-255x256.jpg)
With the official start of the 2012 baseball season mere days away, unfortunately, a new steroid controversy has erupted, this time involving the Milwaukee Brewers’ Ryan Braun.
Braun, the reigning National League MVP, tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in October 2011 and was suspended for 50 games. He subsequently appealed the ruling, and, in February 2012, it was overturned on a technicality.
While those of us who are baseball fans would no doubt rather simply focus on all of the excitement and expectation of the upcoming season, perhaps it’s worth taking some time to reflect on the kind of risk/reward analysis that leads some of us to decide to take these hormones in the first place.
Anabolic steroids pose many documented, significant risks to one’s life and health. They cause changes in the way the brain functions — possibly even the structure of the brain itself. They may cause a weakening of the immune system, high blood pressure, increased cholesterol, increased aggression (so-called “roid rage”), heart enlargement, breast enlargement (in men), breast reduction (in women), heart attack, stroke, sexual dysfunction, renal failure and possibly liver cancer.
And yet, in spite of all these serious risks, at least a few of us are still willing to take anabolic steroids.
In these cases, it seems that the natural human instinct for self-preservation is being overwhelmed by the promise or “reward” of potential wealth and fame. Perhaps the risk/reward analysis is also skewed for these individuals because the potential reward is more immediate and concrete, while the risks are perceived to be in the distant future and vague.
However, regardless of the reason, that analysis just doesn’t compute for the vast majority of us. When it comes to anabolic steroids, we see this kind of usage as playing Russian roulette.
Interestingly, there is another current controversy involving a pharmaceutical that may, at first blush, seem entirely different: the birth-control pill.
But, in fact, anabolic steroids and the pill share a great deal in common.
Both are “steroids.” Anabolic steroids are a synthetic version of the male sex hormone testosterone. The pill is a synthetic version of the female sex hormones estrogen and progesterone.
Both involve significant risks to life and health. The pill frequently causes decreased libido, even well after a woman stops using it, and can cause mood changes, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, heart disease and heart attacks.
According to a study published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, it may have adverse “long-term, sexual, metabolic and mental-health consequences.” It is listed as a “Group 1 carcinogen,” alongside asbestos, tobacco and formaldehyde by the World Health Organization and the American Cancer Society.
It is also associated with a significantly increased risk of a particularly aggressive form of breast cancer called “triple negative,” increased rates of breast cancer in general and increased rates of liver and cervical cancer.
According to a study cited in Scientific American, “birth-control pills have structural effects on regions of the brain that govern higher-order cognitive activities” and other effects that are “likely to be dramatic.” Other studies cited in Scientific American have also indicated that the pill seems to adversely affect a woman’s ability to choose the most biologically and emotionally compatible mate.
It seems reasonable to suspect that a similar result would be obtained by a study done on the effect of anabolic steroids on a man’s ability to choose the most compatible mate.
There are still other interesting similarities between anabolic steroids and the pill.
Both anabolic steroids and the pill can be taken for legitimate medicinal reasons, such as helping to alleviate hormonal imbalances. But both are also being used for purposes that are not truly medicinal; reasons that have little or nothing to do with alleviating or curing disease. Both are being used to force the human body to do something it was not designed to do.
Certainly, one difference is that the “reward” for using anabolic steroids is fame and fortune. While, in the case of the pill, the supposed “reward” is not having a baby.
But there is at least one particularly interesting and important difference between steroids and the pill: our reaction to them as a society.
In regard to anabolic steroids, we have pretty much unanimously come to the conclusion that steps should be taken to keep individuals from using them in ways that are not truly medicinal, ways that force the body to do things it wasn’t designed to do. But, in the case of the pill, we’ve gone in exactly the opposite direction.
As a society, we try to ensure that anyone can easily obtain these pills and even have them paid for by health insurance. Many would like them available “over the counter.” It has gotten to the point that our president is even mandating that health insurance must cover the pill, free of charge, to the user and is arguably willing to violate the First Amendment in the process.
So, why do we have such polar-opposite views of these two types of steroids as a society?
The answer seems plain: In the case of anabolic steroids, relatively few of us use them. As a result, we have no collective emotional investment in them and therefore our judgment isn’t impaired when making the risk/reward analysis. In addition, the media has actively informed us of the dangers related to anabolic steroid use. And the medical community has done its job in this regard as well.
Conversely, in the case of the pill, millions of us are using it or are married to someone who is using it. As a result, we have a collective emotional investment in the pill that makes it more difficult to judge the evidence clearly and objectively.
And in stark contrast to anabolic steroids, the media has done little to inform us of the dangers related to use of the pill. In fact, even when it does warn us, it seems to bend over backwards to reassure us that we should continue to use the pill, regardless.
Remarkably, one recent study found that most of us are almost completely unaware of these dangers. Only 40% of pill users were informed by their doctor about the risk of blood clots and stroke, and a mere 19% were informed about the increased risk of breast cancer.
In the end, regardless of whether one assumes the risks associated with either of these types of steroids with full knowledge or out of complete ignorance, one is still ultimately playing the same game of Russian roulette. And that kind of game is far too serious to play with one’s life and health without even knowing the rules or the risks.
At the very least, don’t we owe it to ourselves and to our families to educate ourselves about such substances before putting them into our bodies?
Michael Forrest is a Catholic speaker, apologist and catechist
who writes from Massachusetts. His articles have appeared in several Catholic periodicals.
Edward Pentin: Vatican Denies Benedict XVI Has Serious Illness
Matthew Warner: Ask Fr. Barron: What to say to Catholics who struggle with Church teaching?
Comments
Post a Comment
Oh, and to add insult to injury - The “Dr. Oz” program on network television last week promoted the use of said “pill” for women over 35 as a benefit to their overall health….are you kidding me….they convinced us once that it was good, shame on me (and my generation)....sell me twice..shame on you…I’m not buying that line again…the evil one will try his hardest, but those things are not good for our Bodies or Souls. Wish that more media coverage would present both sides of this topic.
That the pill is a Group 1 carcinogen (that is, “Known to cause cancer in humans”), is often poorly “countered” with the notation that it provides some protection against ovarian cancer & cancer of the endometrium.
Anyone who tries to use this as defense against the carcinogenic effects of the pill should be refuted with a question:
“Are you saying that protection from 2 kinds of rare cancer is a good tradeoff for majorly increased risk of several other kinds of quite common cancers?”
The same game is being played in food. I see people buy packaged meat marked “hormone free” or “antibiotic free” and then stop by the pharmacy on their way out of the store to pick up their guaranteed low price $4 antibiotic and their next round of birth control pills.
Thank you, Michael, Thank you!! I only have a limited knowledge of chemicals, enough to know that I reject man-made ones and I always wondered how and why the schools were so against steroids, but, will not only allow the pill, which contaminates our water supply, but will give or sell them to the victims of the public schools, many times without the parents even knowing about it. Talk about a double standard!!! +JMJ+ I hope that everybody will boycott the Red Sox for making that horrible video on a homosexual Internet site last June, telling the kids that is “alright” to be homosexual, etc..
This is a very interesting and compelling argument against birth control. The fact that insurance companies will be forced to pay for treatments that go against certain religious beliefs is not in question but rather how the line is to be drawn as an alternative to this possible mandate. Please do not take this email as an attack but rather an attempt by myself to find solice with the medical side vs the religious side.
What this article fails to mention is the potential benefits of the pill aside from contraceptive use. Where is the line to be drawn in the sand when it comes to its other treatment uses such as PCOS, endometriosis, amenorrhea, excessive menstral cramps, acne, and and PMS? The article states “...both [anabolic and contraceptives] are also being used for purposes that are not truly medicinal; reasons that have little or nothing to do with alleviating or curing disease. Both are being used to force the human body to do something it was not designed to do.” How are these medications not alleviating a disease? Taking estrogen to adjust hormones to a normal level is FORCING the body to do something it wasn’t designed to do??? Then the same goes for tylenol, prednisone, chemo, antacids, etc.
So do we stop giving or not have insurance pay for the pill for these reasons? How about blood transfusions being paid for by Jehovah’s Witness members? Can this be an all or nothing issue? Either insurance companies are allowed to choose which medical issues to treat (which can have its own ethical/religious issues) or they have to treat them all (again, more ethical/religious issues). Drawing a line to include all religious freedoms may be impossible if looked at from another’s viewpoint.
While one study links the increased risk for cancer r/t use of oral contraceptives, many others actually show a marked decreased risk for endometrial cancer, ovarian cancer, and ovarian cysts. As far as blood clots, approximately 5 out of 100,000 young woman who are NOT taking oral contraceptives develop blood clots. This number is estimated to increase to 15-20 out of 100,000 while taking birth control (similar to many other medications including antipsychotics, antiemetics, etc.)
Every commercial verbally address this increased risk for blood clots while taking contraceptives so the claim that the media does a poor job is questionable.
The comparison to anabolic steroids might not be a proper comparison. Yes, they can be very damaging to the individual but also has approved uses for certain conditions such as treating anemia, improve weight r/t severe illness, treat osteoporosis, and control breast cancer. Other steriods, similar in structure are required for those with certain respiratory illnesses and are necessary to treat a condition and FORCE the body to do something it wasn’t meant to do. ie. the use of steroids for an infant with croup. They also carry the same risks as anabolic steroids including diabetes (which also increases blood clots), elevated blood pressure, mood swings (or ‘roid rage), weight gain, visual problems, and increased risk for infection.
Point being…The debate should be kept at the religious freedom to decide which services to support as opposed to an attempt to sway the reason with swayed scientific backing. We may want to ask ourselves, are we currently accepting insurance from our employers that allows for contraceptive coverage or abortions? By paying a premium, aren’t we supporting what is against our beliefs? I’m waiting to see those who are truly against this bill to drop their already subsidized health insurance for one that doesn’t support these things. Again, this is not meant to tick anyone off but rather keep the debate true to what is at stake and how to do so.
Peace and love!
Part of it also is that there still exists this mentality that the male’s health must be protected and who cares about the woman’s health. The first birth control pills were developed for men but because of the dangerous side effects they started shoving it on the women. Who cares if women are killed by the pill when that just means less babies because less baby making machines are alive.
To: D. Krzysik
You write: “What this article fails to mention is the potential benefits of the pill aside from contraceptive use.”
I did mention it. In your comment, you provided a quote from my article and in the sentence immediately preceding that quote, I stated: “Both anabolic steroids and the pill can be taken for legitimate medicinal reasons, such as helping to alleviate hormonal imbalances.”
However, my focus was on usage that isn’t truly medicinal, usage that that has “little or nothing to do with alleviating or curing disease.” In the case of the birth control pill, the primary use is to stop the body from functioning in the way it was designed to function. It’s called “the birth control pill” and not the “anti-cramp pill” or the “estrogen supplement pill” for a reason.
Pregnancy is not a disease. That’s another problem that deserves to be addressed but was beyond the scope of this article. The contraceptive mentality has reinforced a distorted, negative view of pregnancy and children. And as such, when contraception inevitably fails (virtually all contraception has a significant “real-world” failure rate), the “cure” for the “disease” is abortion.
I don’t believe the other examples you provided - such as antacids - are apt comparisons to the contraceptive pill. Each example you cited was designed and universally used to cure or alleviate disease; each ultimately helps the body to do what it was designed to do. Not so in the case of the birth control pill, which was designed to stop the body’s normal, healthy reproductive function.
The implied question, of course, is: Does it make sense to take the kind of health risks associated with the birth control pill if one has no real disease that is being cured or alleviated by it? Analogously, does it make sense to take the kind of health risks associated with anabolic steroids if one has no real disease that is being cured or alleviated by them?
In regard to the dangerous side effects of the birth control pill, a study done on this issue illustrates how poorly informed we are. I provided a link to it in the article, but here it is again:
http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/7319/Most-women-unaware-of-birth-control-pill-health-ri.aspx
You’ll also find some interesting information about breast cancer rates and contraceptive use there.
When one compares the media coverage of anabolic steroid use to the coverage of the birth control pill, it seems plain that the latter is treated extremely differently than the former. According to the study I cited, when women are made fully aware of the health risks associated with the pill, most change their views about using it. I think it’s a scandal that millions of women are largely unaware of the serious dangers related to this product. Again, at the very least, it seems to me that all of us should be able to agree that we have a right and a responsibility to be informed about the risks before putting such things into our bodies—especially if we have no illness or disease that needs to be cured or alleviated.
God bless.
Michael, excellent article and right on the mark. Society clearly has biases and is surely being hypocritical here. Anabolic steroids are focussed on, in my view, not so much because of the health issues, but because of the unfair advantage they allow those willing to take the medical risks. It also allows for great media attention when you have names like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, A-Rod, etc. to foucs attention on. But birth control becomes a purely religious debate to the mass media and to politicians resulting in pure hypocrisy. Anything revolving around birth control or abortion falls into this category. Right vs. wrong, safe vs unsafe, etc. becomes completely outweighed by the anti-religious bias. Pregnant children can have abortions in many states without parental consent but yet can’t even have a tooth pulled without that consent in the same state. Which is a more risky procedure? Which requires more post procedure mature attention and follow-up? Which can have long term phsychological implications? But it is viewed as a purely religious based debate. And when something falls into that category, common sense goes out the door. And that is what we have here with the birth control pill. It doesnt matter what the risks of its use are. If you are against it, you must be a religious fanatic. So, the mass media stays away and politicians, unless they are openly religious, stay away as well. Thanks for the article Michael. I know you are a big Red Sox fan. Being a big Yankees fan, I loved the one comment above where someone is recommending boycotting the Red Sox. You didn’t expect that from this article, did you?
Thanks for the comment, Cary. I agree with everything you wrote. Although, I would say that it’s a both/and when it comes to the societal reaction against steroids (health reasons and concerns about unfair advantage). I would agree that on the professional level, objections are largely related to concerns about anyone trying to gain an unfair advantage. But steroids are also a serious problem at the high school and college level, and the focus there is not nearly so much on one individual or one team getting an unfair advantage. I believe parents at that level are genuinely concerned about the pressure to perform and excel and the great health risks teens and young men may take by choosing to use anabolic steroids. I also believe this is a large reason why so many are against professional usage - it encourages our youth to follow suit.
Isn’t it interesting how liberals are all about being “green” and “natural”
but they think it’s a good thing for people to have access to as many condoms and birth control pills as they want?Contraception certainly doesn’t seem “natural.“Is it really natural to throw a monkey wrench into your biochemistry so you can have sex without consequences?
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.