Pills Rendering Menstrual Period Optional

[lindisfarne]

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/05/21/national/a175339D05.DTL

<snip>
A college student and retail worker in Lisbon Falls, Maine, Sardinha uses Nuvaring, a vaginal contraceptive ring. After the hormones run out in three weeks, she replaces the ring right away instead of following instructions to leave the ring out for a week to allow bleeding. She says it has been great for her marriage, preventing monthly crankiness and improving her sex life.
<snip>

Such medical jury-rigging soon will be unnecessary. Already, the Seasonale birth control pill limits periods to four a year. The first continuous-use birth control pill, Lybrel, likely will soon be on the U.S. market and drug companies are lining up other ways to limit or eliminate the period.

Most doctors say they don't think suppressing menstruation is riskier than regular long-term birth control use, and one survey found a majority have prescribed contraception to prevent periods. Women have been using the pill for nearly half a century without significant problems, but some doctors want more research on long-term use.

<snip>
If you're choosing contraception, then there's not a lot of point to having periods," says Dr. Leslie Miller, a University of Washington-Seattle researcher and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology whose Web site, noperiod.com, explains the option. She points out women on hormonal contraception don't have real periods anyway, just withdrawal bleeding during the break from the hormone progestin.

According to Miller, modern women endure up to nine times more periods than their great-grandmothers, who began menstruating later, married young and naturally suppressed periods for years while they were pregnant or breast-feeding. Today's women may have about 450 periods
===============
see also www.noperiod.com (Miller's website)

[Syrinx]

1. I'm no doctor...

But that doesn't sound so good to me.

[lindisfarne]

4. Read about it on www.noperiod.com. If you were a woman, you'd be much more

enthusiastic about this.

[Syrinx]

8. if women want it, and it's safe, I'm all for it

It just doesn't sound safe to me. I know nothing much about medicine. It sounds like a money-making scheme by the drug corps, the health of millions of woman be damned.

If that's not true, if it really is safe, I say go for it.

EDIT: I hope you're not implying I'm sexist. The reasons I question this are because I love women, and I distrust the pharmaceutical industry.

[lindisfarne]

12. The data so far suggest it is as safe as being on a traditional course

of the pill (with monthly periods). The economic costs of having monthly periods with migraines, severe cramping, etc., preventing a woman from working, as well as the health risks of taking over-the-counter pain killers to deal with these "side effects" also must be thrown into the equation. (With nuvaring, a woman could really just leave it in for the full 28 days so no additional sales to the manufacturer - there is a published study showing it releases an effective amount of hormones to prevent pregnancy for at least 35 days - although this would not be recommended by the manufacturer). Some doctors suggest using the Seasonale routine: a period every 3 months. I believe Dr. Leslie Miller is in the process of conducting a study that examines using nuvaring continuously (such use is currently off-label, but prescribing regular BC pills for such off-label usage is very common).

What is "natural" depends on your perspective.
Evolutionarily, human bodies have evolved to deal with periods of famine (during which women will usually not ovulate (or menstruate) due to too low body fat) which is effectively birth control; although breast feeding is (by far) not a perfect form of birth control, on a population level, you do see lower rates of pregnancy amongst lactating women. Thus, it's not "natural" to take hormones (pills/patch/nuvaring/implanted rods) for birth control, but it's also not "natural" for women to have monthly periods for 35 or more years. (Evolutionarily, it's only fairly recent that most humans even lived for 35 years).

"Safe" is also a relative term. Pregnancy has its risks; it seems to protect against certain types of cancers, but may increase the risk of others. Hormones (pills/patch/nuvaring/implanted rods) used for birth control purposes have their risks (and are not recommended for women with certain health problems), seem to protect against some cancers and may increase slightly the risk for others, but the majority of American women accept the health risks (and benefits) to avoid getting pregnant while having sex. (See below for the *real* women why the pill was originally designed to be 21 days on/7 off).

"What's natural is for women between the ages of 16 and 45 to be not bleeding because they're pregnant or breastfeeding (or both) nearly all the time. Giving birth is the primary biological goal of the female body and without modern contraceptives women would be having a lot more babies and a lot less bleeding. Women in 1900 had around 150 periods in a lifetime; women today have closer to 450."

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=15631

... and from the same article:
In 1960, the FDA approved the first birth control pills, developed by John Rock--a devout Catholic and a professor at Harvard. His method, which opened up a new world of sexuality for millions of women, used naturally occurring female hormones to trick the body into thinking it's already pregnant--thus no ovulation, no chance of pregnancy. Initially, the drug was designed, like nearly all others, to come in a bottle; women would take one a day. "In view of the ability of this compound to prevent menstrual bleeding as long as it is taken," Rock's co-developer, Gregory Pincus, wrote in 1958, "a cycle of any desired length could presumably be produced."

But because of Rock's ultimately fruitless hope of receiving the Catholic Church's approval of the pill, he and Gregory Pincus came up with the three-weeks-on, one-week-off method--for purely cultural, not medical, reasons. Natural hormones, natural cycles, women still suffering their biblically mandated punishment for Eve eating the damn apple--why would the Church have a problem with that?

Birth control pills come in packs of 28, but only 21 of the pills contain hormones. The other seven are blanks. It's easier to remember to take a pill if you do it every day, and forgetting to take one means, obviously, you're more likely to get pregnant. But that's not the only reason for the week of sugar pills. Rock wanted to create birth control for the faithful and he hoped that by using natural hormones--already in the female body--and maintaining natural cycles, he could get the pope's approval. The Church had already allowed the rhythm method, which doesn't seem like much now, but it was an acknowledgment that Catholics could try to avert some pregnancies. The key was that the rhythm approach was deemed "natural." So-called artificial methods were never allowed--condoms and diaphragms blocked the eager sperm, and vasectomies and tubal ligations snipped what god had created. In fact, the Vatican did allow the pill until 1968 as long as it was taken primarily to cope with physical problems, such as painful periods, and the birth control was a secondary effect. I'm sure plenty of good Catholic women felt some pretty intense cramps during the '60s.

[lwin]

2. Finally

Where do I sign up? :rofl:

[radwriter0555]

3. You bet. Studies have shown that the period is rather useless and serves

no purpose unless one is considering pregnancy.

It doesn't harm the body to not have a period....

[Missy Vixen]

5. Actually, I respectfully disagree

>It doesn't harm the body to not have a period....<

A researcher at the University of Washington found several years ago that toxins and other substances are eliminated from a woman's body during her period.

Julie

[bananas]

6. The period is very important for

ending a sentence.
And seperating dollars from cents.

[Viva_La_Revolution]

7. don't the 'shots' do the same thing...?

I had a friend who got the shots every three months (depro-vera? sp?) and didn't have a period for over a year.

[JI7]

9. did she have any side effects ?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

11. a few. The same ones you get with the pill

weight gain, told her to stop smoking, etc.

a side note - she couldn't afford to get the shot on time one month, 9 months later gave birth to a bouncing baby boy.

[lindisfarne]

14. Depo-provera actually has some risks which are more serious than

the pill. The link to the original article (in Message #1) briefly alludes to this. As with any medicine, understand the risks before using.

And with any form of birth control, if you don't take it/get it, use another method!

[Warren DeMontague]

10. Yeah. Enjoy it while it lasts.

If the "Heartland values voters" we're supposed to be courting have their way, all forms of birth control will be criminalized. That "vaginal contraceptive ring" will probably be declared a concealed murder weapon.

http://www.all.org/issues_birthcontrol.php

[lindisfarne]

15. Will this "concealed murder weapon" qualify me for membership in the NRA?

:woohoo:
:sarcasm:

[Warren DeMontague]

16. Nope.

Guns they can handle. But female genitalia scare the bejeezus outta 'em.

[lindisfarne]

18. Not only a concealed weapon - it can also act like a "sex toy" which

at least one state currently is working to outlaw. (some couples like the effect, others don't (and take it out during sex (up to 3 hours out is safe)).

[dysfunctional press]

13. women are having many more periods than used to be the norm.

larger families meant more time being pregnant, and less time menstruating.

it sounds kind of scary to me to try and limit it medically, tho...

BUT- seeing as i'm not a female, and i'm pro-choice when it comes to a woman and her body- it's not really my concern...but i'm still entitled to an opinion- and i don't like the idea of using drugs to interfere with natural body process simply for the sake of convenience. i don't think that i would encourage my wife to use these kinds of meds...but i honestly haven't researched them that extensively.

[Skittles]

17. you mean like.....with viagra?

:o

[lindisfarne]

19. On the viagra topic:

Why do so many women feel like suffering is part of their essential makeup? They can't really feel responsible for Eve, can they? Dr. Miller reports getting plenty of nasty calls and e-mails from self-described feminists who say basically, "Periods are what makes a woman a woman." So we should have periods as nature intended--oh, and the childbirth-without-drugs movement has convinced scores of women that suffering is natural. Is suffering and being "natural" a woman thing? No one complains that Bob Dole is promoting an unnatural treatment--Viagra--for "erectile dysfunction." Instead Dole is lauded for being honest and speaking up about a "natural problem." You'd never hear anyone say, "Sorry your dick won't work. Just deal with it. It's natural."
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Content?oid=15631

[Skittles]

21. good point

yes

[dysfunctional press]

20. never used it, never would.

side effects don't sound too inviting...i'm prone to migraines as it is.

if rosie palm and/or her five sisters can't make it hard- they can always try again tomorrow.

[REP]

22. Hormonal Birth Control "Interfere[s] With Natural Body Processes"

It's natural for a woman's body to release an ova each month and to build an endometrial lining. Hormonal birth control - the Pill, Depo-Provera, Nuva-Ring and many IUDs - all interfere with this process. The placebo pills in BC pill packs were added to induce a period that wouldn't happen otherwise to a woman taking it.

There are some studies that suggest (and I can't find them right now) that having fewer periods may have a protective effect on the uterus, endometrium and ovaries. All I know is that I have my endometrium burned out to avoid having any more periods, and that there are thousands, if not millions of women who would gladly take a pill to avoid the pain of menstruation. Menstrual cramps can be very painful - ask anyone who has ever passed an endometrial cast (I have, and I'd rather pass a kidney stone, which I do do nearly monthly) - and they can also have detrimental health effects, such as anemia. It may seem like something that's merely 'convenient' to someone who has no direct experience, just as erectile dysfunction may seem like a lifestyle problem to those who haven't (or can't have) it - for some, it may be, but for others, it may be a far more serious problem.

[dysfunctional press]

24. as i said- not being my concern, it's a topic i'm not well-versed in.

but- since i knew i didn't want kids, rather than have my wife on 'the pill', i got a vasectomy. i've never used any type of 'erection-helper' medication, and don't intend to- and yes, i've had instances of impotence- i just figure 'better luck next time'- which usually ends up being the case.

and it could very well be that women today arer having more periods than the body was designed for(or something to that effect), and this medication could be a very good thing- i just tend to come down on the cautious side until all the facts are in.

[REP]

25. Hey, We're In The Same Club!

I'm Childfree, too and have a tubal ligation as well as an endometrial ablation.

By mentioning erectile difficulties, I didn't mean any specific person, but as a condition that can either by an occasional, minor annoyance or something much worse, just as periods can be in individual women. Personally, I'm a little leery of most hormonal birth control, even though for many it's the better choice. Missing periods, however, just isn't that big a deal. It almost does sound like something that good has to have a downside, but so far, the evidence isn't showing that at all.

If you're really interested, there are some good European studies; Depo (which suppresses periods for most users) has been used there far longer than it has been here.

[TimeChaser]

23. *Sigh*

I'm assuming it'd have the same side effects as the pill? If that's the case, I'm still stuck until someone comes up with a pill that wouldn't give me blood clots.

[lindisfarne]

26. Same risk for clots. For BC, you could look into IUDs. But you're out of

luck on the menstrual suppression front.

[REP]

27. Many IUDs Contain Hormones; All Increase Cramping

Insertion of an IUD pretty much sucks the big wet one, too, but at least they don't kill women anymore.

For women who a) don't want periods and b) don't want children/don't want any more children, uterine ablation is a good option. No drugs or hormones, so no risks of DVT, cancer, migraine, etc. There is a new technique, called NovaSure (http:novasure.com) as well as the more traditional hydrothermal ablation (that's what I had).

[lindisfarne]

28. Paragard doesn't have hormones ... although cramping can be a side effect.

There are two types of IUDs available: ParaGard and Mirena. The ParaGard has a tiny copper wire wrapped around the plastic body and should not be used by anyone who is allergic to copper. The Mirena releases small amounts of a synthetic progesterone hormone. The hormone was added to attempt to decrease the bleeding and cramping that some women have with the IUD.
http://www.birth-control-comparison.info/iudinfo.htm

Nuvaring works for me so I haven't considered an IUD, but would if hormone based methods weren't available (although I'd also seriously consider tubal ligation - but that's due to my personal considerations). But I'd be really upset about losing the benefits I gain with menstrual suppression!

[REP]

30. Tubal Ligation + Endometrial Ablation = Period-and-Child-Free REP

I may need to have my ablation redone (I had it done when I was under 40) but at least I'm not having two a month anymore - or even one every month!

I looked into everything that was available up to 2000 - and then I found a surgeon willing to sterilize a nulliparous chick with renal disease, so I'm not as up-to-date as I used to be. I thought there were two IUDs with hormones, but it could be my brain failing.

[Mandate My Ass]

35. I had an IUD for 15 years. Never had a problem. I loved it.

Although the day they insert it - LOOK OUT! Ouch, your body tries really hard to reject it. I can't take the pill, any pill, so all forms of chemical BC are out for me. With an IUD I didn't even have to think about BC.

I'd love to get rid of periods forever, but since I have about 9-10 years left, and they're nowhere near as painful and debilitating as my teens and 20's, I'll ride it out.

Anybody here take the herb Vitex? I gave up most caffeine and started taking Vitex daily (about $6 - $7 for a 3-month supply) no more bloating, no more tender breasts, much less moodiness. I swear by the stuff.

[annabanana]

29. sorry. . . this creeps me out.

There are so many cycles and hormonal interactions related to menstruation that I have trouble believing that there has been enough testing for long enough to really know how safe it is.

That said, I admit that I've never been plagued with debilitating cramps or other common problems with it..So I haven't been in the market for something like this.

[elehhhhna]

31. creeps me out too. Vioxx was a wonder drug, too. Remember?

[zbdent]

32. Can't remember where I heard it (believe it was in high-school health

class), but wasn't the original "pill" designed to stop the menstrual process altogether?

And when women grew concerned that they were preggers and didn't know hit, the designers threw in the "period" so that it would give them "peace of mind"???

[prole_for_peace]

33. i haven't had a period in over 6 years due to the depo shot.

i stopped taking it in december and switched to the nuva-ring. unlike the woman in the article, when i take it out i leave it out for a week. i STILL haven't had a period and i hope i never do again (i am 40). i have never had an problems that could be thought to come from not having a cycle. just relief and sanity.

[Scout]

34. good. having your period is a pain in the ass. n/t

[Mandate My Ass]

36. and other places too.

:rofl:

[lindisfarne]

37. Risks/benefits of the pill

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/PrintStory.pl?document_id=2003010530&slug=period22&date=20060522

Today's birth-control pills contain far less estrogen and progestin than those two generations ago but still increase the risk of heart attack, stroke and blood clots. The pill should not be used by women who have had those conditions, unexplained vaginal bleeding or certain cancers, or if they are smokers over 35.

But there are benefits from taking contraceptives too, such as a lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer, osteoporosis and pelvic inflammation. And forgoing periods means no premenstrual syndrome and a lower risk of anemia and migraines, says Dr. Sheldon Segal, co-author of "Is Menstruation Obsolete?" Segal has been involved in research for several contraceptives.

========
Some new products coming on the market (which of course will be pricey for the first 7 years until the patent runs out and generics come out):

Women have long been manipulating hormonal contraceptives to skip or block menstrual periods. Now new and upcoming products will make things even easier. Here are a few:

Seasonale: Launched in November 2003 by Barr Pharmaceuticals of Woodcliff Lake, N.J. A standard birth-control pill taken for 84 days, followed by a week off for withdrawal bleeding.

Seasonique: A successor to Seasonale expected to reduce breakthrough bleeding and hormonal fluctuations even more, likely will get federal approval at week's end.

Lybrel: The first daily birth-control pill designed to be taken indefinitely, made by Wyeth of Madison, N.J., is expected to get U.S. approval by late June.

Implanon: A one-rod, three-year contraceptive implanted in the upper arm that stops menstruation in many women, also could get U.S. approval in June. Made by Organon USA of Roseland, N.J.

Berlex of Wayne, N.J., is developing its own birth-control pill for menstrual suppression. It makes Mirena, a progestin intrauterine device, and in March got approval for Yaz, a pill with only four days off hormones, reducing hormone fluctuations and PMS.