> Also important to note that permanent infertility is quite a strong side effect
I know many who would see that as a blessing though: License to have as much unprotected sex as they want without the unfortunate side-effect of an unwanted pregnancy. And they get paid for the experiment in the first place too? Win-win, they would argue.
Right, but I suspect the parent implied that this could be a feature that many would seek out - basically the chemical equivalent of a vasectomy that can't be undone.
Some people, like me, really don't want kids. Taking control of it so that you're not relying on your partner is important as trust (that they haven't forgotten to use contraception or worse - deliberately not take it) isn't a rock-solid security policy. It's also not fair on females to be the only ones in charge of contraception for bare-skin sex.
Another thing I've learned is that far too many parents take the statement "I don't want kids" as a personal challenge to moralize and condescend to people without children.
Na, I think it has more to do with either projecting ones own wishes onto somebody else or maybe even talk somebody down so that you can feel better if you don't are completely happy with the current situation.
I find it much more interesting to ask why somebody wants no kids. That gives much more insight into the person's mind than when you try to persuade them with your own experiences and produces much better followup talk opportunities.
Anyway, I'm curious what you think it might be evolutionary advantageous. On the face of it, if others have less kids, that would seem advantageous to your own kids.
What, aside from never making any decisions (which is a itself a kind of decision), can you do other than trying to make the best decision you can right now?
The honest to goodness answer here is that you can let other people make decisions for you, and it is the desire to make decisions for other people that prompts this argument.
Why? Having the means to do so is very very different from forcing it upon someone. Means to kill someone else are readily available to everyone -- kitchen knives, over the counter drugs -- but simply their availability isn't that scary.
What were they giving to the patients? Was the existence of what they were giving to those patients a scary thing just for existing - coz that's the question here.
You haven't responded to any of my points, just ignored them.
What you're really trying to do is make out that somehow sterilisation is a special case of something with a potential negative use case, where if they can easily be used, they will be, without arguing why it's different from all the other things that meet that criteria.
Not at all. It's similar to Google and the "right to be forgotten". In the old days something might be public knowledge but would say require visiting a records office to uncover. People could move on from things they regretted. Now it's just a search away. Aha, people say, but the knowledge was ALWAYS public. In practice the ease of doing it makes it completely different.
Which, again, is an argument about it being very easy to do.
That does not address jamesrcole's argument. He's not saying "it was always possible, therefore being easier is no different".
He's pointing out that there are worse bad things that are just as easy to do, yet they aren't considered scary.
You can't make an argument that the ease matters, because he's asking about things that are equally easy if not easier. Why is easy availability of such a drug different from easy availability of the knife/car/etc.?
It's a value judgement of course. As a society we accept that n deaths/year are worth it for the benefits that cars and butter knives bring to the wider population. In very recent history, sterilisation techniques have been massively abused by governments in an organised way. There was never a large-scale, systematic programme of running people over as policy. Forced sterilisation is still a thing in India...
Not really, tens of millions would line up for it; it'd be vastly better than surgery and plenty of pills can kill people now but we deal with that just fine and death is much scarier than sterilization. What you're doing there... it's called fear mongering. If you're really scared of something like that, you probably have some issues you need to resolve because that's a silly thing to be afraid of.
> The many people you know that would love to be permanently infertile can get what they want in a matter of minutes, in a proven/well-known way.
Are you sure about that? As far as I know nearly all urologists in the US will refuse to perform a vasectomy on a childless man, especially if they're in their 20s and/or unmarried.
Not from the US and I did the procedure in my thirties, married, with two kids.
But the doctor didn't ask about any of this (he obviously knew my age). I just had to sign that I was lectured about the potential risks and consequences - similar to the preparations for any medical operation really.
And I had to agree on the price, since this (obviously?) isn't covered by basic health care here.. ;)
So.. No idea. My doctor didn't know about my marriage or kids though.
Weird. The one comment suggesting that some participants probably see this as a feature is heavily downvoted, but the comments saying that this is shocking and awful are upvoted. I had no idea HN was so pro-birth.
Is it somehow hard to understand the difference between temporarily avoiding pregnancy and becoming permanently unable to have kids? You don't have to be "pro-birth", whatever that is, to understand how upset someone would be if they signed up for one and got the other.
Obviously these men signed up for an experimental protocol and presumably were made well aware of the risks. Nonetheless dismissing this as possibly "win-win" is spectacularly tone-deaf at best.
> understand how upset someone would be if they signed up for one and got the other.
Is it somehow hard to understand the statement that some men (not all men) would be OK with the outcome? I for one am never going to have biological children, so I don't particularly care whether I'm sterile or not.
It's not hard to understand, it's just totally irrelevant. Let's say one percent of the people taking a temporary contraceptive (rather than just having a vasectomy) happen to also not care if they are made permanently infertile. Meanwhile, another one percent get this side effect. These aren't going to be the same one percent.
The fact that there may be men in the first group is totally irrelevant to the experience of the second group.
Well, let's say you're going to have sex. _At that moment_, do you care whether you're sterile or not? Because these people probably are, but it's not certain.
Dad here, I'd downvote that too if I could. In my 20s children were the last thing on my mind; in my mid 30s, however, that changed completely.
Regardless of what one feels about children, I'm kind of shocked anyone could see accidental sterilisation as a benefit of any kind.
If permanent inability to produce offspring is what you want, there's always the snip. Of course, you'd still be subject to the risk of STDs if frequent change of partners is what you desire.
That it was accidental is always bad, but the point is that for men that were already looking into taking the snip, this was actually less invasive and possibly safer.
> Regardless of what one feels about children, I'm kind of shocked anyone could see accidental sterilisation as a benefit of any kind.
I know plenty of heterosexual men who would see this as a license to have unprotected sex with as many women as possible and never be burdened by the responsibility of a child.
I'm not saying I agree with this attitude (furthest from it, actually), but "you'll never have kids" probably won't come to them as a negative.
There are already simple, safe surgeries men can undergo that cause permanent infertility. I also can't see why someone would suggest this side effect is a benefit.
That is the most ridiculous FUD I've read in a while here.
It takes 20 minutes and you walk out. You'll feel not a thing (you might feel the injections of anesthetics). You 'recover' over a week of mostly nothing. I was riding my bike the day after the procedure.
You don't see a change, you don't feel a change and it is completely painless. Ignoring myself I've talked to a good number of friends who've done the same thing, said the same thing. I haven't heard of one single person that had a vasectomy and complained about pain in any way or form.
Honestly, I wonder why people would even wish for a 'chemical castration' all over this thread. Maybe your first line is something widely 'well known' and often repeated?
> I was riding my bike the day after the procedure.
Please do not spread terrible medical advice which you were surely told not to do. That's great you turned out fine but it is not ethical to promote such behavior.
Think of it as someone saying their children turned out fine without immunizations. Your words can become incredibly dangerous once you begin questioning doctors if you are not trained or have added knowledge in the area of specialty.
I asked my doctor if there's _anything_ I shouldn't do and he said 'No'. He told me an anecdote about a patient of his that HAD a bit of pain after flying for most of a day directly after the procedure (being cramped being probably a reason for that), but he explicitly said that there is no reason to hold back. "Be reasonable, be sensible".
But I honestly don't even know what drove you to comment here. I never said 'Ride a bike on the next day' nor am I a doctor or even TRIED to give out medical advice. Instead I explicitly called out (and tried to dispell) the 'OMG it is so painful' FUD.
Your comment is a) irrelevant (I don't give medical advice) and b) assuming things that are completely unrooted in reality and wrong.
I answered the sibling: I explicitly asked the doctor about restrictions and was - again, explicitly - told there are none, as long as I feel okay and am reasonable.
Running a marathon or karate competitions are probably out. I rode my bike with a dad with his daughter - we drove about 20km total, relaxed, with a nice spot to buy food and a beer. It wasn't "sport", it was "getting outside".
Honestly though? I totally didn't plan for that. I planned the trip, planned the operation. The operation's date was changed by my doctor, I didn't cancel the trip and just .. went along, because I felt fine.
Again: My doctor didn't list any limitations, even when I explicitly asked about it. But I certainly don't claim that people should jump on a saddle as soon as they've left the room. I merely pointed out what I happened to do on the next day to mock the 'the pain is unbearable' FUD.
Feel free to rest for a week. As far as I'm concerned and as far as I'm aware after talking to people that decided to take this step: There's no need to. There's no pain. A feeling ob numbness maybe (think strained ankle, but a week later) and obviously you have cuts that you don't want to strain.
But I had a lot of accidents with a razor or a kitchen knife (mind you, we're talking "face" and "fingers" now, right?) that were far worse than the vasectomy.
I know somebody who had that done, he never mentioned any pain. Indeed I thought he said it was a day procedure.
Along the same lines, I know several people who have had knee replacement surgery and they all said it was the most painful thing ever. All of them though, are very happy reaping the benefits of that years later. It was only a few months after saying that if he knew it would hurt that much that he wouldn't have had it done that an 80yr old friend of mine was proudly showing me how he could jump down some steps!
Not sure what "debilitatingly painful" is based on. Personal experience? Reports from others? Guessing?
My vasectomy was not painful at all. You do get a needle into your scrotum to inject the anaesthetic, and that is not a nice feeling at all. But it's over in two seconds. You don't feel the rest, because, you know, modern medicine.
What part do you think is painful?
For me the only major downside was the cost. If I ever decide I want children, I guess I'll have to adopt.
It's not the procedure itself that is sometimes painful, it's the recovery. When I had it done more than 20 years ago, I was fine with both, but the doctor proscribed me heavy duty painkillers in case the pain got bad.
He said he didn't use to, but then he had a vasectomy himself.
I have had one. Yes it hurts. Not debilitatingly though. And it's only for a minute or so per ball. It's bruised and sensitive for a week or so, but nothing major.
Depends what this study was about. If you were recruiting people as "try this contraceptive method", then permanent infertility is one of the most horrible side-effects possible. If, on the other hand, the focus of the study was "here are some pills that might make you permanently, or maybe just temporarily infertile", then it's fine. But then you wouldn't call it "contraceptive" or "birth control", I guess...
It's a stupid comment. An injection that has a small chance of making your infertile for an unknown amount of time, possibly forever, is useless. It's certainty that those participants need.
I know many who would see that as a blessing though: License to have as much unprotected sex as they want without the unfortunate side-effect of an unwanted pregnancy. And they get paid for the experiment in the first place too? Win-win, they would argue.