Looking at Artificial Contraception from another Perspective

[OSUbride0708]

I own the only pharmacy in my area that won’t fill OC’s (to my knowledge).
I have never gotten an iota of support from the diocese for not doing so, which is sad, IMO.

NB: I am not doing it because I want support, but you’d think that the diocese would publish a “pro-life” pharmacy list…

Good for you Luigi! My husband is a pharmacist at a retail chain. So far he hasn’t encountered any moral issues, but I am hoping nothing big comes up.

I think it is odd that people are so against taking medicine for thyroid, bp, etc and want to try natural remedies, yet they will take a hormone that messes up the process your body is naturally doing. Taking medicine for a perfectly functioning reproductive system…interesting…

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

In that case he may not even be a registered doctor. The state Medical Board is able to prosecute ANYONE who “holds out as” or pretends to be a doctor or does things which only a doctor is allowed to do. So they certainly have jurisdiction over this nurse.

That just seems so odd. What pharmacy is filling out perscriptions that lack a Dr.'s name and Id code?
Most perscriptions that I see have both, so even if the signature is illegible, the pharmacist can trace it.

My old Dr had his perscription pad stolen, and the theif was forging his sig and selling the scripts. The pharmacist was able to figure it out and contact him.

 

[Petergee]

That just seems so odd. What pharmacy is filling out perscriptions that lack a Dr.'s name and Id code?
Most perscriptions that I see have both, so even if the signature is illegible, the pharmacist can trace it.

My old Dr had his perscription pad stolen, and the theif was forging his sig and selling the scripts. The pharmacist was able to figure it out and contact him.

Apparently the doctor writes all the required information on the prescriptions except the patient name and address, which the nurse writes in later. Maybe the nurse imitates the doctor’s handwriting so that the pharmacists don’t get suspicious; or maybe the pharmacists don’t care that the prescriptions are illegal as long as they get paid for dispensing them.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Apparently the doctor writes all the required information on the prescriptions except the patient name and address, which the nurse writes in later. Maybe the nurse imitates the doctor’s handwriting so that the pharmacists don’t get suspicious; or maybe the pharmacists don’t care that the prescriptions are illegal as long as they get paid for dispensing them.

Just seems like a huge malpractice suit waiting to happen…what if a girl has a heart defect and the pill gives her a blood clot? And the school is aware of it? Seems really odd.

 

[Petergee]

Just seems like a huge malpractice suit waiting to happen…what if a girl has a heart defect and the pill gives her a blood clot? And the school is aware of it? Seems really odd.

Don’t underestimate the fanaticism of the pro-contraception mafia. They think any illegal shortcut is justifiable to do everything they can to make sure that everbody is, as they put it, “having protected sex”. I’ve even known doctors to give young girls prescriptions for hormonal contraceptives which the girl neither asked for nor wanted.

 

[MedStudent]

To get back to the ORIGINAL subject… I personally greatly disagree with this argument. I understand and agree with the church’s teachings on contraception, however, in this day and age to put out the argument that oral contraceptions are a huge danger b/c of the chemicals they release into our bodies is close to ridiculous.
Someone brought up earlier how surprised they are that people are careful to buy organic-hormone-antibiotic-free eggs and meat, yet have no problem taking the pill. I would argue the opposite. People don’t think twice about going to the store or a restaurant and purchasing mass produced hormone laced processed products that have shelf-stable until kingdom come, yet they would object to a drug that can be used to regulate and relieve a lot of pain that is experienced by many women. Sure there are side affects and risks with taking the drug, but the same can be said for many things.
For example, I can pretty much guarantee that 99% of the people on this forum have at one point in their lives have taken acetaminophen for a headache or a fever. But when was the last time you thought about the risks of ingesting such a drug? If taken chronically over long periods of time, acetaminophen can lead to liver damage and stomach bleeding. Ibuprofen is an even greater culprit, whose side effects can be as extensive as rash, dizziness, internal bleeding, kidney damage, edema,** blood clots**, hypertension, and heart attacks.
Just something to think about before trying to explain to a non-Catholic why we disagree with ABC.

 

[BlueShadow123]

I hope you realize that birthcontrol for woman also has many other benifits. I used to be on it due to bad and unsteady cramping and irregular periods.

some dermatologists even perscribe it for acne, some doctors perscribe it for even mood problems. Its supposed to steady out your system. There are many benifits to taking it.

 

[agapewolf]

I hope you realize that birthcontrol for woman also has many other benifits. I used to be on it due to bad and unsteady cramping and irregular periods.

some dermatologists even perscribe it for acne, some doctors perscribe it for even mood problems. Its supposed to steady out your system. There are many benifits to taking it.

This is absolutely NOT what happens. It shuts down a working (or struggling to work) system and replaces it with something fake and covers up any problems.

It does not “steady” anything.

Read “fatherless” by brian gail. It is eye opening the absolutely disastrous side effects this pill has-- its poison.

 

[faithfully]

This is absolutely NOT what happens. It shuts down a working (or struggling to work) system and replaces it with something fake and covers up any problems.

It does not “steady” anything.

Read “fatherless” by brian gail. It is eye opening the absolutely disastrous side effects this pill has-- its poison.

But the problem is that the medical world does not address the real problems. I agree that BC generally just covers up a problem that is allowed to go on and on and on…

But get a Doctor to figure it out? And if you can’t? Then I would, and have done the same… take the pill so as not to bleed for weeks at a time. Or so profusely, that I couldn’t leave my house.

Women are being forced into unnecessary/wrong situations as far as I’m concerned.

Not exactly sure what the answer is… But, you can bet that now aday, thanks to the internet, I don’t take my Doctor’s word for ANYTHING. I’m sure they appreciate that…

 

[MedStudent]

This is absolutely NOT what happens. It shuts down a working (or struggling to work) system and replaces it with something fake and covers up any problems.

No one stops to think about taking painkillers to stop a headache. There is usually a reason why our bodies fire nerves that signal that we are in trouble, yet instead of calling a Neurologist when we get a headache to figure out the root of the problem we just pop a few pills. Same goes for fevers. The reason our bodies respond with a higher temperature is because it is working to kill of foreign bacteria or viruses, yet we still take medicine to lower the fever because we also know that an extreme elevated temperature is also detrimental to our brains and other vital organs.
Yes hormonal birth control can have side effects just like any other medication. But to argue that point as the only reason for its discontinuation all together is ridiculous.

But, you can bet that now aday, thanks to the internet, I don’t take my Doctor’s word for ANYTHING. I’m sure they appreciate that…

Ah yes, the wonderful firehose of information that is the internet… Just pointing out that no amount of Googling or Wikipedia searching is no substitute for a medical degree. There is a reason that Doctors have to go through so many years of training. I’m willing to bet that more than half of the people on this forum have never set foot in a clinical lab, or even read a primary source research article on the subject to have an objective viewpoint.

 

[agapewolf]

This is absolutely NOT what happens. It shuts down a working (or struggling to work) system and replaces it with something fake and covers up any problems.

No one stops to think about taking painkillers to stop a headache. There is usually a reason why our bodies fire nerves that signal that we are in trouble, yet instead of calling a Neurologist when we get a headache to figure out the root of the problem we just pop a few pills. Same goes for fevers. The reason our bodies respond with a higher temperature is because it is working to kill of foreign bacteria or viruses, yet we still take medicine to lower the fever because we also know that an extreme elevated temperature is also detrimental to our brains and other vital organs.
Yes hormonal birth control can have side effects just like any other medication. But to argue that point as the only reason for its discontinuation all together is ridiculous.
.

Actually, I have thought about that, and you’ve proven my point. We aren’t talking about one headache. We are talking about a continuous headache every day on and on. Yes, most definitely, I would go to a neurologist and have it checked out, not keep taking pain pills.

I’m not talking about mere side effects for birth control. I’m talking about the GENERAL intended effects of birth control. It shuts down a system. It makes a reproductive system stop working. Its not a real period that a woman experiences. Its intended purpose is just so wrong. It is not ridiculous to argue its discontinuation, even on side effects alone, because the side effects are horrific.

 

[faithfully]

*Just pointing out that no amount of Googling or Wikipedia searching is no substitute for a medical degree. *

I agree with that. However, you must be your own advocate. NO doctor has seen every case out there. Unless they are a specialist, they are a generalist. And some problems aren’t general and should not be treated as such.

And the issues that the general population runs into now adays, with insurance companies making medical decisions, and doctors who have their hands tied behind their backs, it’s important to be as versed as you can be on your own situation.

I think it’s smart to remember that a doctor is in a PRACTICE… Not a PERFECT. And that SOMEBODY always graduated at the bottom of his/her class. And they don’t put that on their door. Just the diploma.

And, well, hate to break it to you. But many doctors don’t think to look in certain areas until their patients suggest it.

I’m sure I sound jaded. But I am a person who has experienced one too many lazy doctors and the resulting damage. With my very own “simple” medical knowledge I was able to accurately DX a friends wife, based on the info he shared with me, and her Doctor took over 2 years to figure it out… I was like… Dang, I saw that on ER! How is THAT not common knowledge.

But you are right… the internet does not make for a degree!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I’m willing to bet that more than half of the people on this forum have never set foot in a clinical lab, or even read a primary source research article on the subject to have an objective viewpoint.

Here’s what Kathleen E. Malone has to say. She went beyond reading a few research articles - she performed the largest population based-study so far on the influence of oral contraceptive (OC) use on breast cancer in general and TNBC (triple negative breast cancer) in particular. The OR (odds ratio) of TNBC among the subset of women aged 40 years and younger, who used OC for a period exceeding 1 year, was 4.2!

fhcrc.org/about/pubs/center_news/online/2009/05/Oral_contraceptives_and_breast_cancer.html

Study links birth-control pill to rare breast cancer

Kathi Malone and colleagues associate oral contraceptive use with high risk of triple-negative breast cancer in young women

May 4, 2009
By Colleen Steelquist

Photo by Philip Meadows

Epidemiologist Dr. Kathi Malone is senior author of a study linking oral contraceptions with increased risk of triple-negative breast cancer.

While oral contraceptives are an effective means of preventing pregnancy, they may also raise the risk of a relatively rare but aggressive and difficult-to-treat form of breast cancer in women age 40 and younger.

A new Hutchinson Center study reveals that a year or more of oral contraceptive use was associated with a 4.2-fold increased risk of triple-negative breast cancer for women 40 and under. Longer duration of use and early age of first use further increased risk. Researchers did not find increased risk from pill use among women 41 to 45 years of age.

The population-based study of nearly 900 breast cancer cases, the largest of its kind to evaluate breast cancer subtypes and etiologic differences in young women, was published April 1 in the journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention.

“Two things took us by surprise in this study once we sorted the cases into triple negative or not triple negative,” said Dr. Kathi Malone, a Public Health Sciences Division epidemiologist and senior author of the study. “First, it appears that most of the increased risk in this age group related to pill use was confined to the relatively small fraction of cases with triple-negative breast cancer and second, the risk associated with pill use for triple-negative cases was quite large—four- to five-fold increases in risk. Outside of radiation and the BRCA1/BRCA2 genes, these are considerably higher risks than we tend to see in breast-cancer studies.”

Triple-negative breast cancer refers to a specific subtype of breast cancer that lacks three key receptors known to fuel most types of breast cancer: estrogen receptor, progesterone receptor, and human epidermal growth factor. Though rare, triple-negative breast cancer is particularly aggressive and generally has a poorer prognosis than other types of breast cancer. In addition, since some of the most successful treatments for breast cancer target these receptors, this type of cancer has fewer treatment options. It is diagnosed more frequently in women who are younger, African American, and BRCA1 carriers. Triple-negative cases account for 10 percent to 17 percent of all breast cancers.

In the study, Malone and colleagues looked at a broad range of known and suspected breast cancer risk factors among women 45 years of age and younger, including family history of breast cancer, body mass index, and tobacco and alcohol use; reproductive history, including age at menarche and lactation history; and oral contraceptive use.

”While we do not yet know the mechanism through which oral contraceptive use may affect breast-cancer risk in young women, this research could stimulate new ideas regarding the etiologic pathway for triple-negative disease,” said Jessica Dolle, the study’s first author.

The strong association between birth control use and risk of triple-negative breast cancer observed in this study, coupled with the scarcity of other such studies to date, emphasizes the need for future research and the preliminary nature of these results, Malone said.

The National Institutes of Health funded the study. Co-authors include David Doody and Drs. Janet Daling and Emily White, all of PHS; Dr. Peggy Porter, Human Biology and PHS divisions; and the National Cancer Institute’s Dr. Louise Brinton.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

**Ah yes, the wonderful firehose of information that is the internet… **Just pointing out that no amount of Googling or Wikipedia searching is no substitute for a medical degree. There is a reason that Doctors have to go through so many years of training. I’m willing to bet that more than half of the people on this forum have never set foot in a clinical lab, or even read a primary source research article on the subject to have an objective viewpoint.

Ah, the internet… Look, what I found on the internet (boldings mine):

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2754710/?tool=pubmed

Results

In analyses of all 897 breast cancer cases (subtypes combined), the multivariate-adjusted odds ratios for examined risk factors were consistent with the effects observed in prior studies of younger women (Table 1). Specifically, older age, family history of breast cancer, earlier menarche age, induced abortion, and OC use were associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Risk was decreased in relation to greater number of births and younger age at first birth. OC use ≥1 year was associated with a modest increased risk of breast cancer, and among OC users only, earlier age at first use further elevated the risk.

Upon examination of the same risk factors in cases with (n=187) and without (n=710) TNBC (Table 1), we found that OC use ≥1 year (Pheterogeneity .008), OC duration (Pheterogeneity .02), and years since last OC use (Pheterogeneity .01) conferred significantly different risk estimates by case group, and BMI ≥30 k/m2 was associated with a borderline significant increased risk of TNBC (OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.2) and a non-significant decreased risk of non-TNBC (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.6-1.2) in women of all ages. Upon restriction to women ages 41-45, the risk of TNBC in relation to BMI ≥30 k/m2 was further elevated (OR 2.2, 95% CI .9-5.24) while that of non-TNBC did not change substantively (OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.6; results not presented). OC use ≥1 year was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk of TNBC (95% CI 1.4-4.3) and no significantly increased risk of non-TNBC. Among OC users, risk of TNBC increased with longer duration of OC use (Ptrend .05) and fewer years since last OC use (Ptrend .04), relationships that were absent for non-TNBC. We attempted to disentangle the effect of OC duration versus recency via stratified and adjusted polytomous logistic regression analyses, and found that neither risk factor was a more important determinant of risk.We also examined the effect of OC variables across HER2 and ER defined breast cancer risk to evaluate the influence of each marker separately (Table 2). **We found a 2-fold increased risk of ER-negative breast cancer conferred by OC use ≥1 year (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-2.9), **which differed significantly from the absence of an association with ER-positive breast cancer (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8-1.4; Pheterogeneity .005), as did the risk conferred by OC duration (Pheterogeneity .004) and years since last use (Pheterogeneity <.001). The risk of ER-negative breast cancer increased substantially with longer OC duration (Ptrend .05) and recency of use (Ptrend .02). For all aspects of OC use, risk estimates were far greater for ER- breast cancer than for HER2- breast cancer.

Ever use of OCs was associated with a modest increased risk of HER2-negative disease (OR 1.4, 95% CI 1.1-1.9) and a lower non-statistically significant risk of HER2-positive disease (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.8-1.7). No significant trends across OC use features were observed in relation to the risk of HER2-negative breast cancer, but risk of HER2-positive disease did appear to increase with younger age at first use (Ptrend .05). Heterogeneity between HER2 subtypes was not statistically significant for any OC use variable.Upon further cross-classification by both ER and HER2 (Table 3), we observed significantly elevated risk of breast cancer across all OC variables consistently and almost exclusively in the ER-/HER2- subset; ORs were comparable, only slightly less than those seen in relation to the risk of TNBC. The risk of ER-/HER2- breast cancer increased with longer OC duration (Ptrend .03) and fewer years since last OC use (Ptrend .04). We observed a large degree of heterogeneity between HER2-negative ER subtypes according to OC use ≥ 1 year (Pheterogeneity .01), as well as OC duration (Pheterogeneity <.001) and years since last use (Pheterogeneity <.001).

Finally, we examined the effect of OC use according to TNBC status stratified by age at breast cancer diagnosis ≤40 and 41-45 years (Table 4). Among women 41 to 45 years of age, there was no significantly increased risk of breast cancer for any aspect of OC use, overall and within TNBC-defined subgroups, however we did find significant heterogeneity between the risk of TNBC and non-TNBC according to years since last use (Pheterogeneity .01). Among TNBC cases ≤40 years of age, all risk estimates for OC use variables were approximately two times greater than those in the combined TNBC age group estimates.** In women ≤40 years of age, OC use ≥1 year was associated with an over 4-fold increased risk of TNBC (OR 4.2, 95% CI 1.9-9.3) and no increased risk of non-TNBC (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.7; Pheterogeneity <.001). Also among women ≤40 years of age, we found that the risk of breast cancer overall and of non-TNBC increased with younger age at first use (Ptrend .02 and .04 respectively). **

Before anyone interjects that there was no increased odds ratio of triple-negative breast cancer in women aged 41 to 45 years - there was no increased risk of being shot for resisting Al Capone’s gang after 10 years, too. After more than 10 years, you wouldn’t need to worry anymore about being shot, because you were already dead by then and the gangsters wouldn’t bother to exhumate your dead body and shoot it again.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Here’s more stuff from the internet…

Oh wait, was it written by a doctor?

A doctor saying that birth control pills are bad for you??

americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_pill_and_breast_cancer.html

February 21, 2010
The Pill and Breast Cancer
By Tim Collins, MD

Bad news for women who have been using birth control pills, although you won’t learn about it from the mainstream media. An International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monographs Working Group has concluded that combined estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives and combined estrogen-progestogen menopausal therapy are carcinogenic to humans, after a thorough review of the published scientific evidence*.

IARC is an arm of the World Health Organization with, as they say, “global reach.” Involved in everything from basic research to publication of classification systems for various cancer types, the IARC classifications are the standard of care in the U.S. and elsewhere. IARC statements are accorded great authority. One can imagine that if, in the epigraph, the words “oral contraceptives” were replaced with, say, “peanut butter” or “Republican Party membership,” the political posturing and shouting in the media would never stop.

But we’re talking birth control pills, so the silence is deafening.

Lists of risks associated with BCPs can be found in any medical textbook: heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, and pulmonary emboli. Less lethal but still obnoxious side-effects include depression, headaches, and nausea. Liver cancer is associated with BCP use. Liver cancer is not terribly common, but neither is it rare; the National Cancer Institute estimates that it killed about 5,500 women in 2007[ii]. For comparison, cervical cancer, whose risk is also increased by BCP use, will have claimed the lives of an estimated 3,600 women in the same year. But it is breast cancer that concerns us here. Breast cancer is the second-most common form of malignancy diagnosed in U.S. women (after skin cancer), with NCI estimates of 178,000 new diagnoses and 40,000 deaths. If the amount of money poured into screening programs is any indication, breast cancer is by far the most feared, and most politically volatile, of any malignancy.

Papers have been published for decades suggesting an increased risk of breast cancer in birth control pill users. In 1996, a meta-analysis of the 54 studies in the literature, dating back to 1959, was published in Lancet. There were three principal findings: first, that current or recent users of BCPs had a "slightly increased risk of future breast cancer; second, that the cancers tended to be lower stage (hadn’t spread when diagnosed); and finally, that ten years after cessation of use, risk dropped to baseline[iii]. The National Cancer Institute cites this study on its website, as well as two others. The second study is the 2002 “Woman’s CARE” study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, in which the authors concluded that BCPs conferred no increased risk, period[iv]. Finally, the NCI cites its own 2003 study, concluding that BCP use does increase risk, and the risk is highest in young women who have used the Pill within five years of the cancer diagnosis[v]. The reason for this last finding appears to be that breasts of young women, especially adolescents, are anatomically and physiologically more vulnerable to carcinogens like BCPs because they have not gone through a nine-month pregnancy. Interestingly, the NCI website does not mention the 2005 IARC/WHO statement cited at the header of this paper.

In January 2006, the New England Journal of Medicine published a review article entitled “Estrogen carcinogenesis in breast cancer”[vi]. The authors conclude, “Studies of breast cancer have consistently found an increased risk associated with … the use of oral contraceptives”[vii]. Then, in October, 2006 Mayo Clinic Proceedings published an article that concludes, “Use of [oral contraceptives] is associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer, especially with use before first full-term pregnancy.” However, an editorial in the same issue concluded, “[A]ll risks and benefits of OC use must be considered, not just the risk of breast cancer.” In 2009, another study by the Fred Hutchinson Institute revealed that triple negative breast cancer (TNBC), one of the most lethal types, showed that women who start BCPs before age 18 multiply their risk of TNBC by 3.7 times, and recent users multiply their risk by 4.2 times[viii]. Yet Louise Brinton, one of the co-authors of this and numerous other studies demonstrating increased rates of breast cancer in young women taking oral contraceptives, is a researcher at the NCI and chief organizer of a 2003 symposium on breast cancer and reproductive events in young women that failed to mention this connection.

Which brings us to the crux of the issue. There is evidence that birth control pills, especially when used by young women, increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer[ix]. Given that we’re talking about the most widely used class of drugs on the planet, and one of the commonest forms of malignancy in women, the implications are not trivial. But the spin of the medical establishment, as well as cancer charities including the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, and Susan Komen Foundation, is to push these findings under the rug.

continued…
*

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

…continued from American Thinker:

Is it because our entire culture is organized around contraception and its twisted sister, abortion? Justice Sandra Day O’Connor recognized the central position of contraception (and abortion) to our way of life fifteen years ago when she said, “For two decades, people have organized intimate relationships … in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail”[x].

Taking away BCPs would be like taking away air. And yet, I think there are people out there who would like to know of this information. To borrow phrasing from the homepage of the Coalition on Abortion/Breast Cancer, not all women with breast cancer used birth control pills, and not all women who have used birth control pills will develop breast cancer. But BCP use appears to be a risk factor – an avoidable risk factor – in the development of breast cancer, and I think that’s worth knowing[xi].

 

[MedStudent]

And you can also find research articles that say the contrary:

*Marchbanks, P. A., McDonald, J. A., Wilson, H. G., Folger, S. G., Mandel, M. G., Daling, J. R., et al. (2002). Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 346(26), 2025.

Most up-to-date information on oral contraceptives (OCs) and breast cancer risk comes from a collaborative re-analysis of individual data on 53 297 cases and 100 239 controls. It is now established that there is a moderately increased breast cancer risk among current OC users, which tends to level off in the few years after stopping use. With regard to cervical cancer, OC use has been found to be associated with increased risk in human papilloma virus-positive women. With reference to the well known protective effects of OCs against endometrial carcinogenesis, additional information has suggested a consistent protection across types of OCs used. Further data on ovarian cancer confirm that the protection of OCs is long lasting, and may well be observed 15 to 20 years after stopping use. Several studies have suggested an inverse relationship between use of OCs and risk of colorectal cancer, and in a meta-analysis of published data the pooled relative risk of colorectal cancer for OC ever-use was 0.82 (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 0.97). There was no association with duration of use. The increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma in the absence of hepatitis B viruses is the only established evidence of a direct association between OC use and cancer risk, which led an International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group to classify OCs as carcinogenic to humans in 1998*

I am not arguing that OC are a good thing or that laypersons are incapable of accessing information through the internet.
My point is this:
It is not in the interest of the general public to rely solely on their own research gathered from the annals of the internet. There is a reason that OC’s have not been discontinued. Yes there are risked associated with the drugs, and yes they can be bad. But so can any of the horrible chemicals that are in our environment and in our food today. Doctors and other medical professionals are trained to weigh risks and benefits of drugs and medical procedures. When a bodily system is going haywire, be it our immune system, heart, eyes, or reproductive system, we go to professionals to look for the best solution. I say the **best **solution and not the **perfect **solution. There may never be a perfect solution, because there are always risks when meddling with drugs and procedures.
When someone goes to an Opthamalogist to fix a cataract, they will have to go through surgery to get it removed. And guess what? One of the risks of undergoing that kind of surgery is permanent blindness.
I remember going to have my wisdom teeth removed, and being throughly creeped out by the waver that I had to sign, the potential complications for that procedure are ridiculous. Believe me. But I had to remember that at that point I was not trained to determine whether or not the procedure is actually safe, and a certain level of trust has to be in place with the professionals. They know when the risks outweigh benefits.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…
My point is this:
It is not in the interest of the general public to rely solely on their own research gathered from the annals of the internet. There is a reason that OC’s have not been discontinued. Yes there are risked associated with the drugs, and yes they can be bad. But so can any of the horrible chemicals that are in our environment and in our food today. Doctors and other medical professionals are trained to weigh risks and benefits of drugs and medical procedures. When a bodily system is going haywire, be it our immune system, heart, eyes, or reproductive system, we go to professionals to look for the best solution… and a certain level of trust has to be in place with the professionals. They know when the risks outweigh benefits.

Hi MedStudent,

I agree with you people needing to use caution in obtaining medical information from the internet. Forum rules here at CAF prevent us from giving medical advice. However, I wish to highlight what you wrote that we go to professionals when a bodily system is going “haywire”.

The title of this thread specifically is about artificial contraception. Contraception attempts to prevent healty bodies from doing what healthy women’s bodies typically do. Pregnancy is a natural and normal result of sexual activity between a man and woman. Contraception treats pregnancy and fertility as a disease.

Almost all medications come in pill form, but oral contraception are prescribed by doctors to the extent that people refer to oral contraception as “The Pill.” It is usually prescribed to healthy women for the spefic purpose of contraception, (aka making a fertile woman infertile, at least temporarily.) The same chemicals used by many women as contraception (to intentionally avoid pregnancy and disrupt the natural results of intercourse) can be ethically used as medications by other women. When used as a medication, it may have the unfortunate side effect of making a woman temporarily infertile. Taking medication specifically for its negative side effects is warped. The problem for vast majority of women and doctors is* not* that women’s body systems have gone haywire, but our cultural understanding of sexuality has gone haywire.

The misunderstanding of sexuality breeds the contraceptive mentality, which grows into the Culture of Death.

I pray that when you finish medical school, that you use your skills for Life. Help keep healthy women healthy, make unhealthy people healthy and try to provide comfort. In other words, if you need to prescribe hormones, please never prescribe them for the specific purpose of contraception.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

And you can also find research articles that say the contrary:

*Marchbanks, P. A., McDonald, J. A., Wilson, H. G., Folger, S. G., Mandel, M. G., Daling, J. R., et al. (2002). Oral contraceptives and the risk of breast cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 346(26), 2025. *

Yeah, that’s reference No. iv. in the American Thinker article - see full list of references below. But how about the conclusions of the IARC Monographs Working group? They surely were aware of the paper in the N. England J. Med., along with many other studies that came to a conclusion contrary with Marchbanks et al? Why did the IARC Monographs Working Group come to the conclusion that combined estrogen-progesterone oral contraceptives are carcinogenic? Surely the recommendations of the IARC and the WHO cannot be easily dismissed? (IARC = International Agency for Research on Cancer; WHO = World Health Organization)

How about the Lancet article of 1996, which is a meta-analysis of 54 epidemiological studies on the influence of hormonal contraceptives on breast cancer?

How about increasing a young woman’s risk of triple-negative breast cancer 4-5-fold, through the use of oral contraceptives? That increase in risk is on a par with the influence of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, which are the most sinister genetic risk factors for breast cancer discovered so far! And even the overall risk of breast cancers as a whole is increased more than 2-fold according to the Malone study, not only the particularly aggressive triple-negative phenotype! Should a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers, and a slight and marginal decrease of colorectal cancer give us peace of mind, when in fact breast cancer is the most prevalent cancer and second biggest killer (behind lung cancer) of women, and when those other cancers against which the pill has a protective effect rank behind breast cancer in women, regarding both morbidity and mortality? Even if the pill would totally eliminate the occurrence of ovarian and endometrial cancers (which it doesn’t in reality), the damage done by a more than 2-fold increased prevalence of breast cancer would outweigh the benefits. And hepatocellular and cervical cancers are also increased by the pill, according to other studies. However, the connection between the pill and breast cancers, alone, is serious enough to dwarf all other factors and to warrant the issuing of a carcinogen warning for the pill.

americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_pill_and_breast_cancer.html

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

As a Catholic I’m worried about a free and objective discussion of the Pill’s risks and side-effects not in relation to birth control, but rather in relation to other medical indications that we Catholics regard as morally permissible. In other words, a Catholic will refrain anyway from the pill as a birth control form not because it increases the risk of breast cancer, but because the use of the Pill is immoral according to the teaching of the Catholic Church. But there are other uses, such as against heavy menstrual cycles and even against acne, which are not forbidden on moral grounds to a Catholic. The question becomes, do the benefits of controlling menstrual bleeding, or acnes, outweigh the increased risks of breast cancer? And can we even expect an objective debate in the medical community, regarding the risks and benefits of the Pill?