A few months ago I mentioned on here that the UK government had introduced a new rule about a medication I take, topiramate. It’s an epilepsy med, but I take it as a migraine preventative. But it has been shown to have a small risk of causing autism and ADHD in a child if the mother takes the med while pregnant. For that reason the UK government made a rule that women of childbearing age who take this med must be forced to take birth control too, which I don’t want or need to. I’m a stroke patient so birth control could give me a higher risk of stroke and as you can guess from my name, I absolutely do not need birth control. I don’t want to take another med on top of everything else and deal with all the side effects. And only forcing female patients to take it is sexual discrimination.

I ended up writing to my MP about it and I just got a response today. The person he passed it on to (Baroness Merron) wrote back - and completely ignored all my concerns and doesn’t want to change the situation. She just repeated the reasons, well this is what she said:

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) introduced a Pregnancy Prevention Programme (PPP) for topiramate in June 2024 because there is evidence that taking topiramate during pregnancy can increase the risk to the baby of intellectual disability, autistic spectrum disorder and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Under the PPP, topiramate should not be used in women of childbearing potential unless they exclude pregnancy before starting, are using highly effective contraception and are aware of the risks of topiramate. It is advised that an annual risk acknowledgment form should be used to support discussions between healthcare professionals and patients about the risks associated with use of topiramate in pregnancy. If a female is not considered to be at risk of pregnancy, the reason for this should be recorded in step 1 of this form and the patient is not required to use contraception.

So basically I can go without my med, or be forced to take shit I don’t want or need just because I have 2 x chromosomes. Oh, and all you ADHD/autistic people out there - your existence is such an affront to the UK that the government would rather force me to take unwanted drugs than risk any more people like you coming into existence!

EDIT: I spoke about this on hexbear and someone suggested that I should be forced to take birth control anyway because a man might rape me and then I’d bring an unwanted autistic baby into the world.

  • DisabledAceSocialist@lemmygrad.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 days ago

    I thought about that, but I get many hormone-related blood tests at the endocrinologist regularly because I’m a thyroid cancer patient. So they might notice if the levels aren’t what they should be with an extra hormonal med added.

      • DisabledAceSocialist@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        5 days ago

        I doubt they would care. The government have made it clear it is more important to prevent defective people from being born, than to treat my pain.

        • Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          5 days ago

          Analytically it feels like you have 3 options: 1 Take the birth control and the epilepsy meds, 2 Take neither, or 3 run the risk, say you are taking both but don’t take the birth control.

          You know the outcome of option 1 and 2 is guaranteed. The 3rd option has many possible outcomes. Best case they don’t even notice or they do and just let it slide. It feels like the worst case scenario for option 3 is that you get caught and they force option 2 on you. Correct me if I am wrong and they have punitive measures that you couldn’t avoid by claiming it was a mistake.

          So it comes down to: Would taking both be better than taking neither? If not, run the risk because you have nothing to lose. If it is better to take both than you have to weigh the risk of being cut off vs the chance that you might get away with it.