ReviewAndrology2024
Shared risk and shared responsibility: the ethics of male contraceptives.
Review in Andrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Why male contraception still stalls: translational, social, and ethical gaps.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2026Article
- Development of TSSK1 and TSSK2 Targeted Degraders Reveals Sperm Machinery for Protein Degradation and Potential for Nonhormonal Male Contraception.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2026Article
- Pimozide Inhibits CatSper Activity, Impairs Hyperactivation and the Acrosome Reaction in Human Spermatozoa.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Development of a transdermal gel for reversible male contraception.Contraception · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEfforts to develop reversible male contraceptives analogous to female oral contraceptives are underway and may be introduced in the next decade. The advent of novel male contraceptives provides an opportunity for an ethical reformulation of the contraceptive paradigm given the relational, rather than individual, nature of sexual relationships, and family planning. For individuals in any sexual relationship that could result in pregnancy, issues of reproductive autonomy, freedom, equality in reproductive decision-making and risks-both of side effects and of unintended pregnancies-are significant. Historically, however, women have been attributed the greatest responsibilities simultaneously with the most restrictions on their freedom of choice and access to reproductive care.
objectivesIn this paper, we extend our prior "shared risk" model of male contraception to one of "shared risk and responsibility" to ethically inform this discourse.
conclusionsThis updated framework more fully captures the complexity of this novel technology and may be of use to regulatory and legal agencies grappling with an intervention that poses medical risks to the member of the relationship who does not face risks of becoming pregnant.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.