You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

3
7

[–] smokratez 3 points 7 points (+10|-3) ago 

It's a band aid. It doesn't stop people from getting the problem. It's a money sink instead of addressing the reason.

1
10

[–] dregan 1 point 10 points (+11|-1) ago  (edited ago)

You just described 60% of all drugs though. Addressing the real reason is hard and few people want to do that.

2
0

[–] smokratez 2 points 0 points (+2|-2) ago 

You need to make a distinction between recreational and medicinal drugs.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] zambeezy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Because it's a man and men aren't allowed to have problems

2
-2

[–] smokratez 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

I have no idea. Do you have some research backing up your statement?

0
3

[–] LOLThatsJustRetarded 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

You don't really know this. There could be no underlying problem beyond hormonal shifts or a reactive sex drive, in which case it isn't a 'band aid' at all. There could be no real problem to address, and if there is a real problem to address, one would assume that the doctor involved would be the one to address it, not feminist critics from the CBC.

0
1

[–] DashingLeech 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Well, I agreed with you right up to the "feminist critics" part. The people quoted in the article are:

  • "Adriane Fugh-Berman, associate professor of pharmacology and physiology at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., and director of PharmedOut, a pharmaceutical marketing watchdog group."

  • "Cynthia Graham, a Canadian psychologist currently working as a professor of sexual and reproductive health at the University of Southampton and a research fellow at the Kinsey Institute at Indiana University."

  • "sex therapist Leonore Tiefer, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at New York University School of Medicine"

  • "Caleb Alexander, co-director of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and one of six committee members (out of 24) to vote against the drug"

  • "Walid Gellad, associate professor of medicine at the University of Pittsburgh and co-director of the Center for Pharmaceutical Policy and Prescribing."

None of these people really qualify as feminists, or at least referring to them in that capacity is irrelevant. They are all medical, pharmacological, or psychological professionals in relevant areas.

Now the story is mostly one-sided without much in the way of counter-points. The sole supporter seems to be Gellad who voted in favour of approval, but he "says he has no regrets about recommending approval of flibanserin but advises women to "try everything" before they use it." and "[I] believe that it should be used by almost no one". So even the "supporter" doesn't support it.

If you specifically mean the reporter, Kazi Stastna, she is a senior news writer and nothing in her portfolio seems to be focused on feminism or feminist issues.

The one-sidedness then doesn't seem to be related to feminism of the reporter or experts, but rather with respect to the dislike for the use of pharmacological solutions in general.

2
-2

[–] smokratez 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

I am going of the precedences set by diseases or ailments that can be cured trough natural medicine or mental treatments. And off of the times that pharmaceutical medicine has killed instead of cured people.

0
1

[–] DashingLeech 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I'm not sure why people use band-aids as examples of things that don't solve problems. Band-aids are actually functionally quite useful. Ironically, they work by dealing with immediate problems (open wounds) so that process of healing can more easily take place.

Even in the context of somehow "masking" a problem, that still doesn't justify the criticisms here for several reasons:

  1. There can be more than one cause of a problem. If some are relationship-based it doesn't mean that all are. Some can be physical and hormonal issues, for example.

  2. Pharmaceutical solutions to not preclude one from addressing relationships separately, which can then lead to weaning off of the pharmaceuticals.

  3. Permanent use of pharmaceuticals can be a workable or even preferable solution.

As an example, my wife has acid reflux and takes Esomeprazole daily, for decades now. It also doesn't solve the root problem but that's irrelevant; it allows her to function without pain and suffering. The alternative is the possibility of some surgery that doctors are not sure would fix it, that comes with long recovery, comes with risks (including making things worse), and is very expensive itself. Even doctors say that it's a reasonable medical choice to take the pharmaceuticals daily for the rest of her life. Some say it is medically preferred and advised at this point.