"Mirena" (Birth Control)=Pro-Marriage Agenda?

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:37 PM
link   
Being in a stable, mutually monogamous relationship doesn't necessarily mean marriage, so I don't see how the commercial is advocating marriage.




posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   
reply to post by ANoNyMiKE
 




The pill is widely considered to be a liberating development in the women's rights movement. Let me get this straight; your argument is how it's presented as a "cure" for a natural function. While condoms are somewhat of a "utility" that not only protects you from disease on top of pregnancy but also enhances your experience? Condoms are associated with pleasure, sex and safety; BC is associated with preventing pregnancy.


Condoms enhancing sexual experience? thats probably the funniest thing ive ever heard haha

That wasnt a dig at you btw. I do agree thats how condoms are marketed. Out right false advertising if i ever heard it!



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by clearlight808
Greetings,
first post here......

I have to agree with a hostile me that this is just the company covering their butts.
Its their way of saying :"Do NOT confuse this with a condom"
as some people might actually be naive enough to confuse birth "protection" for STD "protection.

Thas said, i think theres is a definite agenda going on against sex outside of marriage by the christian right "kooks".

For instance , while there is a vaccine against HPV, i hear a lot of evangelicals that are against it , even for their own daughters. Thats essentially saying :"If she has sex outside of marriage, she gets what she gets (HPV/CANCER?STD PREGNANCY ETC..."

They WANT there to be consequences to sex , be it death or pregnancy.

Just my two cents. Hope i stepped on no toes as this is my first post on this forum.

[edit on 28-9-2008 by clearlight808]


Yeah, same here. It's kinda like those cardboard car shades they used to have that you put in the window when you didn't have any shade to park in. On the back of each and every one it stated "Do not drive with shade in place." Just doing the ole' CYA


That being said, last December, I went to my doctor to get an IUD after my son was born. I asked him about Mirena, and he totally brushed me off and claimed that some of his patients objected to Mirena because it can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, and they felt this would be like having an abortion. He then recommended I get Paraguard. Fine, no problem, I wasn't sure I wanted the hormones anyway, and it stays in place for 10 years instead of 5.

I just always wondered why he seemed to be discouraging me from using Mirena on the basis of pro-life vs. pro choice. Is he pro life and imposing his decision on me? Or, does he just not make a practice of recommending Mirena because many of his patients feel that way? Kinda peeved me after the fact, you know?



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by gammahelixx
Being in a stable, mutually monogamous relationship doesn't necessarily mean marriage, so I don't see how the commercial is advocating marriage.



The commercial didn't outright say marriage--but the way that it was filmed strongly implied that it was for married women only. (I couldn't find an actual video of it.)



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by chickenshoes

That being said, last December, I went to my doctor to get an IUD after my son was born. I asked him about Mirena, and he totally brushed me off and claimed that some of his patients objected to Mirena because it can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, and they felt this would be like having an abortion. He then recommended I get Paraguard. Fine, no problem, I wasn't sure I wanted the hormones anyway, and it stays in place for 10 years instead of 5.

I just always wondered why he seemed to be discouraging me from using Mirena on the basis of pro-life vs. pro choice. Is he pro life and imposing his decision on me? Or, does he just not make a practice of recommending Mirena because many of his patients feel that way? Kinda peeved me after the fact, you know?


How rude of your doctor, Chicken. No medical professional should act like that and still call himself "professional."

Especially since it seems that in your case he was hiding behind his patients--if *he* doesn't approve of Mirena then he should come out and say that that is *his* opinion.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I think you're looking into this too much. I'm pretty sure ANY IUD will carry the "only in a monogamous relationship" warning as sleeping with several partners who are also sleeping with several increases your chances of getting an STD exponentially. Contracting an STD with an IUD in place can then lead to a more serious infection that can lead to many many problems including infertility. The company is just covering themselves legally because as we're all aware some dumba** out there will contract PID and try to sue them. Don't be so quick to say that the population is smart enough to know that an IUD or other birth control won't prevent STD's...it happens everyday.

Michelle



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Warning: a little off topic, re my last post:

Yeah, I like him, but he has definitely had his professionalism issues.


One time, on my first visit back with him when I got pregnant with my son, I was due to get my annual anyway. He lifted up the little paper sheet to look and says "Man, your bottom is heavy!"

First time I ever had a doctor tell me I had a big a**



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 05:43 PM
link   
Women with IUD' s (especially traditional copper IUD's) are more prone to getting pelvic inflammatory disease(PID). STD's increase the risk of getting PID therefore it is recommended that a woman have only one sexual partner while using an IUD BECAUSE her risk of contracting PID is increased. No one said she had to be married and YES her husband/boyfriend could go out and cheat and same thing her risk of PID can and does increase. If she has already had a prior PID episode then her risk of having the same problem again increases over someone who has never had PID, and as such would increase even more if an IUD is placed. PID is often associated but not always associated with a concurrent STD. The IUD does NOT protect against STD’s
Furthermore the other qualification of having a child has to do with uterine size, with women who never have had a child having smaller uteri which may not be big enough to accommodate for the placement of an IUD, making the placement dangerous as (it could puncture the uterine wall,) impossible or extremely painful!
I do not think it is a conspiracy and IUD’s have been around in many forms since the late 1960’s (I believe) and as such have very good statistics regarding their efficacy and potential side effects or complications. If a woman who was not in a mutually exclusive relationship wanted a IUD she could probably get one but it would be explained that they need to use some other form of protection.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 
The CDC's stats are probably grossly under reported. PID is extremely common in women with IUD's, and slightly less common in women who use diaphragms, or the pill. Not every doctor who treats STD's will report every case. Reason? It takes time to report all these diseases, and time filling out reports is time taken away from patients, which means the the doctor makes less money. (There ain't no Marcus Welby's. For those of you born after 1965, Google it.)
These companies are in the business to make money. If they don't give these warnings they open themselves up to lawsuits. And since some of us will sue McDonald's because the coffee is too hot, then you can bet your bottom dollar that a company that makes IUDs is going to give you this kind of warning.
THere was a major class action suit against a company that made IUDs about 20 years ago. Don't remember the details, but if I recall correctly, the courts tore the company a new one.



posted on Sep, 28 2008 @ 08:39 PM
link   
The Mirena IUD, like all IUDs, has a thread attached which goes through the cervix and into the vagina, giving a way for the device to be removed.
This string makes an easy path for any infection to travel up and start growing in the uterus.
Once you have an infection growing in the uterus the body can't do much to fight it off, and you may have no warning that an infection is developing there until too late, and may suddenly die of toxic shock.

This would explain the concern the IUD makers have about the possibility of the woman catching an infection from her partner. However a much easier way to cause toxic shock syndrome is to be using tampons and either introduce pathogens during their insertion or removal, or leave them in place too long.

I would go so far as to suggest that tampons should never be used by a woman who has an IUD. However I must admit I'm speaking as knowing one who very nearly did die that way. At midday she was perfectly healthy, at 1 pm she could only crawl to get to the bathroom. A friend rang her local doctor, who drove her to hospital himself, afraid she would be dead before the ambulance arrived. It was a bad experience too say the least, and took months to get her health back.



posted on Sep, 29 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
I think kettlebellysmith has provided the final link in this, and people younger than me might not remember it.

There was a huge lawsuit about IUDs, so I'm sure current manufacturers are just covering their posteriors. Here's a medscape article on who an IUD is appropriate for and why.

And, just to show that they're probably right to do so, here's a site for a law firm that's already putting together the class action suit against Mirena



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 04:59 AM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


The point that "Greeneyedleo" was making was that contracting STDs actually affects how Mirena works; thus women who are at a greater risk of contracting STDs would not be advised to use Mirena. So your reply, which says that Mirena does not prevent against contraction of STDs, misses the point. From my reading of "Greeneyedleo"'s post, the issue of who should be prescribed Mirena has nothing to do with whether Mirena prevents contraction of STDs. (Obviously, it does not.) The point is that the contraction of STDs--which, as your own reply acknowledges, is more likely to happen when multiple partners are involved--decreases the effectiveness of Mirena. And apparently the Mirena company is trying to deter from using Mirena those people who are at an increased risk of contracting STDS and thus at a decreased risk of having Mirena be effective.

Assuming that both

(1) women with multiple partners (or dating men with multiple partners) are more likely to contract an STD, and that
(2) Mirena is less effective when an STD is contracted,

then the Mirena company's decision to market Mirena to those in a monogamous relationship is likely based on the intent to limit Mirena to those who statistically will find it more effective, NOT on moral disapproval of birth control use by single women.



posted on Nov, 10 2008 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by asmeone2
 


I heard that if you have mirena and contract a std that mirena will secrete the std throughout your body the same as the hormones and you can die



posted on Nov, 11 2008 @ 01:56 PM
link   
I work at an ob/gyn office and I assist with IUD placement so I can answer some of your questions.

The reason it is not intended for women not practicing monogamy is that it is a perfect gateway for STDs. Has nothing to do with any marriage agenda. you are just more suseptible to std's that is all. And trust me on this ladies, A LOT of people have std's so its nothing to take lightly.

Also, the commercial states that it is intended for women who have had at least one child because if you have had children your cervix has opened before and the IUD is easier to insert. We have to dilate the cervix a tiny bit to pass the IUD and for women who have not had children or those who had C sections they can be difficult to place and it can be more painful because your cervix is tightly closed. Having to pass instuments several times through the cervix over and over to create a passage large enough for the IUD greatly increases the chance of infection.

hope this helps!

[edit on 11-11-2008 by kokoro]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
I had an IUD back in the early eighties. Within a year of insertion, I had developed a case of endometriosis which was so bad that I had to have a full hysterectomy with removal of the uterus, and both ovaries and tubes just months before my thirtieth birthday. I was placed on conjugated estrogens which never seemed to be the right dosage. The doctors told me that the IUD was the cause of my endometriosis. I was later told by other doctors that the removal of my ovaries and being placed on hormone therapy was the cause of my bi-polar disorder. Then my oncologist informed me that my breast cancer was due to the hormone therapy.

Now, 25 years later, I’m seeing the IUD advertised on TV and I’m wondering who’s right. My doctors are all sure that my years of problems could have been avoided by not getting that little IUD that promised me years of worry free (pregnancy free) sex.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
I saw this type of statement on different types of birth control, and I find it puzzling myself. I hope that doctors are not denying alternative birth control to women as a result of these guidelines. Relationships, even marriages can turn sour at a drop of a hat, and people can split up after many years, so this is a ridiculous criteria. There is the statement already printed on female birth control that these methods will not protect the woman from STDs. What if you don't have any sexual partners but want a birth control method already established because you are a responsible adult? Will a doctor turn you down? I wanted my tubes tied when I was 28, but no doctor would do it. I had one child already, but I was not in a relationship. Why do they limit our options like this?
EDIT:
I missed Kokoro's answer somehow- thanks for the information. I wouldn't get an IUD anyway. Those thing scare me. I just feel like women need to be able to have these options to use with a condom. I couldn't take the pill or anything with hormones, so I relied on a condom and have a daughter now as a result (not that I regret it lol). A responsible woman who uses condoms and birth control should be able to have alternatives to the pill, which can be forgotten or made unreliable by other meds. If she is told no by the doctor because she doesn't have a long term relationship it is unfair.

[edit on 17-11-2008 by raven bombshell]



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2
If there is some legit medical reason that would cause multiple partners to lessen the device's effect, they need to be up front about exactly *why*.


I use Mirena and it was explained to me that IUD's make you more prone to PID and other uterine infections. An additional risk factor such as promiscuity, makes the device a poor choice for that person.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by asmeone2

It would be much easier--and much safer, I would think, from a legal position--for them to just come out and say "Use with a condom for maximum disease protection" if the fear of litigation is why they are adding in that phrase.


That's as silly as a condom company saying to use 2 condoms at once because one is only 99.9% effective.

They use the terms "married" and "monogamous" because it sounds better than "sleeping around" or "slut" basically. You're reading too much into this.

Maybe they should teach sex education to kids after all, because it appears that some adults are still in the dark.



posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by logician magician

Originally posted by asmeone2

It would be much easier--and much safer, I would think, from a legal position--for them to just come out and say "Use with a condom for maximum disease protection" if the fear of litigation is why they are adding in that phrase.


That's as silly as a condom company saying to use 2 condoms at once because one is only 99.9% effective.

They use the terms "married" and "monogamous" because it sounds better than "sleeping around" or "slut" basically. You're reading too much into this.

Maybe they should teach sex education to kids after all, because it appears that some adults are still in the dark.


I don't see why you have to cop such an attitude. Asmeone is not displaying ignorance. There is nothing wrong with what she says. If a doctor asks someone if they are "married or monogamous" then they are asking a woman if she is in a very specific situation. Not being married or monogamous does not mean a woman is a slut or sleeps around, either. You are the one who isn't making sense and needs some education.

A woman who wants to have birth control in place who doesn't have a husband or boyfriend isn't necessarily sleeping around. Likewise, a woman who has an IUD should also use a condom no matter if she is married or in a monogamous relationship because people lie- they could be with a cheater, and if STDs can be worse for women with IUDs the packaging should warn the consumer to use condoms as well. SO, it isn't the marital/ relationship status that doctors should be so concerned about if the problem is that STDs can be further complicated by IUDs.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join