The Male Pill – Blessing or Burden?

Using information from November 2016:

While the female contraceptive pill has been revolutionary in allowing women control over their reproductive health and sexual freedom, it still has many side effects. These include mood swings, nausea, weight gain and most notably depression which was proven only months ago in a trial conducted by the University of Copenhagen.

It is these side effects that have led many to question when men will be able to share the contraceptive burden. In October it seemed the answer to this question of ‘when’ may indeed be ‘very soon’ as the largest trial of its kind, backed by the World Health Organisation, announced that the testing of the male pill (actually taking the form of an injection) had ben found to be 96% effective in preventing pregnancies. By comparison, the female contraceptive pill is more than 99% effective, if taken correctly. However, despite the results showing the injection did work effectively, the trial was terminated early due to 20 men dropping out having reported side effects including, depression, other mood disorders, muscle ache, acne and increased libido. Effectively, very similar symptoms to those experienced by women taking the female contraceptive pill.

This begs the question: How did the female contraceptive pill come to fruition if women were experiencing the very same side effects during clinical trials? Why has there been so little progress regarding the development of a male contraceptive alternative since the 1950s?

It is important to begin by acknowledging that the existence of the female contraceptive pill owes its legacy to the hundreds of vulnerable Puerto Rican women who were its initial test subjects. Led by Gregory Pincus, participants were selected in Puerto Rico where contraception was legal and accepted. The majority of the women who participated were illiterate and spoke little English. As a result, they could not consent to the trial as they weren’t informed that they were trialling the pill in its earliest untested form. The Puerto Rico trial resulted in the deaths of three women, but none of their bodies were autopsied following their deaths. The pill was also trialled using a much higher dose of hormone than legally prescribed today, which led to many of the women enduring the side effects reported by women today but at much higher levels. Puerto Rican officials were encouraging of the pill’s trial because of its potential use as a means of population control. By 1965, sociologist Harriet Presser estimated one-third of married women between the ages of 20-49 in Puerto Rico had been sterilised. This use of the pill as a form of population control links the use of it for eugenic purposes. During the 1960s, many African-American leaders argued the promotion of the pill in black communities was an attempt to prevent the increase of the African-American population, describing it as ‘black genocide’.

Following the Puerto Rican trial, as well as other further trials on incarcerated women in the US, the Food and Drug Administration approved the female oral contraceptive pill, despite many women reporting symptoms like the ones men reported during the 2016 trial for the male hormonal contraceptive. After its approval, it was marketed at predominately white middle-class women. The liberation of Western women therefore came about as at the expense of the suffering and manipulation of poorly educated and underprivileged Puerto Rican women.

While the male equivalent trial for a form of hormone-based contraception was terminated due to severe side-effects, women’s similar side-effects reported during the Puerto Rico trial were dismissed as exaggerations and still exist today. The fact that the link between the oral contraceptive pill and depression has only just been proven, despite countless women reporting that the pill was worsening their depression, proves the lack of credibility given to women’s opinions regarding their own health. Before 2016, there hadn’t been a study on what caused the pill’s impact on women’s mood since 1976. The story is the same elsewhere with regard to research into women’s reproductive health. Endometriosis, an illness that causes infertility and chronic pain affects an estimated 1 in 10 women and costs the NHS as much as the treatment of diabetes. Yet, the average diagnosis period is seven and a half years, with many women attesting that their symptoms are dismissed by doctors as exaggerations.

With regard to why there has been so little progress in developing the male pill since the 1950s, the MIT Technology Review cites two major barriers. The first is that it is more biologically complex to prevent the production of sperm than it is to prevent the production of an egg. The second barrier they cite is that there is not enough funding available for the clinical trials needed to test the male hormonal contraceptive options. Often, successful early trials of male hormonal contraception are abandoned due to pharmaceutical companies failing to provide funds for further clinical trials. This was the case in a notable trial of over 1000 participants in China in 2009. As a result, many scientists are directing their research towards non-hormonal forms of male contraception which pharmaceutical companies are more likely to fund.

So while it is encouraging that progress is clearly being made in trying to develop ‘the male pill’, in order to make meaningful progress, the medical and research industries must do more to take women’s symptoms seriously, rather than simply perpetuating the myth of hysterical, ‘wolf-crying’ women. Furthermore, it is important not to forget whom Western women (and men) are indebted to for the sexual and reproductive liberation we now view as ‘the norm’. 

• Bristol Features
• contraception
• feminism