Thursday, November 02, 2006

Birth Control

When I met my husband, I wasn't on birth control of any kind. The last time I had been on the pill, I was in my 20's and don't remember having any problems with it. But now as a 30-something smoker, I was really reluctant to subject myself to the long list of dangerous side-effects. (Yeah, don't say it, I know....smoking has a list of its own.)

I asked my doctor what my options were and they suggested an IUD. It's just a tiny T-shaped piece of copper and filament placed in the uterus. It costs only 250.00 and lasts for 10-12 years. No side-effects. Nothing to remember to do. And it can be taken out at any time in the event the woman wants to conceive.

With this option, why on earth do women put themselves at risk with hormone options?
If I hadn't asked my gynecologist, I wouldn't have even known the IUD was an option.
It's the perfect solution and over time, much more cost-effective than the pill or patch. I get the feeling that this safer option isn't being advertised more aggressively because no one is making any serious money from it.

I was reminded again why I'm glad I'm not on the pill when I read this:

Women Sue Over Patch

2 comments:

CLG said...

Many, many years ago...the early '80s?...there were also class actions over the IUD. They were specific to the Dalkon Shield, which is obviously no longer on the market. But it did leave a lot of lingering doubt over the safety of IUDs in general. But IUDs are incredibly safe now, thanks in part to the dangers exposed during that litigation.

firstimpressionist said...

Yeah, that's what my doctor told me. There was a reluctancy on her part to bring up the IUD choice, because she seemed to be bracing for a negative reaction from me. Once she saw I was interested, she explained how safe and effective they are now. I just wish more people were aware of this option. I hate seeing otherwise healthy women suffering from heart attacks, blood clots and a host of other negative side effects for no good reason.