For Moses and Livi

cool_chick · 02:57 AM

You two are OB/GYN's, right?

I have a question that hopefully won't bother these boys here too much.....

I see these commercials about birth control pills. One says "have your menstral every 3 months"......another one says "shorten the time of your menstrual to 3 days"...

How healthy can this be? I mean, the human female body was designed to ovulate and then eliminate the lining on that wall, etc., etc.

How could something altering nature like this be safe?

livi · 01-11-2007, 02:57 AM

Sorry CC. I deal with the little ones.

Moses · 01-11-2007, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick

How healthy can this be? I mean, the human female body was designed to ovulate and then eliminate the lining on that wall, etc., etc.

Sort of. In a humans "natural condition", sexual activity begins shortly after sexual maturity and a womans life is an uninterrupted string of pregnancies. Less than 250 years ago, the average life expectancy for women was 36 years and the average # of pregnancies was close to a dozen. So biologically, a period is really a failed fertilization.

The question is; Do women need to have periods? The answer is no. When the birth control pill was invented, the weeklong break in the medication that allows a period was introduced for two reasons; 1) Pill failures (pregnancies) would be discovered earlier because of a missed period. 2) Marketing. Women were more likely to accept a product that mimics a "natural" cycle.

ANY monophasic pill can be taken in a continuous fashion so that you don't have periods. This is completely safe. You can do this for years and years. No need to have a period every three months of so.

Having said that, newer data is showing that BCP use in smokers is even more dangerous than we previously thought. Shouldn't be prescribed to any smoker over 35 years of age.

red-beard · red-beard's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Moses
Sort of. In a humans "natural condition", sexual activity begins shortly after sexual maturity and a womans life is an uninterrupted string of pregnancies. Less than 250 years ago, the average life expectancy for women was 36 years and the average # of pregnancies was close to a dozen. So biologically, a period is really a failed fertilization.

Ahhh, the good old days...barefoot and pregnant

wludavid · wludavid's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Moses

ANY monophasic pill can be taken in a continuous fashion so that you don't have periods. This is completely safe. You can do this for years and years. No need to have a period every three months of so.

I've heard that those 4-times-a-year pills were done that way because women don't like NOT menstruating. Is that true?

scottmandue · 01-11-2007, 06:46 AM

EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!

Okay... we got that over with.

Carry on... carry on....

lendaddy · 01-11-2007, 06:56 AM

What about blood clots? My wifes doc took her off control as she had clot problems. Any alternatives are greatly appreciated

David · David's Garage

I heard that many female OB/GYN's had been doing for years by substituting real pills for the monthly placebos.

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

Many patients figure this out too. It isn't too hard since the pills are generally different color...

livi · 01-11-2007, 12:06 PM

Every medical intervention has a price. There is literary no such thing as a 'free lunch' with medicine. With every action, the expected positive effect has to be weighted against possible adverse effects.

The greater the need for and possible benefit with a certain action or medication - the bigger the risks of adverse effects is 'allowed'.

Or something like that.. typical subject where I get frustrated over my English.

Moneyguy1 · 01-11-2007, 01:27 PM

C-C:

What do I know...I only commented about the side effects on the "3 day pill" in another thread....stroke, blood clots, coronaries. I wonder if the drawbacks of many meds outweigh the stated benefits.

livi · 01-11-2007, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
C-C:

What do I know...I only commented about the side effects on the "3 day pill" in another thread....stroke, blood clots, coronaries. I wonder if the drawbacks of many meds outweigh the stated benefits.

For those that do not suffer from the drawbacks it is all fine. For those that do, it is not.

In medicine it is all about probability and statistics.

Is it good advice to take a pill that saves nine lives but kills the tenth ? No, not if you are number ten.

It is all in a days job.

Moneyguy1 · 01-11-2007, 05:32 PM

Excellent answer! Now, just to make certain I ain't that # 10....

But how? If I am, does the physician just say to my wife "Oops!!"

(Physicians bury their mistakes, attorney's mistakes languish behind bars)

cool_chick · 01-12-2007, 03:37 AM

Interesting, Moses. Thanks.

And re: blood clots and smoking, I've heard that taking the pill after 35, one can have a stroke as quickly as 6 months.....

Quote:

Originally posted by Moneyguy1
C-C:

What do I know...I only commented about the side effects on the "3 day pill" in another thread....stroke, blood clots, coronaries. I wonder if the drawbacks of many meds outweigh the stated benefits.

These are the risks of the birth control pill in general. These risks can be an inevitability if one smokes after age 35. Which is interesting.....Moses:

What changes biologically after age 35 that makes this a drastically increased risk?

Moses · 01-12-2007, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by cool_chick

What changes biologically after age 35 that makes this a drastically increased risk?

It's a lowly increasing risk curve that starts to change it's slope at 35 years of age. The problem is that 35 year old smokers may have 3 independent factors that increase thrombogenesis (blood clotting); age, cigarette smoke and oral contraceptives. As the age related risk starts to rise, the effects of BCPs and smoking seem to have a catalytic effect on the risk of stroke.