Is it in you? Should it be?
Sarah Jones
There are a lot of drugs on the market today — think of all the advertisements that end with “See your doctor” or “Ask your doctor if ___ is right for you.” While the marketing campaigns are attractive, the unwanted side effects are often anything but.
Oral contraceptives are an example of drugs that have recently been marketed rather aggressively, largely ignoring the impressive list of negative side effects. The majority of women’s washrooms on campus are decorated with the assertive divas of Alesse, smiling beside some text that likely has little to do with the birth control being pedaled.
Past issues of the Manitoban have included full page adds featuring a confident looking blond who recommends you talk to your doctor about other birth control options. And recall Diane-35, the campaign that featured a young woman whose skin was cleared by the wonder-drug that was also a birth control: see your doctor or dermatologist.
In 2003, the CBC examined the effects of the Diane-35 marketing campaign and found that sales for birth control increased by 45 per cent over the year. They also noted that Diane is not permitted to be sold as birth control in Europe. In Canada, doctors don’t recommend Diane for continued use. As always with marketing, the goal isn’t an accurate depiction of the product, but sales.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I am strongly in favour of birth control, and I even support the variety that will hopefully help every heterosexual female who is sexually active find the best pill for her. However, I am a little wary of the over-marketing of birth control, especially when the advertisements are directly selling the secondary side effects, such as skin care. Of course it wouldn’t be cost effective to advertise the negative side effects, which are numerous, but they don’t even appear in small print.
Glamorous ads ignore the fact that choosing a birth control pill is more important than choosing between Energizer and Duracell. If you select the wrong pill, the effects are more serious and more permanent. Among my female friends, many (if not most) have been recommended birth control by their doctors for reasons other than preventing pregnancy. Most of my friends are aware of the risks they’re taking when they choose to go on the pill, but I’m not sure that their younger sisters are.
It should be no small decision to decide to trick your body into acting pregnant for what may become years at a time. My favourite example of a strange side effect is that the pill can affect who you are attracted to. From an evolutionary point of view, it is beneficial for pregnant women to surround themselves with relatives — those who have a direct interest in the survival of her young. Mammals seem to be more excited by smells of non-relatives, except during pregnancy.
Research studies have shown that humans are not immune to this effect; as the pill duplicates aspects of pregnancy, women on the pill tend to be attracted to people who are more closely related to them. More alarming than being attracted to your cousin (I don’t really want to consider the other options . . .) is the fact that the more related the couple is, the more likely it is that they will be unable to have healthy children together. Not to mention that if you do have trouble conceiving with your partner, drug companies are more than happy to suggest new technologies to help you produce a genetically viable little bundle of joy.
So, what options exist for hetero, sexually active women? Sure, potential unwanted side effects are numerous, but the pill is still the most consistent, reversible protection against pregnancy, right? Well, in 1980 (about 20 years after the first female oral contraceptives became available), the American Journal of Chinese Medicine published an article claiming that a male birth control pill had been developed. However, in 2003, an online MSNBC article titled “Male birth control pill soon a reality,” stated that the male pill remains five to seven years away. With setbacks that range from physiological to funding, the male pill has yet to appear commercially.
The pill being used in a clinical trial at the Population Center for Research in Reproduction at the University of Washington has found the male pill to have fewer side effects than the female version, while maintaining equally high standards of pregnancy protection. Most of the guys I asked said they would consider the pill, though few seemed overly excited about the option.
As the male pill is easily reversible, missing one pill has a more serious effect for men than women. Given that fact, I don’t suppose women will be relinquishing the responsibility of contraception quite yet, so unfortunately I don’t have a replacement option for the pill-popping female population. But perhaps you can ask your doctor . . .
Sarah Jones is a continuing education student. She has a bachelors degree in microbiology.
