Or...just don't stick it in if you don't want kids. Jeeze...why take a chance with your junk?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:07AM
The old old fashioned way is sex with teen boys instead!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:26AM
One night stands are the only times where wrapping it is required. If you're glovin' for lovin' in a committed relationship for reasons beyond pregnancy prevention, you and your partner have problems.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:19PM
I had condom sex exclusively for approximately 5 years, after the birth control medication caused my 20-year-old fiance to have a stroke (not kidding, here is one article among many (1) ). She was opposed to IUDs (vag surgery), contraceptive sponges suck, and spermicide effectiveness is a joke. Would have killed for male contraceptive.
(1) - http://www.strokeassociation.org/STROKEORG/AboutStroke/UnderstandingRisk/Hidden-Risk-Factors-for-Women_UCM_310403_Article.jsp [strokeassociation.org]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @02:42PM
Which is exactly why male birth control needs to be more widespread. Men aren't the only ones who think using condoms sucks, believe me. Like I said before, you only need "protection" for strangers, there's far better BC methods and if you're in a relationship you should definitely be using them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @04:36PM
Well, as the OP said, you and your partner definitely had problems. (In your case, it was medical problems that made other BC methods unviable or undesirable.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @08:43AM
We have two children, and we don't want a third at the moment. However in 4 years that may change. We may be better off financially, the eldest will be in school, the other in preschool so things will be easier.
We've just started weaning of the second one so its time to do something about it. The only realistic option is the coil. In 10 years sure there's the snip, but until then we want to keep our options. This magical injection would be another option.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:04AM
Date rape drugs and forcible injection of jello into the vas deferens.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:31PM
You think feminists are going to attack men in order to destroy their free meal ticket?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:25AM
The article is titled "The Perfect Birth Control for Men Is Here. Why Can't We Use It?" which is very misleading from the get go. No, it's not here. That's probably a rather large part of why we can't use it...
Then we start with all the optimist hype and BS only to degrade to the sorry facts that the results of clinical studies are ... secret. And nobody's funding this. SIGH
I mean this is important stuff and it's pretty incredible how bad the contraceptives are in 2015. And this is in the rich part of the world. So yes we do need better alternatives or perhaps I should say replacements. But let's not lie and confuse, it does not help.
(Score: 4, Informative) by davester666 on Monday April 06 2015, @08:20AM
There's no funding for it, because it's a one-off shot.
If it were at all like the pill for women, big pharma would be ALL over it. And I'm sure big pharma is working on figuring out a pill/ongoing medication for men, but it will be something you have to keep paying for. One time payments just don't cut it for moving the needle. They can't charge enough, while still getting enough men, to make the profits that pay the bonuses that keep the executives in hookers and blow.
like most industries, the last 30 years or so have fucked up big pharma because of wallstreet's demand for ever increasing profits, for "making the numbers" by any means necessary. the idea that if you aren't getting bigger and more profitable, you should stop doing business and somebody else should take over.
(Score: 2) by MozeeToby on Monday April 06 2015, @02:00PM
The implant for women lasts at least 3 and almost certainly 4 years or longer. Yes, there's a difference between 4 years and 10, but not an extreme one.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Monday April 06 2015, @03:27PM
One time payments just don't cut it for moving the needle.
I see what you did there. Bravo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:11AM
Great another person bitching about a headline, blowing its importance completely out of proportion so they can rant about, well, nothing actually - a story that presents the positives and negatives of the situation. What a terrible, terrible, piece of journalism. :rolleyes:
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @07:26AM
Hmmmm, what effect would injection of a clit into a testicle have?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:33PM
It will amuse the psycho holding the needle.
(Score: 5, Informative) by TLA on Monday April 06 2015, @07:32AM
1. Depo shots are used on young girls who are told that it is entirely beneficial. Particularly vulnerable groups include those in state care and adoptees.
2. Depo shots are in fact used to mitigate the "risk" of offspringing mixed-race children.
3. Depo shots cause wild hormonal imbalances. Including stopped and/or phantom periods and EVIL PMT.
4. Depo shots are used on female prisoners.
5. Depo shots have other side effects that last far beyond their designed purpose and lifetime. Including delayed resumption of normal menstrual cycle.
There's more but my wife who's not awake yet can tell you about the horror of depo shots.
...
Here she is with a few:
6. Depo shots cause eating disorders.
7. Depo shots cause clinical depression.
8. Depo shots cause constant headaches.
9. Depo shots cause nervous dysfunction including "dead leg" and heartburn.
10. Depo shots cause circulation problems.
11. Depo shots cause sexual dysfunction.
History: she was on Depo from the age of 17, on and off until 24, by which time she'd also had two children (and miscarried twice more), and two more once she was off it. So Depo doesn't work as intended, it just fucks you up.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:02AM
History: she was on Depo from the age of 17, on and off until 24, by which time she'd also had two children (and miscarried twice more), and two more once she was off it. So Depo doesn't work as intended, it just fucks you up.
Classic anecdote over data fallacy. All medical treatments have failure rates and side-effects. Humans are not binary state machines.
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday April 06 2015, @11:09AM
show me this data.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 4, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday April 06 2015, @01:46PM
No, idiot, you're the one making a broad-based claim. He's challenging you to back up your paranoia.
There's this thing in the medical profession called "acceptable risk" wherein they carefully study the side effects of medicines, and those effects are sufficiently rare and minor in comparison of the benefit of the medicine, they prescribe it anyways.
The data that ought to be shown is yours claiming that these risks fall outside that boundary, rather than just blindly asserting they exist(as if that were equivalent to being common or severe)
(Score: 2) by TLA on Monday April 06 2015, @02:07PM
ni, idiot, gave testimony from someone who has had the depoprovera injection and she told of her experiences with it. Now it's his turn to show this fabled data claiming its complete safety.
Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday April 06 2015, @02:14PM
No one said that, hence calling you an idiot.
Congratulations on graduating to goddamn idiot.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday April 06 2015, @02:36PM
And you know what? Sorry if I'm being overly hostile. I just detest people pushing the whole "Medicine has side effects therefor should never be used" line. I was sick to death of it 5 years ago.
(Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Monday April 06 2015, @03:30PM
I was sick to death of it 5 years ago.
Figuratively speaking of course.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @03:36PM
And you know what? Sorry if I'm being overly hostile. I just detest people pushing the whole "Medicine works statistically therefor should always be used" line. I was sick to death of that 25 years ago.
Fixed that.
Statistics become meaningless when something doesn't work for the specific case in which I am concerned - medicine or otherwise.
(Score: 1, Troll) by ikanreed on Monday April 06 2015, @03:42PM
You're the problem.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @04:12PM
Statistically you have one testicle and one ovary, therefore that is precisely the reality of the situation and no rationalization can change it. Clearly makes sense.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Monday April 06 2015, @04:19PM
It's not like medical science actually takes things like gender and age and conditions into account, so you've stumbled on an amazing insight.
No wait. You're dumb, and should completely rethink your worldview. You won't because we're having an internet argument, but you should
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dltaylor on Monday April 06 2015, @07:58AM
For single (and not having some male on the side) women, far too many out there would claim the treatment, but no sane woman would believe it, so she still has to protect herself. If she's already using an IUD, or insisting on condoms, why have the shot? For sanity's sake with other claimed female methods, though, it might save an unplanned paternity.
In marriage, maybe, although not all husbands are that reliable, either.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by K_benzoate on Monday April 06 2015, @08:10AM
I'm celibate but if I had sex I wouldn't trust the woman because of the legal system in the US favoring them. There's no financial incentive for the man to trick a woman into pregnancy, and plenty of reasons for him to take every precaution against it. The more options for preventing pregnancy the better, for men and women.
Climate change is real and primarily caused by human activity.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday April 06 2015, @01:39PM
There may be no financial incentives, but there are definitely enough non-financial incentives that lots of men don't take the precautions they should. Some of them, in rough order of importance:
1. Getting laid without a condom feels great.
2. In some subcultures, if you get a girl pregnant she pretty much has to marry you. If you want somebody to be your wife but she's a bit more reluctant, getting her pregnant can change her mind.
3. There is a very good chance that the man in question can avoid the financial consequences. Some of the many methods:
a. If the woman is promiscuous enough, then there's a good chance she won't know who the father is. If the father successfully avoids DNA testing, then he's scot-free.
b. It's not uncommon for men in this situation to show 0 income, but be getting paid under the table in cash as a way of avoiding child support responsibility.
c. If either the mother or father moves to a different state, collecting the awarded child support becomes significantly harder.
In addition, as much as it sucks to be sending a significant chunk of cash every month to someone else, I'm not convinced that's worse than spending a majority of your waking life taking care of a child. And odds are very good she's taking on some of the expenses of the child as well. I'll put it this way: I've known enough single mothers to know that their life is rarely made easier by the child, even if that child's father is paying support like he's supposed to (and often he isn't).
All that boiling down to: If you think that lots of women are intentionally trying to trick men into getting them pregnant, think again. It happens, but it's nowhere close to the majority. If it were, you'd be seeing women clamoring for abortion to be illegal, and they're not.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday April 06 2015, @03:48PM
We do see women clamoring for abortion to be illegal. They are called Republicans.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:56PM
Yeah but they're just parroting the party lines and don't actually believe, want, or follow any of the crap they say (correction, Republicans want it for everyone except themselves). How many vehemently anti-gay Republicans have been caught engaging in gay sex so far?
(Score: 3, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @08:25AM
Whoa whoa, wait a second there, professor. There are sane women? Do you have proof of this claim?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @08:32AM
Put yourself on the other end of the penis for a minute, or 20 seconds in your case, and consider the consequences.
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @09:08AM
A mouthful of jizz? Sounds tasty.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @10:07AM
Ugh, typical nerd failure to understand intimacy and trust.
How is trusting someone not to give you an STD any different? It isn't. There is no visible proof of being disease free and catching something likes aids is a lot worse than getting pregnant.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by VortexCortex on Monday April 06 2015, @10:31AM
For single (and not having some male on the side) women, far too many out there would claim the treatment, but no sane woman would believe it, so she still has to protect herself. If she's already using an IUD, or insisting on condoms, why have the shot? For sanity's sake with other claimed female methods, though, it might save an unplanned paternity.
I once caught a woman sabotaging my condoms by poking pinholes in them and throwing away birth control pills that she swore she was taking.
When in doubt, just reverse the sexes to discover sexism:
"For single (and not having some female on the side) men, far too many out there would claim they're on some form of birth control, but no sane man would believe it, so he still has to protect himself. The only other contraceptive option men have is to insist on condoms at present, so why have the shot? For sanity's sake with other claimed male methods, though, it might save an unplanned paternity."
For nearly the same reason a woman would take birth control pills or get an IUD a male would get an even less invasive and non-hormone-screwing-up procedure that's more reversible than a vasectomy; As well as for ALL the reasons you listed against men lying about the treatment, except with the sexism removed by considering BOTH men and women capable of being faulty in the contraceptive / birth control department.
A man has just as much at stake as a woman, and for him there is less opportunity to avoid risk. E.G. In case of pregnancy:
Woman can take the morning after pill -- Man has no recourse in this situation, he can not (nor should he be able to) force her to take the morning after pill.
Woman can have an abortion -- Man has no recourse in this situation, he can not (nor should he be able to) force her to have an abortion.
Woman can drop child off at a safe drop (police station or firehouse) with no questions asked, without even informing the father, and with no 18 years mandatory child support payments required for her -- Man can not do so and, if found, will be liable for 18 years child support even though he may not know she has done this.
Woman can give child up for adoption -- Man has no recourse in this situation, in most states she is not even required to inform him she was pregnant or that the child is going up for adoption; He may get slammed with child support for a child he didn't know he had at some later time, esp. if the adopter goes on welfare (yes, this does happen and it's fucked up).
Men are far more likely to be required to pay child support. Some under age male rape victims are required to pay child support for children born to the older female rapist after the rape victim turns 18 (yes, this does happen and it's fucked up). Some fathers are required to pay child support to women who no longer have custody of the child while this father is taking care of the child. Failure to pay child support will result in revocation of voting rights, revocation of drivers license -- Making it harder to make payments -- and jail time (debtor's prison was outlawed, except if you're male).
Today, motherhood is extremely voluntary for women but Fatherhood is not very voluntary for men. More states should adopt legal paternal surrender so that both men would be able to opt-out of parenthood, since women can. Equality, and all that, eh? However, legislation put forth by father's rights groups seeking to correct the aforementioned inequalities are unilaterally attacked by feminists (so much for Equaility, eh?)
IMO, It's about damn time there is a long-term male contraceptive like mentioned in TFA. I've also seen male contraceptive pills that block a protein that sperm require to clling to and travel along the tubules. Since the law (esp. family court) is heavily slanted against men and in favour of women, there should be more research into male contraceptives. Condoms can break, slip off, and be sabotaged, yet they're the only contraceptive available to men besides possibly irreversible vasectomy.
(Score: 1, Troll) by tangomargarine on Monday April 06 2015, @09:30PM
A man has just as much at stake as a woman
Um, the man is not at risk of being fired from his job for missing work to give birth, nor at risk of complications during pregnancy and birth.
"Exactly the same" my ass. You took a short, concise post about assumptions being dangerous and blew it up into one 4x the length (at least), that sounds misogynistic. Congrats.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:13PM
Um, the man is not at risk of being fired from his job for missing work to give birth, nor at risk of complications during pregnancy and birth.
Ending up having to pay for 18 years of child support and possibly ending up in debtor's prison is nothing to sneeze at, though. All while the courts are firmly against you because you're male.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:10PM
Yes, exactly. How much is dying during childbirth worth, spread out over 18 years?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 18 2015, @07:32AM
I'm not seeing your point. Both are bad.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Monday April 06 2015, @12:05PM
In marriage, maybe, although not all husbands are that reliable, either.
I'm mystified by the 10 year claim. Sure, submit a sample, have it tested, next day I'd go for it. But at year 9 month 11? We have no chemical clocks that accurate, maybe I drink a little more water than the next dude and next thing you know, another kid 5 years in.
It would be like selling a dissolving condom that lasts 10 years (aside from the whole having to pee issue). Seriously, what kind of idiot would trust that?
So as best its a statistical booster. So you the pill is only 1% failure rate, this might be 20% failure in the real world (not in the self funded study based on predictions) so now the combo is 0.2% failure rate, roughly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:39PM
Divorce and child support: a death sentence for many men. I've watched a neighbor drink himself into oblivion over it.
(Score: 1) by JBanister on Monday April 06 2015, @08:34PM
Regardless of whether she's trusting you or not, the shot sounds like cheap insurance against a paternity suit in the event of condom breakage, particularly considering it's an outpatient procedure where the material injected is less expensive than a syringe.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @09:41AM
I guess I have less visceral fortitude than most women. I've only allowed a doctor or corpsman to examine my private parts a couple times in my life. Had they reached for a needle, I'd have been out of the dispensary faster than they could explain what the hell they were doing. Women see the gynecologist regularly, but I'm just not letting people handle my junk unnecessarily.
Those above who are claiming no financial incentive for the procedure? They should think again. In the event a paternity suit arises, it would be comforting to KNOW that the kid can't be yours. "Your honor, I've been shooting blanks for the past two years, and I'm ready to submit a sample right this minute to prove that this 6 month old child cannot be mine!"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:28PM
A man reaches for your diminutive junk and pierces your testicles. You get a 10 year shield against unwanted child spawning. Sounds like a good deal to me.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @04:41PM
I guess I have less visceral fortitude than most women. I've only allowed a doctor or corpsman to examine my private parts a couple times in my life.
This is why you get a female GP.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @06:04PM
I only know of one in my area - and I've only seen her once in the emergency room. Like most good male family doctors, she is a sweet old person, easy to talk to, easy to trust, calm, sure, and competent. And, apparently, she has a full roster of patients already.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday April 06 2015, @07:12PM
You need to move out of the sticks then. Even in this crappy conservative city I live in now, I've got a very attractive 30-something female for my GP.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 06 2015, @08:26PM
Mmmmm. I'll admit that I would rather undress in front of a female than a male, if I must undress. But - you suggest that I move to a different region of the country, so that I can find a female doctor?
Isn't that a sexist attitude? Seems to me no less sexist than assuming a female doctor must be less competent than a male doctor.
Just think about that for awhile, alright?
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Tuesday April 07 2015, @12:25AM
So are you saying it's "sexist" for me, as a heterosexual male, to prefer courting women as lovers, and that I should give equal energy to courting men?
Just think about that for awhile, alright?
No, I don't think it's sexist at all for me to prefer having attractive women handling my private parts, whether it's in the doctor's office or in my bedroom. It has nothing to do with competence.
(Score: 1) by Bogsnoticus on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:23AM
I have had zero problems dropping trou in front of both male and female doctors. But when its the choice of being prudish, or having bladder cancer dealt with, being a prude takes a back seat.
The only time there was a "problem", was when they had the youngest, and cutest nurse remove the catheter following the surgery. I couldn't help myself, and kept saying shit like "You do realise most women insist I take them out for dinner and dancing before they put their hands in my crotch.", and "Can you take away the pain, but leave the swelling?". What normally would have taken only a minute or two, took about half asn hour due to the amount of giggling incurred.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @11:12AM
Plain old low level testosterone works just fine with some notable side effects:
* increase in lean muscle mass
* decrease in fat
* increase in libido
* corresponding improvement in mood, self image
* above the age of 50 reduces impact of andropause
works best with simple small injection but patches can work also.
The moment these side effects can be combatted it will be issued as a male contraceptive.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 06 2015, @12:50PM
Anyone want to bet how long it will be before all men have to go through this (or another equal) procedure?
Failure to comply will lead to forced jello injections, and possibly chemical castration. Because we need to protect women, and blacks and others. African men and other under-represented races will be exempt from this, because they were once enslaved and under-privileged and we must now make it up to them.
The masters of the world (the shadow groups) are throwing different things at the wall to see what sticks. Wait until this procedure like others before it become mandatory, and the un-natural becomes the new natural. When perversion will be normal, and anyone not following the official story will be outcast, and will have to live off-grid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @10:17AM
Where's the "-1 forgotten to take meds" mod?
(Score: 2, Informative) by mr_mischief on Monday April 06 2015, @05:15PM
"clinical and animal trials in India" does not mean it's fully passed trials yet, and trials in India are for approval in India.
It'll be approved in the US after it passes trials in the US. That's why, in a nutshell, we don't have it.
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Monday April 06 2015, @05:46PM
What's this about condoms not being very reliable? If they really broke or leaked that often, you'd imagine lawyers would be all over that lawsuit money.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 07 2015, @03:00AM
You are kidding right?
Condoms break, they leak around the edges, they fall off especially if you don't hold them on when you pull out after cumming.
They are literally the worst form of contraception there is - much better than nothing, but that's a low bar.
If you are really that ignorant of condom failure rates, learn how to google already.
(Score: 1) by mgcarley on Tuesday April 07 2015, @02:37AM
I've been trying to get on this since I first heard about it (maybe 2010), and at the time I was living in mostly Mumbai, but despite my best efforts I couldn't find a doctor that could refer me into the programme. Even a doctor in Delhi (it's not exactly difficult to get to Delhi and I was there fairly regularly anyway).
I'm now in America, and if it became available here, I would definitely have the procedure.
Founder & COO, Hayai. We're in India (hayai.in) & the USA (hayaibroadband.com) // Twitter: @mgcarley
(Score: 4, Informative) by iamjacksusername on Tuesday April 07 2015, @07:32PM
I have been following this since it was RISUG in India and they were trying to figure out how to re-do the studies in America. This is a game-changer in terms of reproductive control. The Vasalgel site goes into much more detail. But, the bottom line is that the India studies have had good results and now they are trying to re-do them to FDA standards. The problem is, of course, money. It is being entirely financed by people's donations and some grants. No pharma will find it. They did manage to get a small grant from the Packard Foundation ($100,000). They just finished an ape safety and efficacy study and are extending it further so results should be published soon on that. Hopefully, all this exposure will help them along. ( https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/ [parsemusfoundation.org] )
In the US, between 37% - 49% of births are unintended or unplanned, depending on who you ask. ( http://abcnews.go.com/Health/cdc-40-percent-us-births-unintended/story?id=16840288 [go.com] ) ( http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-Unintended-Pregnancy-US.html [guttmacher.org] ). There will be tremendous sociological implications should this procedure become widely available. I expect opposition to come from unexpected quarters as it fundamentally shifts a power and social dynamic in this country.
Since the Pill and Legal Abortion, reproduction has become almost exclusively a woman's issue (on the political front). If a woman wants a baby, she is going to get one. If she does not want a baby, well she has a few options. Men, to a large extent, have become bystanders on this issue. It is a woman's right, a woman's choice, etc... I think a real change like this in men's reproductive control will re-shape the politics and economics marriage and progeny. For a simple example, men remain well-fertile into their 40 and 50s; what are the consequences of an entire generation of men choosing to become temporarily sterile until they are 40? How does that affect the dating landscape for women whose fertility window closes in their late 30s?
I do not have answers to these questions but I know it will be fascinating to watch.