Page 1 of 1 [ 8 posts ] 

Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

19 Mar 2007, 10:13 am

"no period" birth control pills?

I have shyed away from them so far cause they seem unnatural but am considering them to help with my ovarian cysts.

My doctor tried to explain to me how it's "unnatural" for our bodies to constantly be ovulating/shedding our uterine lining (aka-having a period).

Not sure whether i can buy that atm. I mean, we don't naturally have birthcontrol built into us... so i would think that THAT is natural for our bodies to do.


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


Aspie_for_the_Lord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Aug 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,521
Location: Bristol, England

19 Mar 2007, 10:17 am

....maybe you need another doctor to give you a second confirmation...

he sounds like a quack to me


_________________
i am that which i am...


renaeden
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2005
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,202
Location: Western Australia

19 Mar 2007, 10:31 am

Yes, instead of the more common triphasic pill you can get the monophasic sort (they're all the same hormone at a constant amount). I used to take one called Nordette 21 continuously for about three months, then come off for seven days and have a period. Then repeat the process.

Now I'm on the Depo-Provera injections and I don't get a monthly at all. Which I'm very happy about. :D



ZanneMarie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2007
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,324

19 Mar 2007, 10:37 am

I think what he means is that in a society without birth control, say 70 or 80 years ago even, women were fairly often pregnant and/or nursing. They obviously didn't have periods when pregnant and some didn't even when nursing. Miscarriages are also much more common than people think, especially early on, so they wouldn't have had periods before the miscarraige either if they were pregnant. As for the women who only had one or two back then, they probably either had problems with their cycles so they weren't regular or they abstained from sex to prevent pregnancy. In other words, continual periods of the type we experience now are a phenomenon that has happened since the popular use of contraception. Does that make sense? I have both heard that from gynos and read about it in research. They believe that it causes a different set of problems that weren't so common before.



Sedaka
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Age: 42
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,597
Location: In the recesses of my mind

19 Mar 2007, 12:39 pm

ZanneMarie wrote:
I think what he means is that in a society without birth control, say 70 or 80 years ago even, women were fairly often pregnant and/or nursing. They obviously didn't have periods when pregnant and some didn't even when nursing. Miscarriages are also much more common than people think, especially early on, so they wouldn't have had periods before the miscarraige either if they were pregnant. As for the women who only had one or two back then, they probably either had problems with their cycles so they weren't regular or they abstained from sex to prevent pregnancy. In other words, continual periods of the type we experience now are a phenomenon that has happened since the popular use of contraception. Does that make sense? I have both heard that from gynos and read about it in research. They believe that it causes a different set of problems that weren't so common before.


aha.

guess i can blame the crappy system for alotting NO TIME per an appointment for my doctor's short uncommunicative explanation.

good thing to know cause i get the impression i'm gonna be seening more of that doctor pretty soon...


_________________
Neuroscience PhD student

got free science papers?

www.pubmed.gov
www.sciencedirect.com
http://highwire.stanford.edu/lists/freeart.dtl


r_mc
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 208

19 Mar 2007, 12:40 pm

ZanneMarie wrote:
I think what he means is that in a society without birth control, say 70 or 80 years ago even, women were fairly often pregnant and/or nursing. They obviously didn't have periods when pregnant and some didn't even when nursing. Miscarriages are also much more common than people think, especially early on, so they wouldn't have had periods before the miscarraige either if they were pregnant. As for the women who only had one or two back then, they probably either had problems with their cycles so they weren't regular or they abstained from sex to prevent pregnancy. In other words, continual periods of the type we experience now are a phenomenon that has happened since the popular use of contraception. Does that make sense? I have both heard that from gynos and read about it in research. They believe that it causes a different set of problems that weren't so common before.


Yes, this does make sense- For most of human history women have spent their fertile lives pregnant, breastfeeding, or too thin to concieve. How harmful, or even whether it is harmful to have monthly periods, is unknown, but I have seen evidence mentioned that some forms of hormonal birth control reduce the incidence of ovarian cancer (though I wonder if the drug company funded the research) and that women who have had several children are less susceptible to various hormonal cancers than those who have had none. I'm still personally a bit unsure about how wise it is to flood my body with artificial hormones for the sake of convenience (if I wanted long-term condom-free contraception I'd get an IUD), but if it's to treat you're ovarian cysts, it might be worth a shot, at leat in the short term to see if it does make a difference. I have to agree with Aspie_for_the_lord that a second opinion is a very good idea if you're unsure, but I don't think the dr sounds like a quack. Anyway, good luck- cysts are horrible, I hope you find a treatment that helps :-)



wendytheweird
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 9 Sep 2006
Gender: Female
Posts: 312

19 Mar 2007, 4:03 pm

If I had cysts, I would give it a shot. The bad thing about hormonal birth control is that while it reduces the chances of some cancers, it increases the chances of others. I get all of the bad side effects of hormonal birth control, so it's not an option for me. I have an appointment next week to talk about getting a copper IUD. I am one of the "lucky" few who gets a period while nursing. My mom did as well, but most women do not. In the past, women who didn't want more children would keep their youngest nursing up till they were as old as 6 as a form of birth control. Most kids are ready to wean well before 6 years of age, not all, but either way, that's not acceptable to do (or at least be open about) in our current society. While you are nursing, even if you do get a period you are less likely to conceive. My mom wasn't very lucky with that, and I haven't been so far either (my younger 2 are only 2 years apart.)



ghostgurl
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2006
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,328
Location: Orange County, CA

19 Mar 2007, 10:52 pm

Your doctor sounds like a twat. I wouldn't trust those kinds of birth control pills. Periods are something your supposed to have. (unfortunately)


_________________
Currently Reading: Survival by Juliet E. Czerneda
http://dazed-girl.livejournal.com/
Vote Kalister 2008