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This discussion has been archived.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: 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~
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2