Random thoughts while watching 2008 campaign coverage

I'm sitting here watching 2008 campaign coverage on TV when the news takes a commercial break. I don't really pay attention to commercials so I'm multitasking (Facebook, blogging, etc) when the part of my mind that's paying attention to the commercials hears:

"Flomax may cause...[blah blah blah]...and reductions in semen."

After I hear that, I'm pretty much thinking "W-T-F?!?!?"

I'm curious, so I go to the Flomax website to see what their website discloses about the side effects. In the sexual side effects section, it says that up to 18.1% of men who take the higher dosage (0.8mg) experience abnormal ejaculation - defined as:

• Not being able to ejaculate
• Decreased amounts of ejaculate
• Retrograde ejaculation - ejaculate enters the bladder instead of leaving the body through the penis. This problem is usually painless and harmless. Men with this problem may notice cloudy urine after sexual intercourse.

This probability decreases to a mere (mere!) 8.4% if you take the lower dosage (0.4mg).

So here's a question for you - if you had BPH would you want to take Flomax to treat it if 8.4-18.1% of the time you'll experience abnormal ejaculation? Or would you rather suck it up when it comes to the urinating problems that result from BPH? Without having experienced BPH myself (or knowing anyone who has), personally it sounds like I would rather deal with having to go to the bathroom a lot...

On a side note, watching the campaign coverage on CBS in High Definition is really nice since they use the side bars that aren't visible in Standard Definition to show the Democratic/Republican status of the states and their associated electoral votes.