The oral contraceptive, approved in the U.S. but not yet in Canada, claims to "put an indefinite stop to women's monthly periods".
Ironically, if a young woman is not menstruating 'normally', she is usually urged to seek medical help to try to discover the cause. Therefore, disease is in the eye of the afflicted, I suppose.
There are some concerns being voiced:
"For women in that situation (severe symptoms), I certainly can understand the benefits of taking these kinds of medications, but for most women menstruation is a normal life event -- not a medical condition," said Jean Elson of the University of New Hampshire.
"Why medicate away a normal life event if we're not sure of the long-term effects?
HRT comes to mind as an example of a treatment that was originally prescribed to help mitigate some of the symptoms of another very 'normal' female stage - menopause. Now the therapy is thought to have some serious potential side-effects, and physicians are much less inclined to approve this type of medication.
My spidy sense tells me that the new pill could be a useful tool for an occasional situation of convenience, or if a woman has some serious menstrual issues, but in general best to let nature take its course.
So anyway, now another natural female function joins unwanted pregnancy as a sickness requiring medical intervention. If Canada buys into this, will we be funding this in our National Health Care system as well? Just like abortion, illness in some cases will be determined by the convenience factor, and the whim of the woman.
And speaking of abortion, if the fetus is just a bunch of unwanted tissue, why isn't it regarded as a cosmetic procedure, and therefore delisted just like non-malignant mole removal? Or liposuction?