From: biesel@javelin.sim.es.com (Heiner Biesel)
Subject: Re: Choice for men: moving beyond anti-feminism
Organization: Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:31:00 GMT

rs87+@andrew.cmu.edu (Rebecca Ann Stallings) writes:

>>>Whether you call it sexist or not, the
>>>pharmaceutical companies are working harder to get it 'just right' for men
>>>than they ever did for women.
>> 
>>Last month feminists blamed the pharmaceutical companies for not
>>working hard enough on a male pill and called them sexist; now 
>>you give the opposite claim.  Can't you keep your story straight?
>   That's not the point the first poster was trying to make.  In the
>1960s, pharmaceutical companies went ahead and released the Pill even
>though it was rather dangerous.  They've made modifications since, but
>some brands and formulations still have serious side effects.  By
>contrast, it seems that companies are unwilling to release a male pill
>until it's absolutely perfect, not wanting to inconvenience or endanger
>men.

When the pill first came out it was considered a breakthrough, and it
was. For the first time in history women could effectively prevent
pregnancy by unilateral actions of their own, thus gaining some measure
of control over their own fertility. It was a giant step forward in
the liberation of women, and anyone who in retrospect tries to paint
as yet another example of patriarchal control simply doesn't understand
what the situation was before.

The well-publicised side effects of the pill are a relatively minor risk
for most women, comparable to other health risks people accept routinely.
To call the pill '...rather dangerous...' greatly overstates the case.
The side effects became apparent only over time, as large numbers took the
pill over long periods of time. Clinical trials at the time simply could
not take the extended time to detect the relatively rare cases of cancer
or heart disease. It was - and is - clear to anyone who takes an unbiased
look at the issue that the benefits of the pill far outweigh the costs for
the overwhelming number of women who take the pill.

(By comparison, the AIDS drug AZT was approved for treatment long before
even the relatively modest clinical trials were completed, and well before
side effects had been clearly established, largely at the insistence of
AIDS sufferers, because they were willing to accept the risks to gain the
benefits; this is understandable considering the nature of AIDS.)

Given the fact that we now have several effective means of birth control,
it is natural that clinical trials of new methods are more drawn out, and
the standard of safety and effectiveness has been raised. The fact that
drug companies are routinely sued for multi-million dollar awards on 
often very flimsy grounds does nothing to hurry the release of new
drugs.

Frankly, the notion that drug companies are reluctant to release a safe
and effective birth control drug for men because they are more concerned
that men may suffer side effects than women, or because they are reluctant
to control male fertility for sexist reasons, speaks more to the paranoia
of some people than to the facts of the pharmaceutical industry.

Regards,
       H. Biesel
Xref: sparky soc.men:17325 soc.women:17364