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: 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?