welcome choice? about menstruation

[RB]

Provided by: Canadian Press

Written by: ELIANNA LEV

VANCOUVER (CP) - Life without monthly periods has always been one of the few things women look forward to as they grow old - but thanks to a new birth control pill, Canadian women of all ages may soon be able to stop menstruating.

Obstetricians, gynecologists and researchers gathered in Vancouver on Saturday to hear discussion about Anya, an oral contraceptive being manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Wyeth. The pill is taken continually and without the seven-day gap other birth control pills leave for menstruation.

And while it has yet to be approved by Health Canada, demand for the pill could be high judging by the results of recent informal surveys.

Four out of five women who took part in a poll while visiting the Museum of Menstruation in Maryland said if they could choose to stop having monthly periods, they would.

more......

[FTA Lawyer]

Well this thread could cause a stir as between male and female members...

I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to health-care intervention. I don't even take Tylenol if I can manage to tough it through a headache. I think "elective" surgery is stupid (unless it can be said to be psychologically "necessary" in certain cases) and my immediate reaction to this story is that we ought not mess with our biology out of mere convenience.

Now, all that said, I guess if Health Canada ok's it, and your doctor recommends (or at least doesn't advise against) it and you are informed of the risks and still want it...who am I to say anything about your decision?

FTA

[August1991]

I don't want to encourage thread drift but the following seems relevant:

Women spend more on prescription drugs than men. This gender difference could be observed in all job types, all sectors and was true for respondents with and without dependent care responsibilities. This gender difference in prescription drug use is consistent with what has been reported in the literature (CIHI) and is consistent with the fact that women are more likely than men to seek care (e.g. visit physician, see other health care professionals, use the services of mental health professionals, receive outpatient treatment). While spending on medications like birth control pills may explain some of the variance in the data, it is unlikely to explain all.

Link

Since women live longer than men, and since older people are large consumers of health services of all types, our public health care system amounts to a transfer from men to women.

[Charles Anthony]

Now, all that said, I guess if Health Canada ok's it, and your doctor recommends (or at least doesn't advise against) it and you are informed of the risks and still want it...who am I to say anything about your decision?

You are the person paying for it.

(I will presume that part of your wealth is exacted from you in the form of taxation on a periodic basis against your will. Not many people can escape it.)

I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to health-care intervention.

Wait. Please clarify. What intervention?

Do you mean "tax-payer funded" health-care? or personal health-care decisions?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear RB,

I wish you would have asked a question or made a comment on this, (not just to hear what you think, but to give some direction to this thread) but I find it abominable. some claim nature intended our bodies to work they way they do, others claim god did everything. I don't believe the 'god's punishment' bit, but I do believe that humans don't have the capacity (at this time) to look at the long term effects. Claiming that 'nature (or god) must have been mistaken, and that we can engineer biology better, is likely to be folly.

[RB]

Dear RB,

I wish you would have asked a question or made a comment on this, (not just to hear what you think, but to give some direction to this thread) but I find it abominable. some claim nature intended our bodies to work they way they do, others claim god did everything. I don't believe the 'god's punishment' bit, but I do believe that humans don't have the capacity (at this time) to look at the long term effects. Claiming that 'nature (or god) must have been mistaken, and that we can engineer biology better, is likely to be folly.

Well, of course I do have thoughts on this issue. Ordinarily, and at first glance as a women this disappearance of the periods is breaking new grounds for women indeed. Hopefully, the PMS symptoms goes, the headache excuses goes, expense of feminine hygiene products goes, curtailed the unwanted pregnancies and the business of wanting more sex for the ladies is received well.

But, I would like really readdress this issue in a different context as I was reading the article and my other initial reaction:

1) The period would bridge the gap between the younger women and older women. I mean the article points out older women look forward to not having a period but I believe that if all women were not having periods then it would place the ages in adjacent groups. This would mean new possibilities for all women. For example, older women would now cast their eyes upon younger mates.

2) The issue of continually transformation of the female while the male remain of less scrutiny. I mean over the years we acquired the women's lib and lots of freedoms, and have undergone several decades of changes while men it seems continue to own just one pair of sneakers and suit - I mean men have remain the same since....history.

3) Perhaps women are making dumb choice for themselves by channelling their energies towards independence. I mean for women, males can never be counted upon for commitments, or support but at the same time the lack of period could provide some appeal to pressure men for the same commitment. I am thinking to take the household duties notion away and replace it with sex everyday.

What I mean is that if independent is a seen as a threat then women can mitigate being constantly beautiful for men all year around. The period still remain tabooed as "unclean" no?

4) Women have always had this quest for intimacy with the males, so I suspect the lack of period might contribute to some resolve but also add to the male fantasy. I mean the males now would have to be "stepped up" because there would be increase expectations from the female. Yes?

Well, it is all thought provoking.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear RB,

but I believe that if all women were not having periods

This would lead to the extinction of the Human Species, no?

business of wanting more sex for the ladies is received well.

I was unaware that this was an issue to be addressed. I was of the understanding that throughout most of the animal kingdom, females only want sex during estrous. Humans are a little different, to be sure ('sex drive versus reproductive drive' is more different in humans than other species), but could this advesely affect 'sex drive' to become non-existent as well?

Would such a move create a stigma for women, where they become classified as 'breeders vs. sex toys'? (as crude as that comment is, I was unsure how to word it more 'politically correct')

[Drea]

No one knows the long-term health or reproductive consequences of stopping a woman's period for years on end.

Could be she'll never be able to have children once she's been -- what are they calling it? -- temporarily sterilized? Could be uterine cancers (the period IS a "cleaning out" of the uterus) show up that we've never seen before?

I wouldn't want to see my young nieces mess up their reproductive systems or worse, just to eliminate the "bitchies".

At my age, I am certainly looking forward to no longer having periods -- only a few more years to go!

A number of years ago I got that 3 month birth control "shot". Now, I'm naturally thin and holy cow -- big fat cow! LOL -- I gained 25 pounds in a span of one month when I first got the shot. It took over a year of being off the dang shot to lose the weight. BTW, the birth control shot stopped periods for the duration of the shot but you'd have to go back every 3 months.... I never went back LOL.

The birth control pill, which I was on for 15 years before my son was born, never made me gain an ounce and my periods were light and only lasted 3 or 4 days. Good enough IMO.

[FTA Lawyer]

Now, all that said, I guess if Health Canada ok's it, and your doctor recommends (or at least doesn't advise against) it and you are informed of the risks and still want it...who am I to say anything about your decision?

You are the person paying for it.

(I will presume that part of your wealth is exacted from you in the form of taxation on a periodic basis against your will. Not many people can escape it.)

I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to health-care intervention.

Wait. Please clarify. What intervention?

Do you mean "tax-payer funded" health-care? or personal health-care decisions?

I hadn't considered that it would be a treatment covered by government health care...seems to me if you want to stop your period and there is no apparent medical necessity for doing so...it ought to be out of your own pocket.

As far as "intervention" it's a term of art that my nurse wife uses all of the time...basically, any medical treatment / procedure is an intervention. If you have a natural child-birth, there is no medical intervention. If a doc comes in and uses forceps to deliver the baby...intervention.

It wasn't an attemtp to make a broad-scope comment on health care policy.

FTA

[geoffrey]

As long as it's not covered under my tax dollars, I could care less what elective medications to remedy whatever preceived issues are taken.

I'll add in another 'but'. If there are complications from medications such as this, the user should bare the full cost.

One of the big problems with the pill is that there is now increased estrogen levels in our water. Does this mean all women will constantly be on the pill eventually as levels increase even more? I think it should be heavily taxed to combat this pollution problem.

Add at least a little responsibility to the mix.

[Charles Anthony]

As far as "intervention" it's a term of art that my nurse wife uses all of the time...basically, any medical treatment / procedure is an intervention.

I get it.

When you say "I guess if Health Canada ok's it," the next thing I see is that it we then eventually expect it to become a covered service by the provinces and following that you end up paying for it through your taxes. Thus, I say you should have a say about the decision (despite the fact that you probably still would have no say).

As long as it's not covered under my tax dollars, I could care less what elective medications to remedy whatever preceived issues are taken.

I agree but only because you should not be paying for anybody's treatment (elective or otherwise) no matter what.

I'll add in another 'but'. If there are complications from medications such as this, the user should bare the full cost.

Again, I agree but unfortunately, you can never implement that effectively by taking the middle road.

Where would you draw the line? What about the kid who falls of his dirt bike? the over-eater who gets heart-disease and diabetes? the mentally ill who attempts suicide? Many medical complications can be traced directly to human behavior and decisions.

[geoffrey]

Again, I agree but unfortunately, you can never implement that effectively by taking the middle road.

Where would you draw the line? What about the kid who falls of his dirt bike? the over-eater who gets heart-disease and diabetes? the mentally ill who attempts suicide? Many medical complications can be traced directly to human behavior and decisions.

Your right this is the difficulty. Why should my sprained wrist mountain biking be covered and not the fat guy that has diabeties? Well, it's definitely too much of a grey area for me to really set a definition, and this is why this policy doesn't exist right now.

Something like this applied to smoking though, may be a clever deterent.

This is sort of off topic though.