SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @05:59PM (13 children)
Get it, yet?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bob_super on Monday March 20 2017, @06:05PM (10 children)
And if you're overweight, you pay for your bypass.
And if you're a smoker, you pay for all your diseases.
And if you like sports, you pay for your injuries.
And if you're an angry selfish idiot who doesn't understand civilization and insurance markets, you pay for your ticket to the jungle, desert island or warzone of your choice.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @06:12PM (1 child)
That's the whole point of insurance: Risk management.
I'm not your SLAVE.
If you keep trying to get someone to suck your dick against his will, don't be surprised when he lashes out.
Get it, yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @06:45PM
We do. You obviously don't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @06:43PM (4 children)
That's the whole point of insurance: Risk management.
I'm not your slave.
Insurance pays for that catastrophe which happens to an individual despite the individual doing everything possible to prevent that catastrophe.
It is NOT meant for everyday payments that a semi-sentient being should handle for himself; insurance is NOT a payment network.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Monday March 20 2017, @06:54PM (1 child)
Insurance companies like the Pill: a second-layer insurance against having to pay a lot of OB bills.
Pregnancy is insured, and extremely costly. Preventing that risk at minimal cost is the insurance's job. Paying for the pill is essentially a savings for them.
What's the link to slavery, especially as it actually can reduce your premiums (actually does raise their profits instead).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @07:00PM
Maybe there could be an insurance policy for people who agree never to have children.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @10:48PM (1 child)
> catastrophe
Ah, your hang up is with the word "insurance."
If we stop calling it health insurance and start calling it health care all your arguments go away.
Well, no they won't because inside your head you keep thinking "insurance" but if you weren't hung up on it, they would.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @11:59PM
The problem is that the insurance industry has been abused by government into becoming a payment network for the health care INDUSTRY; it's not possible to have a market when the market is systematically hidden in order to benefit special interests.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday March 20 2017, @07:10PM
And if you're overweight, you pay for your bypass.
And if you're a smoker, you pay for all your diseases.
And if you like sports, you pay for your injuries.
And if you're an angry selfish idiot who doesn't understand civilization and insurance markets, you pay for your ticket to the jungle, desert island or warzone of your choice.
Sounds good to me. Another problem solved by the hive mind of the internet.
(Score: 4, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday March 20 2017, @08:43PM (1 child)
And if you're overweight, you pay for your bypass.
And if you're a smoker, you pay for all your diseases.
And if you like sports, you pay for your injuries.
I'm assuming sarcasm here, but the funny thing about such arguments is that they don't agree with actual costs when longevity is taken into account. Yes, it costs more per year to insure a smoker or obese person or whatever, because their medical costs per year are higher while they are alive.
But they also die earlier. And old people are EXPENSIVE, even if they are relatively "healthy." Which costs society more -- (1) an overweight smoker who has a heart attack in his 50s, spends a year or two struggling after they also find lung cancer, and then dies, or (2) a healthy person who runs so much he needs knee replacements by his late 60s (including many months of therapy and recovery), deals with a bout of random cancer in his 70s, breaks a hip or two in his 80s (again, therapy and recovery), then spends the rest of his 80s in assisted living, and then needs round-the-clock care for his final years in his 90s as he degrades into a drooling mass of dementia (all these years also taking money out of stuff like Social Security, which the fat smoker never had any of)?
Actuaries have done these calculations. It's actually somewhat cheaper OVER A LIFESPAN in medical costs for a smoker or for an obese person, because they die earlier and don't need decades of increasing "elder care." Factoring in additional social costs like social security, etc., and it's clear healthy people end up costing society a LOT more.
None of this is an argument to be unhealthy or whatever. But it is something that people should be aware of before they start arguing for everyone else to "pay their fair share." It may turn out that you actually owe THEM money when amortized over a lifespan.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday March 20 2017, @09:01PM
Does the math still work since evermore=-expensive doctors are getting better at saving the unhealthy?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @06:09PM
I...guess I don't?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @08:29PM
I'm fairly certain I comprehend the point you're trying to make. The problem here is that (wo)men are not angels. In this case, there's another thing compounding the problem. Men are not devils, either.
Now, I can be a cruel, heartless bitch. I'm perfectly ok with letting a woman and children she may have because she did not abstain or use birth control starve to death in the street. Unfortunately, I'm also beholden to a warlord called the USA, for the sole purpose that my warlord keeps other warlords off my lawn. It just so happens that, because men are not devils, I'm pretty much alone in my willingness to allow such a thing to happen. In one form or another, my warlord will take money from me to pay for this woman and her children so they do not starve in the street.
So, I'm left with a dilemma. Either I can pay for birth control on the hope that women will use it in lieu of having unplanned pregnancies, or I can pay my warlord to feed, house, and clothe women and their children from unplanned pregnancies. One of these options is quite a bit cheaper: let women have access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.
Because men are not angels, they will have children they cannot afford. If men were angels, they would either ensure that children will not result from sex they choose to have or abstain all together, but they are not angels. Because other men are not devils, we will all pay for either contraception or care of those children they cannot afford themselves.