A friend of mine, who is a gay man in his 50s, has been experiencing erectile dysfunction. He is looking into participation in a clinical trial for a new drug. Everything seemed ok, until he read this part in the study’s description:
"To be eligible for the research study, you must:
- Be 18 years of age or older
- Have had mild to severe ED for at least 6 months, and
- Be in a monogamous, heterosexual relationship for at least 3 months."
He’s been in a monogamous relationship for a few years, and he’s thinking of telling them his partner is female. I told him there must be a reason why they’re not accepting gays, and his lie could invalidate the study. It’s just not an ethical thing to do.
I have a hard time believing that healthcare professionals are acting out of homophobia, but can anyone think of a reason why a gay man would be disqualified from this?
Well, there’s that joke by Jimmy Carr:
“The reason old men use Viagra is not because they’re impotent. It’s because old women are so very ugly.”
Ducks and runs
I don’t know why specifically, but when you’re doing a research study, you need to eliminate as many variables as possible to get significant results. Lying to get into a study just wastes everybody’s time.
Would they also be testing the effects of the drug as related to pregnancy? Since the male only has to be over 18, perhaps they’re seeking men who have ed and are unable to father a child?
Why doesn’t he just ask why they specify heterosexual? I would. It could be that the drug works on the prostrate, which I remember hearing can be stimulated via anal intercourse. I agree with you that he should not lie, because it could invalidate test results.
Perhaps they want all their subjects to be penetrators, not receivers. Most hetero males fall in the former category; gay men can go either way.
Bottoms wouldn’t be complaining about ED though, would they?
I would think that they’re just trying to eliminate as many variables as possible. But I think it’s worth calling them up and asking.
Yes, either this is a whoosh or the very little I know about gay sex is more than you do. 
Ha, I guess I just figured that the catcher wouldn’t be as concerned about his own ED as a pitcher would.
I don’t have a penis, so I can’t be certain, but I assume having an erection is pleasurable. If my pleasure were reduced, I’d mind.
Sometimes I wonder if some people’s perception of gay male sex mirror their attitudes towards hetero penetration. This… not very encouraging.
If the friend is willing to get booted from the study, he should ask about the specification (cold they be stuck on the ‘gay brain’ theory?) Chances are there are other little requirements that will be screened for once interviews begin e.g. smoking and drinking habits.
I’d WAG that it’s a matter of restricting variables in the study. If all patients engage in similar sexual behaviour (more likely among several straight couples than when comparing gay and straight couples) then the self-reported effects of the drug can be more easily normalized over the course of the study. This might still be a small scale clinical trial, and perhaps gay men can be considered in later stages of the study/further trials.
Keep in mind that drug trials start with a small population of healthy people, then progress to a fairly homogenous population of mildly symptomatic people and then on to a more diverse population of more severely symptomatic people before (hopefully for the drug maker) getting approval for the general population. I suspect this particular trial is somewhere in that second group, though contacting the company running the trial could clear that up.
Has your friend tried any of the several, currently approved treatments for ED? It seems to me that that would be more likely to help him, especially since any reasonable clinical trial will most likely be blind, if not double-blind, and if he ends up in the placebo group, he isn’t any further along in getting the medical help he seems to want. If existing treatment doesn’t work, then perhaps pursuing this or another trial on the same drug (there are often several ongoing trials for the same drug) is worthwhile.
Tell him not to lie, though - his data would just get excluded from the results, but introduces an element of doubt into the results of the study, and seeing as it costs a fortune for companies to even get this far, and they have another fortune left to spend before possibly getting any return on their investment… well, I know people don’t love Big Pharma, but it seems pretty mean to try and screw them out of their money in order to enjoy the benefits of their products!
IANAD nor do I work for Big Pharma (anymore!) This is just pure opinion and WAGs and take it with a grain of salt (after a meal, do not operate heavy machinery after use, call your doctor if you experience any unusual side effects from reading this post, etc.)
Getting rid of it often is.
As a matter of fact, mine do. I’ve found that people who will let you go in through the out door regardless of orientation only let you because they enjoy it. I don’t know anymore about the actual doings in gay male sex and I’m alright with that.
And one of the symptoms of ‘enjoying it’ = getting an erection!
An erection, in and of itself, is not much of a sensation at all, though it can become painful if it lasts too long. The pleasure, as noted above, lies entirely in getting rid of it. Boners are a result of sexual excitement, not a cause of it (at least, not for the owner).
This is the study in question. My friend has asked the nurse who is the local liaison for the study, and she just said that the researchers establish a certain protocol, and she’s obligated to abide by it, regardless of the reasons. And she appreciated the fact that he had decided not to lie.
Bring on the zombie erections. Please see a doctor if your erection persists for four years or more.