Since the Gonex Corporation and their current research and field testing of a single-shot injection to produce castration has already been brought up on this site, we probably should speculate about the effects which such a drug might have. The medication that the company is developing will work for any mammalian species, from cattle, dogs and cats to humans. It will provide permanent and irreversible castration of both males and females with a single shot. It works by stopping all production of either testosterone or estrogen by the testicles or ovaries and could be used either before or after puberty. (The current trial on dogs will test results of administration both before and after sexual maturation of the animals.)

As described on the Gonex web site, "Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) is secreted by the brain. GnRH binds to specific receptors on cells (gonadotropes) in the pituitary gland and stimulates synthesis and secretion of two other hormones (LH and FSH), that in turn control the production of hormone secretion by the testes or ovaries. By linking GnRH to any of a number of protein synthesis inhibitors, it is possible to cause the death of the gonadotrope cells. This occurs when the gonadotropes internalize the GnRH conjugate as part of the normal process of receptor de-activation. When the number of gonadotrope cells is adequately reduced, there will be inadequate levels of LH or FSH produces to stimulate the gonads and the typical production of testosterone or estrogen will cease." (www.gonex.com)

The company expects their product to be approved for veterinary use by 2004 or 2005, with approval for human use (against prostate cancer, breast cancer, etc.) to follow soon afterwards. Possibly even before it's approved for human therapy, the product could become available through mail order veterinary supply houses and through your neighborhood farm supply store. Once the genie is out of the bottle, she can never be pushed back in. Once this drug is tested and released, it will be reproducible elsewhere if the original manufacturer backs out of production.

What implications does this drug have?

I predict that it will take very little time for some individuals to experiment with uses of the drug well beyond what the FDA will approve. There have already been a couple of posters to the Archive talking about using it on themselves for non-cancer therapy. This, at least, is voluntary use of the drug.

What other, non-approved uses or extensions of its original use do you foresee? Both in the U.S. and in the rest of the world.

What are the ethical and legal implications of this new drug?

Since it provides an "immunization" against sex, will it gain social acceptance anywhere for that use? Religious fanatics? The criminal justice system as a replacement for Depo Provera? Out-of-control Brazilian police as part of a long-term effort to eliminate street children?

Since slavery is still much more common than most people would believe, is this a potential criminal use? The Washington Times recently (January 21) published a first-hand account of a slave auction in Pakistan where Afghan orphan boys and girls, some as young as FIVE years-old (!!!), were being sold to Middle Easterners. What is to prevent the use of an "immunization" to turn a young boy into a better domestic servant?

Other criminal uses?

Anything else that you can think of???

The potential uses (and mis-uses) are giving me nightmares!

There's no doubt that some people will start using it as soon as they can get their hands on it. Basic human nature. Some of my first thoughts were of what the medical side-effect might be. How safe would it be? But yes, the social effects would be far greater. Most people have no serious interest in castration so I don't see the availability of such a drug as sweeping through society, making profound changes. But it couldn't help but change things.

Given the ease of use I feel sure that some people would castrate themselves without giving enough thought to consequences and regret it later. Certainly it would lead to a greater number of people being castrated. I read about "cutters" and people looking for same. I don't know how much reality there is to that but if all it will take is one shot then I think many of them will get their wish, which would probably not been fulfilled otherwise.

Criminal uses? If this drug pans out I would expect to eventually read in the news about the capture of a "serial castrator" (could be male OR female) who'd gone around injecting their victims. That sounds like it getting into the fantasy area but it could happen.

Thanks for the heads-up. This is a very hot development!

I went to the Gonex website and read their information. There are still a few questions left hanging. Although they said the drug was a onetime injection, they didn’t indicate whether it would be administered intravenously or just injected into the muscle. I think we are to assume the latter. Also, from the tone of the article, the drug doesn’t have to be injected into the testes or ovaries, but just anywhere in the body. No mention was given as to the size of the dosage. I’m going to assume it’s rather small - say less than 5 cc’s. I will premise my reaction on these assumptions.

As far as the legitimate uses are concerned the drug will be absolutely wonderful. For controlling pet populations and for wildlife management it represents a significant advance. Local animal shelters can quickly train volunteers to administer simple injections. It will no longer require a veterinarian to spay or neuter an animal. (I used to vaccinate calves when I was fifteen - any kid can learn how to use a syringe.) Wildlife officers can administer the drug with tranquilizer guns and various kinds of sets or traps.

As far as human applications, it makes castration (male and female) far too easy, even in a medical environment. It’s such a simple painless procedure the patients could easily agree to getting a shot before weighing the consequences and maybe seeking a second opinion. (I wonder if charity clinics, or the VA and such, will always bother to tell the patient what they’re doing?) "Nurse, this man’s PSA count is a little high. Give him this shot while I’m out of the room. I’ll be right back." It’s just too easy! I would at least want it in the butt. Rolling up my sleeve for this just seems wrong!

As far as people wanting castration as part of a lifestyle it’s going to pretty much solve the cutter problem (unless you also require penectomy or a scene with a lot of pain). For those wanting to be castrated by their lover just as they ejaculate, this becomes a relatively safe scene.

The problem is, of course, it will now become far too easy for someone to be castrated against their will. I imagine all street gangs will quickly add Gonex to their arsenals. The threat of an emasculating injection that can be administered anywhere on the body could possibly instill more a lot more fear in a victim than a 9mm. Muggers will start wielding syringes, perhaps containing nothing but tap water, but just the threat of being hit with Gonex will be sufficient to intimidate their victims.

I’m sure lawmakers will outlaw the drug for the general public and attempt to strictly control its use. But there will be a few years lag time between the date the drug goes on the market and the reaction by lawmakers - kind of like with the date-rape drug, Rohipnol. Also, we don’t know how easily Gonex can be synthesized in home labs. It could be very difficult to manufacture, or it could be relatively easy to make, like crystal meth.

Since we don’t yet know what the dosage is it’s really hard to speculate about delivery systems. If the effective dose is as low as 2 cc’s, or less, some very cancelable and devious devices could be built to deliver the payload. Also, we don’t know what happens when someone receives less than a castrating dose. Does he/she just produce low levels of testosterone/estrogen for the rest of their life, or do they recover? What effect does hormone replacement therapy have on the victim?

I can think of many scenarios where Gonex may be used and abused. If this drug is what it appears, there’s going to be a lot of young people, both boys and girls, who are going to have their sexuality nipped in the bud at an early age. The only thing worse would be some kind of tasteless powder that could be slipped into food or drink with the same effect. And I’m sure some lab is working on that too. Maybe we need to keep working on that cloning thing. Sexual reproduction may become very uncommon in the future.

Farrell

This may not have been around long enough for anyone to know if the effects are, indeed, permanent. Are there long-term side effects? Who knows. Only the "human lab rats" will be able to tell us.

Now, re unlawful administration. You both believe that this could be used to castrate someone against their will. Remember, it is possible to poison or dope someone without their knowledge. But how often does that happen? Are most people really that diabolical? How many school or gang-related killings have we heard about recently. Oh sure, doping with Gonex may happen once or twice, but it really is nothing to worry about. Besides, if someone really wants to castrate a guy, there is always a sharp knife or a shotgun blast to the groin. When was the last time you heard of THAT happening?

I agree with what madscientist says. Sure, a criminal could castrate someone with a simple injection, but even without that drug he could shoot someone dead even easier.

I will be interestedly reading when the "serial castrator" news article comes out, though!

...let us look at the implications.

From what I understand this drug causes the death of the cells in the master gland of the body, the pitutary gland, that regulates the release of sex hormones.

Once the injection was done, it would impossible to reverse, with the afore-mentioned cells dying fairly quickly. I am reluctant to speculate but widespread availability of this drug for animals would mean that it would be readily available for humans, too.

I know of many farm supply stores and store chains that offer veterinary supplies for farmers to purchase to use on their animals. Such drugs are not made with the same quality control that drugs intended for humans are, but none the less, they will serve the intended purpose when used on a human.

With that being said the next logical question is whether the drug intended for animal species will have the same effect on a human. I would claim that in the right dosage, it would.

So, the next question is if someone would go out and get the drug to inject someone for whatever reason, what type of charges could be brought against them? Again, I suppose that assault and battery would be the maximum. I know of no other law that would apply in such a situation.

I suppose that one could sue a perpetrator in civil court and win, but the "deep pocket" philosophy of lawsuits demands that whomever you sue have monitary assets to make it all worthwhile. Furthermore, the burden of proof would require that the victim be able to identify the assailant, which could be difficult if the deed were done in a very crowed area, say a subway station or even on a dark, deserted street.

There are lots of implications here and MadScientist is correct in his assertation that crime comitted in the heat of passion is likely to be gruesome. Lorena Bobbitt probably would have not even made the courtroom if she had used this instead of the filleting knife. Hell, Old John Wayne probably to this day wouldn't have known what had hit him. Still, if Lorena Bobbitt had a syringe full of this stuff I bet money that old John Wayne Bobbitt would not have been starring in a poronographic movie without a strap-on or a penile implant.

Well, that is my thoughts on this matter. It is according how cold and calculating the perpetrator is as to the outcome of the act. What's more, if the drug could ever be administered orally, it would be VERY difficult to prove the guilt of someone who spiked some food, a drink or anything else, since it could take a long period of time before the effects were noticed. Hmmm, talk about your Halloween sadists, somebody could sterilize all of the neighborhood children and most probably nobody could prove anything.

The implications of the misuse of this drug are ominous to say the least.

The fact that it is not poison and that the symptoms of its use would be vague at first would mean that by the time the effects of the drug were manifest, the traces of the drug would be out of the victim's system. I would hope that someone here on the archive who feels strongly enough about the potential abuse of this substance would contact the company and suggest that they insert a "marker" into the drug that would make it apparent even years after the drug was used that the drug was administered to an animal or an individual.

IT IS ONE HELL OF A STORY PLOT FOR SOMEBODY HERE!

A-1

There are actually specific laws against "malicious castration" and such. For example, check out this list of felony statutes for North Carolina:

http://www.nccourts.org/Citizens/CProgr ... sp?topic=5

I think there are reasons why "malicious castration" might become more common if there was a Gonex type drug. First of all, it would be a "clean" and "silent" crime (whereas a shotgun blast to the groin is a violent, messy, noisy crime). It is also a cheap crime -- much cheaper than a gun. It is also "elegant" and people might rationalize it as a suitable revenge for rape or general hatred of men. Lastly, there really are feminazis out there who advocate castrating all men. In general I don't think it is a big fear, but such a crime could become more prevalent that one might expect.

I wish that I could be as optimistic as madscientist and happousai seem to be. I see the metaphor very differently, however. The new medication is not comparable to blowing someone's testicles off with a shotgun blast, but it is, rather, a "new and beneficial immunization" to IMPROVE the quality of life.

If the Gonex Corporation succeeds, every Humane Society and animal shelter in North America will keep a stock of the medication on hand. Volunteers will be trained to administer it to strays as a "good thing" to help keep the animals happier and healthier and to allow them to be adopted more easily. Kennel owners at first, and later some regular pet owners, will buy the medication from on-line pet supply companies to administer to their dogs and cats as a "good thing." Farmers and ranchers won't hire vets to come and administer the shots to their livestock, but will buy it in bulk from farm supplies and through mail order. I helped to castrate steers with a knife when I was a kid. I was probably 12 or 13 when I first gave shots to the animals. It's easy enough to do, and it's a "good thing" to inoculate cattle, etc.

The identical medication, labeled for human use, would be an immunization against hormones that that hasten the spread of cancer and an early death. Administering it would be a "good thing" to improve the quality and quantity of life.

All of the APPROVED uses of the medication would be perceived as highly beneficial. The medication is GOOD and there would be plenty of people in the city who would have used it on puppy dogs and pussycats. There would be plenty of people in the countryside who would have used it on cattle, sheep, pigs, etc. Knowledge of its properties would be nearly universal and access to it would be relatively easy.

I can imagine FAR too many scenarios where someone would use it as a "good thing" in a way that the FDA never approved.

How long before the first parents used it to help their severely physically handicapped son or their daughter with Downs Syndrome avoid the pain and frustration of puberty? In any town like the one where I grew up (and they still do exist!), the first boy to get the wrong girl pregnant and refuse to take responsibility for his actions would be inoculated to prevent him from doing such a thing a second time. It would be seen as a "good thing" by a large part of the local population and widely used as a cautionary tale. Every boy (and girl) would know that such a thing were possible.

I can think of far too many scenarios involving religious fanatics....

I think the possibility of a "militant feminist" deciding to inoculate men against "testosterone poisoning" is much too likely for comfort. It would be easy enough for her to have access both to the medication and to situations where she would have access to the men.

Both of the daily newspapers that I read this morning had the same New York Times Syndicate article today on the resurgence of child slavery in Afghanistan. One of them ran it as the top story on the front page. Unlike the story I referenced in the first posting in this thread, this article focused on boys being sold for domestic labor (rather than girls for sex slavery and small boys as camel jockeys in the Gulf States), but there is growing awareness that children are being sold into slavery in many parts of the world, not just the Middle East. A simple inoculation could make some of them much more valuable. I would, again, be perceived as a "good thing." It's not invasive. It's not mutilation. It's just a simple pinprick to keep them happier and healthier and to prevent some unwanted consequences as they got older.

I'm afraid that I'm a serious pessimist on this one.

Castration has clear medical disadvantages associated with it though, right? e.g.:

- osteoperosis

- hot flashes

- loss of strength

- sterility (assuming the castrato cares about that)

So it wouldn't necessarily be regarded as a "good thing".

I heard somewhere that boys castrated *before* puberty don't have the osteoperosis/hot flash problem though, is that true?

...I thnk that we are missing the point here. Would "castration" laws apply to this? I mean, after all, the testicles would still be there.

The availability of this drug could have a lot of creepy people sticking each other in the ass with hypodermic syringes.

If the medication could ever be administered orally then you could get it and not know how. Just all of a sudden come up a sexual non-functioner.

Like I said before, this is REALLY going to increase the number of the sexualy non-functional.

But the important part about it is that you could have it and not know it for a while. Think about that for a moment. People could also be accused of giving it to somebody when they really did not.

A-1