Menstrual Suppression

[Gisella]

I’m not married.

 

[seekerz]

Every drug has side-effects, and every drug has risks. If a medical doctor told you this drug comes with no risks, he or she was either woefully ignorant, or telling a fib. It is a commonly known fact that prescription drug companies offer nice perks to doctors for prescribing their drugs. I know one doc, for instance, who got box seats to the Houston Astros baseball games for promoting a particular drug. Some doctors even get trips to Hawaii. Can we say “conflict of interest?”

If your doctor will not tell you about the risks and side-effects of this drug, you can be sure your pharmacist will. Ask him or her, and also read the material that comes with the prescription. Seasonale is a very new drug, which means it hasn’t been tried and proven the way some older drugs have. Many of the downsides have yet to be discovered, but you can be sure there are some. There’s a reason they call these hormones “artificial” … they’re not natural.

Also, I know you are new to the forums (welcome!), so you may not be aware that Catholics have a very, very different position on contraception. In short, we believe that to contracept willfully, or without a serious, valid medical reason, is a sin so grave that it can eternally separate one from God. Now, the original poster has not mentioned in this thread whether or not she is married, but if she is, she will need to think carefully (even better – talk to her priest) about whether using contraception (potentially one that could cause an early abortion, though I don’t know for sure) for the sake of athletics constitutes a serious medical reason. As you can probably tell from many previous posts, lots of us don’t think it does.

Seems to me the doctor said that there were no risks to menstrual suppression i.e. there is no harm in not having monthly periods - not that there were no risks with the drug. There are risks with everything and as adults we each have to decide which type and how much risk we are exposing ourselves to.

 

[hasikelee]

As far as I know, and have discussed this type of medication with many Obstetricians/Gynecologists, there are no physical risks to menstrual suppression. “Seasonale” allows for 4 cycles per year. Talk to your doctor about the physical risks and side effects.

I hope you find a new doctor!

Seasonale contains two female hormones that prevent ovulation (the release of an egg from an ovary). It also causes changes in your cervical mucus and uterine lining, making it harder for sperm to reach the uterus and harder for a fertilized egg to attach.

Seasonale is used as contraception to prevent [pregnancy (http://www.drugs.com/seasonale.html#).
Seasonale may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.

**Get emergency medical help if you have any of these signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficulty breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat. Call your doctor at once if you have any of these serious side effects: **

• sudden numbness or weakness, especially on one side of the body;
• sudden headache, confusion, pain behind the eyes, problems with vision, speech, or balance;
• chest pain or heavy feeling, pain spreading to the arm or shoulder, nausea, sweating, general ill feeling;
• a change in the pattern or severity of migraine headaches;
• nausea, [stomach pain (http://www.drugs.com/seasonale.html#), low fever, loss of appetite, dark urine, jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes);
• swelling in your hands, ankles, or feet; or
• symptoms of depression (sleep problems, weakness, mood changes).

Less serious side effects may include:

• mild nausea, vomiting, [bloating (http://www.drugs.com/seasonale.html#), stomach cramps;
• breast pain, tenderness, or swelling;
• freckles or darkening of facial skin;
• increased hair growth, loss of scalp hair;
• changes in weight or appetite;
• problems with [contact lenses (http://www.drugs.com/seasonale.html#);
• vaginal itching or discharge;
• changes in your menstrual periods, decreased sex drive; or
• headache, nervousness, dizziness, tired feeling.

This is not a complete list of Seasonale side effects and others may occur. Tell your doctor about any unusual or bothersome side effect. drugs.com/seasonale.html

 

[Pong]

Ok, let me get this. Putting all of the potential side effects of any drug aside for just a moment:

What some of you are saying is that this poor girl’s trying to relieve or eliminate a physical problem that is interfering with her life is bordering on a moral wrong simply because it’s her period?! Whatever next? Clearly the OP isn’t wanting the BC pill for contraceptive reasons… where is the moral problem? Following the “periods are a gift from God line” logic, sufferers of any malady should not seek treatment because, afterall, migraines are a gift from God. I’ve seen some pretty wacky moral judgement on these forums, but this takes it!

 

[Em_in_FL]

Ok, let me get this. Putting all of the potential side effects of any drug aside for just a moment:

What some of you are saying is that this poor girl’s trying to relieve or eliminate a physical problem that is interfering with her life is bordering on a moral wrong simply because it’s her period?! Whatever next? Clearly the OP isn’t wanting the BC pill for contraceptive reasons… where is the moral problem? Following the “periods are a gift from God line” logic, sufferers of any malady should not seek treatment because, afterall, migraines are a gift from God. I’ve seen some pretty wacky moral judgement on these forums, but this takes it!

If the periods were a “medical problem” then it would be morally permissible… but “interfering with swimming in a pool” isn’t a “medical problem”.

If she would want to take BC pills just for the convenience (not “medical problem”) of avoiding her period… you’re right… there is no major moral issue there… but it is borderline.

Do the ends justify the means?
Is taking a pill that could have serious side effects worth the convenience? A convenience that could be achieved by other means - tampons - which would have less side effects overall.
It’s a good question…

 

[surfinpure]

I’ve seen some pretty wacky moral judgement on these forums, but this takes it!

Pong,

You don’t have to agree with us on the forums, but you do have to be respectful.

Em_in_FL answered your post very well. A period is not a physical malady, like a migraine. It is a natural, regular, God-given bodily process. Treating menstruation as a disease is just a step before treating pregnancy as a disease. That’s a dangerous line of thinking.

In case you have not read the multiple earlier posts listing the harmful, sometimes irreversible side-effects of the Pill, the moral argument does not lie simply in the suppression of menstruation, but in doing lasting physical harm to one’s body for the sake of mere convenience.

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. Some college students might find it helpful not to have to bother with that inconvenient daily interruption we call “sleep.” Say there was a legal drug (indeed, there are many illegal ones) that could allow a person sleep only once in an entire week. Think of all the studying a kid could do! Think of the great fun he could have on the weekends! Surely this would be a wonderful breakthrough in medicine, to allow a person an extra eight hours of productivity each day, right? But there are some side-effects to consider. The anti-sleep drug would deplete the body’s supply of serotonin, mess with the nervous system, make it hard to resume sleeping once off the drug (for some, they would never sleep again until taking a sleep-inducing medication), and also carry the risks of heart attack, blood clots, stroke, liver damage, and sudden death.

Now. Could you see any potential moral problems with taking such a drug? Remember – it’s highly convenient!

 

[Gisella]

If the periods were a “medical problem” then it would be morally permissible… but “interfering with swimming in a pool” isn’t a “medical problem”.

If she would want to take BC pills just for the convenience (not “medical problem”) of avoiding her period… you’re right… there is no major moral issue there… but it is borderline.

Do the ends justify the means?
Is taking a pill that could have serious side effects worth the convenience? A convenience that could be achieved by other means - tampons - which would have less side effects overall.
It’s a good question…

I can’t use tampons. Anyway, IMO opinion tampons are riskier(toxic shock) and more unnatural. I don’t believe it’s a good idea have a foreign object up there for long periods.

 

[Em_in_FL]

I can’t use tampons. Anyway, IMO opinion tampons are riskier(toxic shock) and more unnatural. I don’t believe it’s a good idea have a foreign object up there for long periods.

Okay, then nix the tampons…
But if you’re going to argue on the basis of being “natural”… the pill isn’t the best place to start!

 

[Gisella]

Okay, then nix the tampons…
But if you’re going to argue on the basis of being “natural”… the pill isn’t the best place to start!

I don’t care about being completely natural. I think God has given us the ability to find ways around life’s problems(reading glasses, epidurals, just about all prescription drugs, etc.). As long as we don’t use this ability to do evil, I don’t see the big deal. I just think tampons are too much for me.

 

[surfinpure]

Does the church have a position on the morality of suppressing periods for months or years? I’m an athlete and considering using a new birth control pill to prevent my period from coming at bad times. I’m under the impression that it’s ok to use the pill for non-contraceptive reasons, but I was just wondering if menstrual suppression itself is against church teaching.

This was your original question. Since it is specifically about Church law, I would suggest calling the Catholic Answers apologist hotline and speaking directly to an expert.

The best I am able to tell you here is that, while I know of no such official position on using the Pill for menstrual suppression, I do know the Church forbids mutilation, or an act that impairs a function of the body for no medical reason. Since menstruation is not a medical ailment, but a natural function (see earlier posts), causing potential harm to one’s body in order to cease menstruating certainly seems to border on mutilation.

Several of us have gone to quite a bit of trouble to post the side-effects and risks of the Pill. They are not to be taken lightly. I think it is safe to say that if one knowingly uses a drug that causes reproductive damage, and uses it for recreational purposes only, then the act could well be a sin. Our bodies are sacred. They are not to be risked for the sake of our own pleasure. Engaging in risky behavior, such as taking a risky drug so one can have more “fun,” is treating the body cheaply.

If you are concerned about the risk of toxic shock syndrome, you ought to be just as concerned with the long list of side-effects and risks we have posted.

 

[Gisella]

Several of us have gone to quite a bit of trouble to post the side-effects and risks of the Pill. They are not to be taken lightly. I think it is safe to say that if one knowingly uses a drug that causes reproductive damage, and uses it for recreational purposes only, then the act could well be a sin. Our bodies are sacred. They are not to be risked for the sake of our own pleasure. Engaging in risky behavior, such as taking a risky drug so one can have more “fun,” is treating the body cheaply.

If you are concerned about the risk of toxic shock syndrome, you ought to be just as concerned with the long list of side-effects and risks we have posted.

The problem is that every time I go to a non-biased medical site(web md for example) it says that the pill does not harm future fertility. It also says that for every potential risk(even though low) of the pill is a potential benefit(reduced risk of ovarian cancer for example). I was wondering about the moral implications not the side effects.

 

[aurora77]

The problem is that every time I go to a non-biased medical site(web md for example) it says that the pill does not harm future fertility. It also says that for every potential risk(even though low) of the pill is a potential benefit(reduced risk of ovarian cancer for example). I was wondering about the moral implications not the side effects.

But the side effects are real. I had a major liver tumor develop from my use of the pill, which, if left alone, would likely have become cancerous. This is one of the side effects listed, though it comes with a statement like “liver cancer is rare, so this isn’t really important.” I’m being cynical, I know, but that was basically the implication, that this is something that doesn’t need to be considered.

I realize I am just one person (now I really can say I’m one in a million ), but my experience has led me to take seriously all those warnings on medications. My doctor never went over all of this with me, and I went on the assumption that since the use of the pill is so common, it must be safe. Stupidest thing I’ve ever done in my life. I’m just greatful that it didn’t cost me my life. God was very good to me.

Please, speak with a priest about the possible moral issues here, and read ALL possible side effects, and pray over this.

 

[surfinpure]

The problem is that every time I go to a non-biased medical site(web md for example) it says that the pill does not harm future fertility. It also says that for every potential risk(even though low) of the pill is a potential benefit(reduced risk of ovarian cancer for example). I was wondering about the moral implications not the side effects.

I understand. However, as I posted earlier, when I looked more closely at the “non-biased” websites (indeed, I’m not sure how non-biased they are at all) I discovered their research about the harm to future fertility usually only covered ovulation. The NFP websites studied the other aspects of fertility, and found that the Pill can cause irreparable damage to the cervix and diminishes mucus supply. Why didn’t the “non-biased” organizations study this? I can’t answer for them, but I suspect either they know very little of fertility (not too likely) or else they have an agenda (rather likely).

The moral implications are in the side effects. Harming one’s body for the sake of “fun” isn’t what you might call morally sound.

 

[hasikelee]

Ok, let me get this. Putting all of the potential side effects of any drug aside for just a moment:

What some of you are saying is that this poor girl’s trying to relieve or eliminate a physical problem that is interfering with her life is bordering on a moral wrong simply because it’s her period?! Whatever next? Clearly the OP isn’t wanting the BC pill for contraceptive reasons… where is the moral problem? Following the “periods are a gift from God line” logic, sufferers of any malady should not seek treatment because, afterall, migraines are a gift from God. I’ve seen some pretty wacky moral judgement on these forums, but this takes it!

A woman’s menstrual cycle is not a malady. It is an important process of proper body functioning. If her bodily function was not working properly, then it would be morally and medically correct to attempt to resolve the problem.

Wanting to use a permanent hormonal replacement therapy for the few hours of swimming does not appear to be a medically smart or morally appropriate reason for birth control.

Furthermore, as more scientists and doctors continue to research womens’ reproductive health, the idea that birth control pills are a quick cure all is becoming less and less scientifically founded. Besides simply wearing a tampon for the hour or two she is in the pool, the OP has numerous other remedies, treatments, pills, exercises and dietary changes to try before resorting to a one-size-fits-all chemical cocktail.

 

[hasikelee]

The problem is that every time I go to a non-biased medical site(web md for example) it says that the pill does not harm future fertility. It also says that for every potential risk(even though low) of the pill is a potential benefit(reduced risk of ovarian cancer for example). I was wondering about the moral implications not the side effects.

I encourage you to continue studying. Start with the websites of those who produce the birth control pills themselves.

WebMD is an interesting site, but try to look into medical journals as well. Also, perusing a human biology textbook can give you a good foundation.

The moral implications in regards to birth control pills being related to sexuality appear to be nil in this situation, as you are not engaging in sexual intercourse. Still, the effects of replacing your hormones with synthetic hormones for reprieve during a swim meet calls into question the moral situation of properly caring for your body.

And, on a separate note, do you have another reason for looking to birth control in this case? Putting aside morals, medical information, scandal etc…do you by chance have insurance that makes these pills free? Are you considering Seasonale? I thought that was very expensive…definitely more expensive than one box of super-nice tampons.

And remember, even with Seasonale you will still have breakthrough bleeding. Unless you tamper/time the pills, you could coincidentally bleed during your swim meet. If you don’t choose Seasonale, the other birth control pills have monthly breakthrough bleeding. In fact, a lot of girls believe this is still their monthly period. That defeats things a bit…

 

[Pong]

Pong,

You don’t have to agree with us on the forums, but you do have to be respectful.

Do not attempt to scold me as if I am a child. There was nothing in my previous post that was disrespectful in the slightest. I am free to think moral judgements on any given topic are wacky as you are free to disagree. Such is the nature of an internet forum.