If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#141
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Cathy Weeks wrote: wrote: Amy wrote: Hell, if reversals were easier, I'd have him get one now, and we could reverse it when it's time for the spare. I kind of wish they could install a little faucet on 'em, so if we want the swimmers on, they're on, and if we want 'em off, they're off. Hot and cold running sperm. Hahhaa... You mean they should install a stopcock? ;-) Helen, You just made my whole evening. That was HILARIOUS! I even read it to my husband and he thought it was pretty funny too. Thanks! I have to admit, while I did originate that pun as far as I know, the first time I made it was over twenty years ago, during a similar conversation back in college ;-) --Helen |
#142
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Circe wrote: What have you heard? IUDs got a really bad reputation back in the 1970s due to a bad product called the Dalkon shield. There is a small risk of infection immediately following insertion, but that seems to be quite rare. Other than that, I think that IUDs generally cause fewer health problems for women than BC pills. Ok. And certainly it seems bc pills are risky, esp. as women age. My point is only that there are good reasons for a couple to choose vasectomy over either. trifold www.vasectomy-information.com |
#143
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Cathy Weeks wrote: I think you should probably trust numbers from an independent website. Mirena says it's more effective by a very slight margin, than vasectomy. 99.9% effective, as opposed to 99.85% for V, and 98-99.2% for a copper T. So I suspect that looking at a website that isn't skewed toward one type or another is a good thing to do. ;-) Cathy Weeks Any report of vasectomy effectiveness needs to be looked at closely for what it measures exactly. Does it look at reported incidences of vasectomy failure caught at the time the semen is checked or at pregnancies in women whose partners have been vasectomized? In the former case, this is not a very serious form of failure, because no harm is done, and the vasectomy procedure can be repeated. In the latter case, does the study distinguish between pregnancies following certification of the man's sterility and pregnancies occuring before certification? (Many men fail to have their semen tested after vasectomy, despite warnings, so this is potentially a major cause of vasectomy "failure.") Likewise, does it distinguish between pregancies post vasectomy that have been confirmed as caused by the vasectomized man and those in which the poolboy may have played a role? One nice feature of vasectomy is that its effectiveness can be easily confirmed by regular semen checks. In the case of many other forms of bc, including tubal ligation, as I understand it, an unwanted pregnancy is the only sign. trifold www.vasectomy-information.com |
#144
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
In ,
Catherine Woodgold wrote: *"Circe" ) writes: * What have you heard? IUDs got a really bad reputation back in the 1970s due * to a bad product called the Dalkon shield. There is a small risk of * infection immediately following insertion, but that seems to be quite rare. * Other than that, I think that IUDs generally cause fewer health problems for * women than BC pills. * *My understanding is that all IUD's involve something that can be *called infection. The uterus is normally free of bacteria, but *there is a zone around an IUD which contains bacteria. The zone *can vary in size and shape and type of tissue penetrated. Can you please provide me some sort of medical reference for this? Some sites which suggest that your statement is incorrect: http://personalhealthzone.healtholog...zone/15450.htm "As with all IUD's, there is a small risk - about 1 in 1000 - of infection associated with the Mirena insertion. This is because the vagina, like the mouth, is colonized with bacteria. If these bacteria gain access to the normally sterile uterine cavity during IUD insertion, infection may result. The risk of infection persists for about 6 weeks after the insertion. For this reason, your doctor cleanses the cervix with antiseptic prior to the insertion, and may delay the procedure until any existing vaginal infection is cleared. To try to prevent infection, some doctors prescribe antibiotics at the time of IUD insertion. But this may not be necessary for women with low risk of sexually transmitted diseases, as this practice has not been found to decrease their risk of infection." unless you are talking about the bacteria on the tail of the IUD itself? I agree that there are bacteria there... but I wouldn't call that a zone around the IUD in the uterus! See: http://www.aafp.org/afp/981200ap/canavan.html There has been concern that the presence of a tail provides an avenue by which vaginal pathogens can ascend into the upper genital tract. Electron microscopy has shown that a coating builds on the tail during 12 to 14 months of use.25 This coating is usually thin and contains mostly mucus, and cellular and bacterial debris. The intrauterine portion of the IUD rarely contains any live bacteria. However, as the coating becomes thicker, bacteria can be found on the tail within the uterus and on the device itself.24 Some have theorized that, compared with the earlier multifilament tail, the monofilament tail is associated with far less risk of ascending infection because the total surface of the tail is exposed to the cervical mucus, which is believed to have protective properties against ascending infection.25 This theory is consistent with studies showing that the Dalkon Shield presented a greater risk of ascending infection because its multifilament tail had far less exposure to the cervical mucus.5 -- Hillary Israeli, VMD Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." --Groucho Marx |
#145
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
In ,
Catherine Woodgold wrote: *Well, maybe getting pregnant on the IUD is much scarier than *getting pregant with a vasectomy. The complications for the baby *can be rather horrible. Might be a reason it would be *talked about more. Assuming you're not talking about ectopic pregnancy (the risk of which is increased with IUD) or miscarriage secondary to an attempt to continue the pregnancy with the IUD in place or secondary to the IUD being removed.... what complications for the baby are you talking about?? I can't think of any complication I would call a horrible complication *for the baby* other than never getting to be born... -- Hillary Israeli, VMD Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is too dark to read." --Groucho Marx |
#146
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
wrote: I don't know of anybody is listening, but nice post. Thank you! All the best, Sarah -- http://www.goodenoughmummy.blogspot.com But how do we _know_ that nobody ever said on their deathbed that they wished they'd spent more time at the office? |
#147
|
|||
|
|||
Vasectomy (was Birth Control)
Amy wrote: It IS reversible, you know. Reversal is even covered by some insurance. I didn't see this when I first posted to the thread, or I would have replied to it then. Vasectomy is reversible in much the same way that falling out of a plane sans parachute is survivable: It's an outcome that's been known to happen, but it's an extremely bad idea to get into that situation on the assumption that you can count on that outcome. Vasectomy reversals have something like a 50% success rate at best, depending on all sorts of factors (the length of time since operation, the amount of tubing snipped, the skill of the surgeon, the phase of the moon....) _No_ man can guarantee that he's going to be in that 50%-or-less if he ever does decide to go for reversal. Any man who does not feel confident that he never wants to father another child should not be going for vasectomy on the basis that it can be reversed. I would refuse to refer a patient for vasectomy if they felt this way. What you and your husband decide about birth control is your business (though do note that that's the plural 'your', not the singular), but if your decision is based on the belief that it doesn't really matter if he wants more children at any stage in the future because he can always just get a reversal, then your facts are simply wrong. All the best, Sarah |
#148
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
What sort of birth control are you other nursing moms on?
I'm on Ortho-Micronor but I don't like it. I don't get a period, and I am just sure that I'm going to start showing any minute now because I've gotten pregnant again and don't realize it. I tried on a skirt yesterday that's a little tight (odd, because I'm smaller now than I was pre-pregnancy) and I flipped out that I might be PG again! ACK!!! I am SO not ready. (It's probably just the X-mas cookies, I've been so bad). My doc wouldn't give me a diaphragm - he said that he hadn't fitted anyone for one in 4 years, and that "no one" uses them anymore! Birth control is now, apparently, subject to peer pressure. He said I could have the shot or the pill. Well, I fear the shot because I've had menstrual migraines in the past, and the shot can cause migraines, and I don't want to put something in my body that lasts for 3 months that could give me migraines, with no way of getting rid of it! Yikes. I've noticed that the sponge is back on the market, and between that and nursing I'd probably be pretty well covered, but it would be expensive (not covered by insurance). Is there a patch that's ok while nursing? Friends of mine have had good success with the patch. I find myself forgetting pills, because I'm more worried about the baby than myself at bedtime. I want something easy, don't we all. WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO COME OUT WITH A PATCH FOR MEN?!?!?! Thanks! Amy I haven't had sex since I was pregnant! That's nearly 2 1/2 years! WOW! But, when I'm ready I think I'll have to get something that doesn't cause weightgain. My girlfriend had an IUD put in (I had no idea they still made them). She's quite happy. I think that having something like that inside of me might make me feel strange. Perhaps I should sit down with my gyn and discuss current options. Until I shed the 40lbs I have gained, I doubt sex will be an issue for me. ~Carol Ann |
#149
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Carol Ann skrev:
I haven't had sex since I was pregnant! That's nearly 2 1/2 years! WOW! But, when I'm ready I think I'll have to get something that doesn't cause weightgain. My girlfriend had an IUD put in (I had no idea they still made them). She's quite happy. It's one of the most popular BC methods in Denmark, where I live. The hormonal ones reduce your period to nearly nothing. I have a normal one. It has been my favorite means of contraception since I was 17. Pills aren't that favored here. I think that having something like that inside of me might make me feel strange. Perhaps I should sit down with my gyn and discuss current options. I don't feel strange. Pregnancy, on the other hand, that's weird :-) It took me months not to feel like I had an alien inside. Tine, Denmark |
#150
|
|||
|
|||
Birth Control
Carol Ann wrote: Until I shed the 40lbs I have gained, I doubt sex will be an issue for me. My husband is tall, dark, and handsome, a black belt in jujitsu, a former Eagle Scout, a rocket scientist (seriously), and the most moral, honest, kind, wonderful person I know. He's the sort who can't live in a big city because we'd go broke taking all of the beggars out for lunch all the time (he has done this more than once - he doesn't just hand them a buck, he takes them to the nearest restaurant and buys them food). He is the most gentle, sweet, wonderful person. My best friend says that he's an alien, because no man could possibly be so handsome, smart, kind, and good all in one package. And he's great in bed. And when I married him, I was 5 foot 4 and weighed 200 pounds. I've had a baby since - and I haven't gotten any taller. I'll let you do the math. It's all about the inside honey. Those 40 pounds are only a problem if you believe that they are. Amy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Feeling a big anxious about induction vs. c-section | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 66 | September 29th 05 04:07 PM |
Medical Illustrators to the rescue! (I hope) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | April 21st 04 05:54 PM |
Why my baby? Attorneys trolling bad births - GOOD...UBPN silence - BAD... | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | March 14th 04 11:13 PM |
Arnold! (also: Channeling Gastaldo) (also: chiros/SACA/WFC) (also: Warning about usenet MDs) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | October 9th 03 09:21 PM |
Birth spikes (Do Jamaican women birth on their butts/backs?) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | July 23rd 03 06:59 PM |