Janet Stemwedel has an interesting post describing "considerations from medical ethics that might explain why a birth control pill for men has not happened yet." Apparently the standard understanding of medical 'ethics' requires that any health risks involved in a new treatment are outweighed by specifically health benefits for the treated individual. It's insane.
First, health is not all that matters in life. Indeed, the value of good health is entirely derivative of how it enables one to live a good/flourishing life more generally. So it's just weirdly myopic to look only at the health benefits of a treatment, and ignore everything else that matters (which is, after all, a whole damn lot). Reproduction, in particular, is a big -- life-changing -- deal. As Janet says, "men have an interest in controlling their fertility, too." Unwanted paternity could really mess up a guy's life! This fact ought to carry some ethical weight.
Second, the individual focus is jarringly odd, especially in the context of intimate relationships. We care about the health and welfare of those we love, as we do our own. So in weighing the costs and benefits of some action, I care about more than just the benefits to me. If some course of action would benefit my partner, that's clearly a reason in its favour, as I see things.
There are things we care about besides physical health, and people we care about besides ourselves. It is ridiculous and myopic for medical "ethicists" to dismiss these legitimate values and interests. In fact, I don't see the need for ethicists here at all. I certainly don't appreciate their "concern" to limit my options. Just provide all the relevant information, then let me make an informed decision for myself, thank you very much.