GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: BioEdge: We need a national male reproductive health policy, say researchers

domingo, 10 de noviembre de 2019

BioEdge: We need a national male reproductive health policy, say researchers

BioEdge: We need a national male reproductive health policy, say researchers

Bioedge

We need a national male reproductive health policy, say researchers

by Michael Cook | 10 Nov 2019 |

“Of the 193 United Nations states, only one – Australia – has developed an effective national male reproductive health policy,” observe three reproductive health scientists in the journal Reproductive Biomedicine Online.” It is time for other countries across the globe to rise to this challenge.”

It may come as news to most people, that male reproductive health needed any tinkering at all, let alone a government health policy.

However, some scientists are even describing the situation as a “crisis”.

What situation?

First, there has been “ a decline in sperm total counts of around 1.6% per year between 1973 and 2011”. Second, research has found that there is a “larger than anticipated epigenetic contributions by the male to the health of the next generation”. Third, “impaired semen quality/male infertility is associated with shorter life expectancy and increased long-term morbidity”.

In short, “men live sicker and die younger”.

The World Health Organization has lamented that so little is known about male reproductive health. This seems odd, in the light of the fact that IVF has become a billion-dollar global health industry. But the authors of the article point out that “with the success of IVF/ICSI we have effectively bypassed the need to further understand spermatogenesis, sperm physiology and the role the spermatozoon has on the health of future generations”. There is only an “illusion of progress”.

The authors have therefore called for a Male Reproductive Health Initiative, with funding for basic research and government promotion of lifestyle changes for men. They point to Australia as a positive role model.

Michael Cook is editor of BioEdge

It sounds like the premise for a Stephen King novel, but it’s real life. Benjamin Schreiber, a 66-year-old man, is serving a life sentence for murder in an Iowa prison. Back in 1996, he bludgeoned a man to death with an axe handle. In 2015 he suddenly became seriously ill, so ill that he lapsed into a coma and “died”.

But he recovered. Disappointed that he was still alive, he appealed to have his life sentence voided as it had already “expired”.

It’s an intriguing argument. Can you live two lives? Are you the same person after being resuscitated? Or are you literally a dead man walking?

Unfortunately for Schreiber, the court took a dim view of his request.

“We do not find his argument persuasive,” wrote a judge this week. She concluded: “Schreiber is either still alive, in which case he must remain in prison, or he is actually dead, in which case this appeal is moot.”

This ruling will allow the citizens of Iowa to sleep easier at night, but philosophically isn’t a bit naive in the way it addresses the problem of identity? Isn’t it possible that Mr (1996) Schreiber is dead and that Mr (2019) Schreiber is a different person? If S(2019) identifies as a dead person, shouldn’t we accept his carefully considered opinion?