Should health insurance companies cover 'performance enhancing' drugs?

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[color=darkviolet] I should never be allowed to watch the news and be on the computer at the same time because it just gives me more ideas for threads. :D This time it's a debate over Viagra and other performance enhancing drugs.

For some reason these drugs that help a man with impotence are covered by many companies that don't cover birth control. Medicare is about to become one of these companies. Ok, so many 50+ women have already hit menopause so they have automatic birth control but there are still younger women who if lucky enough to have health insurance don't have coverage on birth control so have less of a say on their reproductive rights.

Yet these same companies will cover Viagra. Go figure. Is a man's ability or inability to have an errection more important than a woman's right to decide if she wants to be pregant or not?

For those who wonder or think that birth control pills kill the embryo and are against oral contraceptives for moral reasons, allow me to reassure you that birth control pills don't allow sperm to fertilize the egg and you can't kill something that isn't alive.

Ok, so I've prepped the thread for what I hope will be a spirited discussion I'll be back to reply later.

Wasting away again in Margaritaville,
Chibi Horsewoman[/color]

[AzureWolf]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Yet these same companies will cover Viagra. Go figure. Is a man's ability or inability to have an errection more important than a woman's right to decide if she wants to be pregant or not?[/color][/quote][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I think you are mixing raisins and nuts (just seems more appropriate than apples and oranges). You are comparing regeneration to sterilization. That is, one option restores function, while the other stops natural function.

What I'm trying to say bluntly is this: it would be hypocritical for a "health" company to condone "unhealthy" things (anything that makes the body act how it shouldn't can and is considered unhealthy). Also, Viagra restores not only a man's potency, but also acts to trigger a lot of emotional responses, most noticeably happiness (not THAT kind, but the assertive kind). I don't really condone Viagra for sexual purposes, but I understand why it is considered a health-related drug.

Also, it's almost impossible to create a female viagra: women's sex systems are just far more complicated than originally expected. One hormone triggers a cascade, with various checkpoints. At the same time, if two hormones within the cascade are in large amounts at the same time, they may actually hinder sexual activity instead of setting off the series of events. So, administration of a few hormones and a sprinkle of a few "feel-good" chemicals just isn't the answer for women.

(women are "ewww" when it comes to reproductive systems *shudders*)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I think you are mixing raisins and nuts (just seems more appropriate than apples and oranges). You are comparing regeneration to sterilization. That is, one option restores function, while the other stops natural function.

What I'm trying to say bluntly is this: it would be hypocritical for a "health" company to condone "unhealthy" things (anything that makes the body act how it shouldn't can and is considered unhealthy). Also, Viagra restores not only a man's potency, but also acts to trigger a lot of emotional responses, most noticeably happiness (not THAT kind, but the assertive kind). I don't really condone Viagra for sexual purposes, but I understand why it is considered a health-related drug.
[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]OOOOOKay, let me just reassure you that birth control pills do [i]not[/i] make a woman steril...if that was the case, I wouldn't have my daughter. They just allow a woman to control her cycle a bit better. Sometimes they also help the woman become less uh...witchy and reduce menstral cramps. A woman will eventually get a period whether she's on seasonale which only gives you four periods a year or Orthtrycyclin or Depro (A.K.A. the shot) It doesn't stop the natural funstion of having your period...trust me, I've been on the pill since i was 19, with the exception of over a year off of it. Also, the pill is only 99.9% effective when taken regularly. You can get pregnant while on the pill, that happened to my high school Bio teacher's wife.

As long as you follow the directions such as don't smoke and are healthy and usually under 35... birth control is usually healthy. It can also help a woman to become pregnant when she wants to become pregnant.Which debunks your theory on how the pill prohibits reproduction. If you're sighting the recent case of a woman dying while she was on the patch it's very rare. Banning the patch or the pill because of a few deaths would be like banning tampons because a few women got TSS (toxic Shock Syndrome).

Also these perfomance enhancing drugs have side affects too. They can only be taken by healthy men, and you can't take them if you are at risk for a heart attack or stroke. There are more restrictions and side affects for viagra and other such drugs than there are for the pill.

Isn't it hypocritical for a health care company to say that men can go ahead and have control over their reproduction, but women can't have the same control? And in saying that isn't it hypocritical of our government as well?

People are up in arms about abortion, but allowing women easy access to the pill or other contraceptives would help to cut abortions in half. Take that into consideration when thinking about health care covering birth control.

If you'll excuse me I'm going to build a shrine to the pill.
chibi Horsewoman[/color]

[elfpirate]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][font=book antiqua][size=2][color=blue]Also, it's almost impossible to create a female viagra: women's sex systems are just far more complicated than originally expected. One hormone triggers a cascade, with various checkpoints. At the same time, if two hormones within the cascade are in large amounts at the same time, they may actually hinder sexual activity instead of setting off the series of events. So, administration of a few hormones and a sprinkle of a few "feel-good" chemicals just isn't the answer for women.

(women are "ewww" when it comes to reproductive systems *shudders*)


[/color][color=black][b]Do you not know that Viagra also works in women to restore their sex drive and that there are quite a few other drugs on the market that effectively do the same? In fact, women need a certain amount of testosterone to trigger their sex drives (in conjunction with their more "womanly" hormones).[/b][/color]

[b]But that is not the issue here. [/b]

[b]The fact is that men are favored by both the government and by the insurance companies. If it were the man's responsibility to menstruate, get pregnant and have children, you can bet that birth control would be covered by the insurance companies.[/b]

[b]Most of the women that I know who take the pill take it to regulate their hormones and their periods (and to control PMS so they don't freak out every month).[/b]

[b]And I have never heard of a man taking Viagra for his moods... unless you count the cancellation of his sexual frustration as mood regulation.;) [/b]

[b]I think that if Viagra is covered, there is no reason for birth control not to be covered. It has nothing to do with science, hormones, or chemicals- it has everything to do with politics and sexism.[/b][/size][/font]


and...ahem!...our reproductive systems are [i]amazing- not eeew...[/i] we can build life with all that "eeewie" stuff in there... beat that.

[Harry]

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]

Isn't it hypocritical for a health care company to say that men can go ahead and have control over their reproduction, but women can't have the same control? And in saying that isn't it hypocritical of our government as well?
[/color][/QUOTE]
Not when the government is ran by old men who can't get it up :smooch:

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue] Also, it's almost impossible to create a female viagra: women's sex systems are just far more complicated than originally expected. One hormone triggers a cascade, with various checkpoints. At the same time, if two hormones within the cascade are in large amounts at the same time, they may actually hinder sexual activity instead of setting off the series of events. So, administration of a few hormones and a sprinkle of a few "feel-good" chemicals just isn't the answer for women.

(women are "ewww" when it comes to reproductive systems *shudders*)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Ever hear of Levitra? It's a female sexual enhancement drug...at least I think that's the name of it.

Why should men, who have no problem reaching orgasm, be provided with more enhancement than women? Don't you know that the average women doesn't even know how to orgasm? Ok, sorry, graphic.

And I don't reguard my reproductive system as eww. I made something with my reproductive system, a beautiful baby girl. You try doing that. Maybe you're just jealous?[/color]

[Heaven's Cloud]

[color=indigo]Whether or not Medicare covers it is one thing, whether health insurance companies carry it are another. I think it is ridiculous that Medicare doesn?t cover the pill simply because supporting birth control (especially for people who are on welfare that obviously fall under the Medicare policy) is just fiscally responsible in the long run.

Obviously independent HMO?s (by the way, HMO?s are living proof that Satan does exist) should have the option of picking and choosing what they will and will not cover. Independent HMO?s are out to make money, so they are going to pick and choose medicines that maximize their return. It is a calculated risk. [/color]

[Sara]

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']Which debunks your theory on how the pill prohibits reproduction.[/color][/quote][color=#ff6600]Think about what you just said. :p

And before Azure gets lynched, I'd like to raise the possibilty (just the possibility, mind) that his 'ewww' comment, taken in context, was not slamming those of the female persuasion. Also, he's probably not jealous of Chibi's daughter.

Let's try not to get too defensive. We may not all be adults, but we can at least pretend, eh? Keep it civil.

vote for pedro,
Sara[/color]

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=Lore][color=#ff6600]Think about what you just said. :p

And before Azure gets lynched, I'd like to raise the possibilty (just the possibility, mind) that his 'ewww' comment, taken in context, was not slamming those of the female persuasion. Also, he's probably not jealous of Chibi's daughter.

Let's try not to get too defensive. We may not all be adults, but we can at least pretend, eh? Keep it civil.

vote for pedro,
Sara[/color][/QUOTE]

[color=darkviolet]Ok, I see how what I said looks a bit off. But I couldn't think of a better way to put it. Yes, it prohibits pregnancy...to a point because it [i]is[/i] still possible to get pregnant on the pill. But the way Azure put it is it makes a woman steril...that would mean that by taking the pill or getting a shot the woman is basically getting a historectomy. Which is completely untrue.

I'm not quite sure what else to add to this since I've been adding to this since this morning. But I don't think he's jealous of my daughter...that would be kind of strange[/color]

[Drix D'Zanth]

Alright Ladies and Gents, time for a shot of common sense. Courtesy, Dr. Drix.

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I think you are mixing raisins and nuts (just seems more appropriate than apples and oranges). You are comparing regeneration to sterilization. That is, one option restores function, while the other stops natural function.

What I'm trying to say bluntly is this: it would be hypocritical for a "health" company to condone "unhealthy" things (anything that makes the body act how it shouldn't can and is considered unhealthy). Also, Viagra restores not only a man's potency, but also acts to trigger a lot of emotional responses, most noticeably happiness (not THAT kind, but the assertive kind). I don't really condone Viagra for sexual purposes, but I understand why it is considered a health-related drug. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Welcome to modern medicine, Azure. Technological advances that keep people who, in natural physiological conditions would have died long ago. Let?s take a few examples of medical procedures that actually ?unhealthy? by your definition:
-Any sort of invasive surgical procedure.
-Chemotherapy
-Blood pressure medication
-Tracheotomy
-Cardiac defibrillation
-Respiratory intubations
Just take a walk through the CCU/ICU and you?ll see hundreds of people who would be dead, being recovered by procedures that would kill a perfectly normal person. Birth control isn?t nearly as ?unhealthy? as any of those life-saving procedures. It merely re-routs the hormones so that an egg never develops by fooling the body into thinking it is pregnant. Just as any other therapy, it does have side effects that must be understood before going on a chemical birth control like the pill or Depo-shot. Now, Viagara has side effects as it also has an influence on the chemicals that stimulate penis erection, side-effects that can be as noticeable or infantesimial as being on the pill. So the ?physiological? moral ambiguity of the issue is settled.

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
Also, it's almost impossible to create a female viagra: women's sex systems are just far more complicated than originally expected.
[COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Well, it is widely known that the female orgasm, on average requires far more stimulation, and a significant psychological stimulation to even occur. However, there are drugs that provide a physiological crutch when it comes to the female orgasm when stimulating a woman?s genital region. This is no different then Viagara, which doesn?t guarantee orgasm, just erection.

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Ever hear of Levitra? It's a female sexual enhancement drug...at least I think that's the name of it.

Why should men, who have no problem reaching orgasm, be provided with more enhancement than women? Don't you know that the average women doesn't even know how to orgasm? Ok, sorry, graphic.

And I don't reguard my reproductive system as eww. I made something with my reproductive system, a beautiful baby girl. You try doing that. Maybe you're just jealous?[/color][/QUOTE]

Heh, let?s give Lincoln some credit here. He?s halfway responsible for Abby?s conception itself. That?s not the issue though. A few things I wanted to point out; Levitra is for both genders, and is far more potent than Viagra. As for the difficulty of reaching an orgasm? I suppose that?s due to our cultural perception of masturbation? it?s not limited to physiology.

[QUOTE=Heaven's Cloud][color=indigo]Whether or not Medicare covers it is one thing, whether health insurance companies carry it are another. I think it is ridiculous that Medicare doesn?t cover the pill simply because supporting birth control (especially for people who are on welfare that obviously fall under the Medicare policy) is just fiscally responsible in the long run.

Obviously independent HMO?s (by the way, HMO?s are living proof that Satan does exist) should have the option of picking and choosing what they will and will not cover. Independent HMO?s are out to make money, so they are going to pick and choose medicines that maximize their return. It is a calculated risk. [/color][/QUOTE]

I think HC is on the ball here. Not only are HMO?s evidence of an unadulterated evil somewhere in the cosmos, I also believe the pill should fall under health insurance. I am absolutely in favor of the pill/shot/physical-barrier birth control over an unwanted pregnancy resulting in an abortion!

Want to know why insurance companies won?t put the pill on their coverage for a while? Because of the national healthcare crisis we are facing today. About half of you will die of some form of cardiovascular disease. Look at the current mortality statistics: the leading cause of death today is cardiac-related disease due to obesity. Closely following that is smoking. [b] People, by going and binging on fast food and sitting at home to watch your reality TV you are basically killing yourselves.[/b] This problem is widespread and often ignored. It?s amazing to hear people lambaste the smoker for harming himself or the environment, when that situation is JUST as applicable to the fat person walking out of Wendy?s.

Here?s the catch: It?s the people?s American right to go get fat, and smoke several packs of cigs a day. However, as soon as they have health complications, who should pay for it? Certainly not them! They should have their insurance companies pay for it! They should socialize healthcare so that they can get free coronary unplugging whenever they feel the chest heaviness indicating the onset of Heart Attack. When I?m working, I have no problem treating people for these types of things, I have nothing but sympathy for the sick person. But after a while, I?ve realized that people are just slowly killing themselves off and they expect everyone else to pick up the pieces. I?m not suggesting we reformat healthcare, but if we want to solve the health crisis, we need to solve it with our children and in our homes. Whenever your health insurance covers a procedure (like a triple-bypass) it jacks up the prices, slowly but surely. THAT is why Birth control is so far down on the list of priorities.

Don?t Smoke. Exercise. Don?t eat unhealthy foods often.

[AzureWolf]

[FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]*scratches head* I'm really confused, haha. First and foremost, that comment about the female reproductive system was supposed to be a light-hearted joke. It was just a build on one of my myO entries.

Secondly, references are all over the place. In the context of CHW's original post, I thought this was about "performance enhancing" drugs. In my context, though, I was saying that viagra can and is used as a regeneration drug, restoring natural function for those who have lost it (i.e., I knowingly shifted the frame). However, [B][U]within that new frame[/U][/B], birth-control pills can be seen as sterilizing, and "performance enhancing" ones can be considered regenerative.

Time is [B][U]not[/B][/U] a factor! Duration is as trivial for this as it is for, say, your leg being paralyzed. It doesn't have to be a permanent thing (e.g., "your leg is permanently paralyzed" vs "your leg is temporarily paralyzed" - who cares?). Why did I shift the frame? Because I felt that CHW was looking at the dilemma the wrong way.

So, in keeping with the shifted frame, I continued and built on the topic, stating that there's not going to be a female sex regeneration pill for quite some time (maybe never).

BUT... Everyone went back to the original frame, and tried to superimpose the original frame onto the one I started from, which is impossible. Again, it's not for enhancement, it's for restoration of lost function. Can you say something [B][U]along the same lines[/U][/B] for birth-control?

Drix, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. In your list, people have lost function or something else, and are regaining it by unnatural means. Viagra falls into this as well if you work within my frame. However, how are you supporting birth-control pills, as you even refer to your list as "procedures that would kill a perfectly normal person." I wasn't really considering people who use birth-control pills and have a condition/disease/ailment - only healthy/normal people who use birth-control pills.

Again, CHW asked why "performance enhancing" drugs are supported for men but birth-control pills are not for women. I turned the tables and said that these performance enhancing drugs also have a medical benefit to them that birth-control pills just don't, regardless of how you slice them. I never said anything about the "enhancing" part of anything. "[i]I don't really condone Viagra for sexual purposes, but I understand why it is considered a health-related drug.[/i]"

(btw, doesn't cardiac defibrilation have an equal chance of working or failing on a person, regardless of irregular heart pace or a normal one? And for those whose hearts aren't working, aren't they deemed dead and you are trying to revive them?)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[elfpirate]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][font=book antiqua][size=2][color=blue]*scratches head* I'm really confused, haha. First and foremost, that comment about the female reproductive system was supposed to be a light-hearted joke. It was just a build on one of my myO entries.
[b][color=black][/color][/b]
[b][color=black]I thought that everyone[i] knew [/i]that the "ew" comment was just a joke... a lame, sexist joke...:smirk: ha ha... [/color][/b]
[b][color=black][/color][/b]
[b][color=black]*elfpirate's smirking cuz people need to lighten up a little on this thread... it's about Viagra, after all...*[/color][/b]

. Again, it's not for enhancement, it's for restoration of lost function. Can you say something [b][u]along the same lines[/u][/b] for birth-control?

[b][color=black]I thought I [i]had- [/i]Birth control pills and other hormonally- based birth control methods are often used to restore the normal levels of hormones in a woman's body... curing problems with irregular menstrual cycles, cramping, and mood swings, among other things.[/color][/b]
[b][color=#000000][/color][/b]
[b][color=#000000]They also give Depo Provera (the shot) to inmates that are overly aggressive or are overly sexually violent... I'm strictly talking about male inmates on this one...[/color][/b]
[b][color=#000000][/color][/b]
[b][color=#000000][/color][/b]
[/color][/size][/font]

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE][b][color=black]I thought I [i]had- [/i]Birth control pills and other hormonally- based birth control methods are often used to restore the normal levels of hormones in a woman's body... curing problems with irregular menstrual cycles, cramping, and mood swings, among other things.[/color][/b][/QUOTE][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I overlooked your post, heh. I didn't know birth control pills are used for medical reasons like Viagra is. In fact, I'm still not going to believe it (seriously, I NEVER heard of it!), but "something not being there" and "me just not seeing it" are two different things. I guess I just never heard of it and maybe I'll look into it at some later point in time.

But anyway, if that's the situation, then I don't see why it shouldn't be covered by HMO's in those cases. In other cases, for the sheer fun of sex, I don't think it is a valid point to make [U][B]health[/B][/U] companies pay for your pleasure - birth-control, Viagra, or otherwise.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

[Morpheus]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]I overlooked your post, heh. I didn't know birth control pills are used for medical reasons like Viagra is. In fact, I'm still not going to believe it (seriously, I NEVER heard of it!), but "something not being there" and "me just not seeing it" are two different things. I guess I just never heard of it and maybe I'll look into it at some later point in time.

But anyway, if that's the situation, then I don't see why it shouldn't be covered by HMO's in those cases. In other cases, for the sheer fun of sex, I don't think it is a valid point to make [U][B]health[/B][/U] companies pay for your pleasure - birth-control, Viagra, or otherwise.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]
What you don't realize is they are both used to [B]RESTORE[/B] a function.

[Drix D'Zanth]

*Cracks knuckles.*

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
Secondly, references are all over the place. In the context of CHW's original post, I thought this was about "performance enhancing" drugs. In my context, though, I was saying that viagra can and is used as a regeneration drug, restoring natural function for those who have lost it (i.e., I knowingly shifted the frame). However, [B][U]within that new frame[/U][/B], birth-control pills can be seen as sterilizing, and "performance enhancing" ones can be considered regenerative. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

First of all, you are correct in saying that a person is temporarily sterilized in taking birth control. Viagara isn?t restoring ?natural? anything. Natural function of a penis that needs viagara is a penis that would ?naturally? be flaccid. Sorry, it?s out of juice. Viagara is unatturally manipulating your body?s chemicals to stimulate a reaction. The pill does the same thing, in effect, an unnatural stimulation of the body. Sure, they seem to have an ?opposite effect?? meh, I?ll get to that later.

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
Time is [B][U]not[/B][/U] a factor! Duration is as trivial for this as it is for, say, your leg being paralyzed. It doesn't have to be a permanent thing (e.g., "your leg is permanently paralyzed" vs "your leg is temporarily paralyzed" - who cares?). Why did I shift the frame? Because I felt that CHW was looking at the dilemma the wrong way. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Well, the time frame does matter as both procedures (Viagra and the pill) [i]are[/i] temporary. Your analogy actually works against you here, because that would be implying that the temporary sterilization of birth control pills is no different than a permanent one.

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
So, in keeping with the shifted frame, I continued and built on the topic, stating that there's not going to be a female sex regeneration pill for quite some time (maybe never). [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Well, female ?regeneration? isn?t necessary because a woman doesn?t have to pump blood to a penis! It takes a specific response, and sizable expenditure of energy to maintain an erection. (edit) I was recently PMed by elfpirate and did a little research on the female orgasm. It has now been brought to my attention after some research that women also need a decent blood flow to their genitals in order to reach orgasm. Hence hypotension (or medicine inducing hypotension) as well as opiates can prevent arousal.

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
BUT... Everyone went back to the original frame, and tried to superimpose the original frame onto the one I started from, which is impossible. Again, it's not for enhancement, it's for restoration of lost function. Can you say something [B][U]along the same lines[/U][/B] for birth-control? [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

Is it as impossible as taking two entirely bodily functions and comparing the merits of treating one as ?unhealthy? (pill) and the other as ?restorative? (Viagara)? Sounds to me like you superimposed two entirely different bodily functions (the menstrual cycle and a male ejaculation) comparing the treatments for both in the same light. In your defense, ?performance enhancing drugs? wasn?t the only topic that CHW was trying to discuss? she didn?t illustrate that clearly, it appears.


[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
Drix, I'm not entirely sure what you mean. In your list, people have lost function or something else, and are regaining it by unnatural means. Viagra falls into this as well if you work within my frame. However, how are you supporting birth-control pills, as you even refer to your list as "procedures that would kill a perfectly normal person." I wasn't really considering people who use birth-control pills and have a condition/disease/ailment - only healthy/normal people who use birth-control pills. [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

I?m referring to this: [quote] What I'm trying to say bluntly is this: it would be hypocritical for a "health" company to condone "unhealthy" things (anything that makes the body act how it shouldn't can and is considered unhealthy). [/quote]
You claim that Birth Control is unhealthy. But in a medical community where the ends justify ANY means, I?ve proven that it is not unhealthy at all. The procedures I outlined aren?t good for perfectly healthy people. We do very unhealthy things to them (cut them open, shock them, etc) to restore them. All of these means are considered ?unhealthy? by your definition. How can I say that? Because you were obviously considering a single attribute associated with birth control, and from that distinction, claiming it was ?unhealthy?.

Why does that matter? Well if it isn?t unhealthy, then healthcare certainly can cover it.

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
Again, CHW asked why "performance enhancing" drugs are supported for men but birth-control pills are not for women. I turned the tables and said that these performance enhancing drugs also have a medical benefit to them that birth-control pills just don't, regardless of how you slice them. I never said anything about the "enhancing" part of anything. "[i]I don't really condone Viagra for sexual purposes, but I understand why it is considered a health-related drug.[/i]" [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

A lot of drugs we use have little to no ?medical benefit? to a person in a reconstructive sense. Look at painkillers, their only redeeming quality is they can prevent or eliminate? well, pain! They don?t help you, they don?t reduce blood pressure, and they aren?t going to save your life (except for Aspririn). There is no medical benefit except that the person is in a few moments of comfort in an otherwise traumatizing situation. Viagara has the medical benefit of getting men hard, and as a result, making them happy!

Here?s the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, Azure. Birth control pills stop the menstrual cycle. A woman will not have her period when she is on a chemical birth control. Do you know that one of the most common patient complaints in the Emergency Room is related to menstrual cramps (I?d say 20% on a bad day)? Menstral-related pain put into a male perspective would probably be like someone kicking you in the balls every couple of seconds (not hard, just enough to give you that ache knees-pull-toghether, feeling). Not only that, if birth control can curb the over 1 million abortions our country has every year? I?m all for it. There?s your medical benefit.

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]
(btw, doesn't cardiac defibrilation have an equal chance of working or failing on a person, regardless of irregular heart pace or a normal one? And for those whose hearts aren't working, aren't they deemed dead and you are trying to revive them?)[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE]

It depends entirely on the patient. It depends on any number of factors. I?d say that the defibrillator will re-start an infarction-induced arrest about 60-70% of the time. (They don?t defibrillate irregular heart beats) Usually a person is considered ?dead? if his brain ceases all functions which could be anywhere from 3-8 minutes after a heart has stopped beating.

[Panda]

[quote=Drix]Welcome to modern medicine, Azure. Technological advances that keep people who, in natural physiological conditions would have died long ago. Let?s take a few examples of medical procedures that actually ?unhealthy? by your definition:
-Any sort of invasive surgical procedure.
-Chemotherapy
-Blood pressure medication
-Tracheotomy
-Cardiac defibrillation
-Respiratory intubations[/quote]
Thanks Drix, I was wondering when someone would bring this up.

I am currently on several nasty drugs that are suppose to help me by practically killing me. You know, the burn the village to save the village idea. I am currently on a chemotherapy drug called Methotrexate. Along with that a few other drugs which require me to be on birth control for my own safety. Needless to say several of the medications cause terrrible health problems if I were to become pregnant. One of them requires me to be off of the medication for at least 2 years (or take other drugs) in order for it to be out of my system to be safe to become pregnant. Nasty drugs.

Over time medicine has been know to be used for other conditions than that of what it was originally intended for. For example. Hydroxychloroquine was originally used to military men who were suffering from and preventing Malaria. While being used in these soldiers they noticed their arthritis went into remission. Now Hydroxychloroquine is prescribed for people suffering from Lupis or Rheumatoid Arthritis.

I am lucky to have good insurance with covers most of the cost of my medications. My birth control is covered because I need to be on them due to the drugs I am taking. One thing I did notice was my health insurance will cover a vasectomy but will not cover a hysterectomy. I am sure this is because of the cost of the actual procedure but it seems a bit unfair for women. It basically all comes down to what, in my case, the private insurance company is willing to pay for. I am sure I could find another health insurance company that if I paid enough would cover everything. It all comes down to money.

Oh and on a side note Depo Provera can also be used in birds to treat mental disorders like feather picking.

[ChibiHorsewoman]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue] Secondly, references are all over the place. In the context of CHW's original post, I thought this was about "performance enhancing" drugs. In my context, though, I was saying that viagra can and is used as a regeneration drug, restoring natural function for those who have lost it (i.e., I knowingly shifted the frame). However, [B][U]within that new frame[/U][/B], birth-control pills can be seen as sterilizing, and "performance enhancing" ones can be considered regenerative.[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]

[color=darkviolet]Ok, I admit that I [i]did[/i] word my thread a bit wrong..so it was slightly missleading...I appologize for that.

I think sterilizing is a bit too strong of a word. When I think sterilize I think hystorectomy. I think of being on the pill or Depro Or The patch as more of a preserving method. [/color]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue] Time is [B][U]not[/B][/U] a factor! Duration is as trivial for this as it is for, say, your leg being paralyzed. It doesn't have to be a permanent thing (e.g., "your leg is permanently paralyzed" vs "your leg is temporarily paralyzed" - who cares?). Why did I shift the frame? Because I felt that CHW was looking at the dilemma the wrong way.[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]

[color=darkviolet]Fair enough, but I think you're looking at the benefits of birth control the wrong way. I'm not sure what else to add to this paragraph except that maybe being temporarily 'sterilized' is a good thing. While a woman is on the pill there is less chance of her having an unwanted pregnancy which could result in an abortion. Since this cuurent administration is so blatently pro-life I would think that this would be a good thing. Plus we have a better knowledge of our menstral cycle, which is good for both men and women.[/color]

[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue] So, in keeping with the shifted frame, I continued and built on the topic, stating that there's not going to be a female sex regeneration pill for quite some time (maybe never).[QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]

[color=darkviolet]There really isn't much need for one since we don't need to be able to get it up to have an orgasm, just a rush of blood to the g-spot and wham.... And there is a pill to help with being stimulated...[/color]

[quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue] Again, CHW asked why "performance enhancing" drugs are supported for men but birth-control pills are not for women. I turned the tables and said that these performance enhancing drugs also have a medical benefit to them that birth-control pills just don't, regardless of how you slice them. I never said anything about the "enhancing" part of anything. "[i]I don't really condone Viagra for sexual purposes, but I understand why it is considered a health-related drug.[/i]"?)[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote]

[color=darkviolet]I honestly don't consider a guy being able to have sex a medical benefit...maybe in my next life when I'm a 78 year old man and I want to get it on but need a blue pill to do so I will, but not in this life.

I'm assuming that you're a guy and have never had menstral cramps so bad that you can barely stand up let a lone go to your classes so your grades drop. I had those and let me tell you, Drix was close in his discrption of being hit in the balls...so I've heard. He should have moved up though and compared it to being slugged in the stomach with a 2X4. Enter the medical miracle called Ortho-Trycyclin...I can actually walk upright again and not have a sudden need to choke someone every 30 seconds becuase this pretty green/two colors of blue or yellow and two colors of blue pill helps to make me less of an obnoxious bee-yotch every 3-5 days a month.

Also, taking the pill can help to lighten a heavy period, which is a huge relief when you worry about leakage and white or khaki pants.

Plus, for all you pro-life people. As I mentioned before a woman on the pill is less likely to get pregnant-because the pill prohibits sperm from fertilizing the egg (not because the hormones kill the embryo as some people think)-so that means less unplanned (I hate unwanted) pregnancies which result in less abortions. Which leads me to wonder why more anti abortion people don't quit shooting doctors and begin preaching the goodness of contraceptives.

I <3 the pill
Chibi Horsewoman[/color]