[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7668511/The-Pill-linked-to-... Pill linked to low desire for sex, claims study - Telegraph
"The irony is that these women are provided a medication that enables freedom from reproductive worries but these same women are not provided information that there are significant adverse sexual effects that may ensue,"
"I knew it!"; that was my first reaction on reading this (a more extended version, however: this was the best English version I could find...)
Anyone else have an opinion on this? Please hit reply :)
Well....duh.
This is what happens when we mess around with what nature gives us.
I don't trust pills. especially those that can mess around with the hormonal systems.
Well, let's check history. The pill first appeared on the market fifty years ago in 1960 after about a decade of trials and tests. Within a few months, some women were reporting decreased sexual desire; some, increased sexual desire; some grew chest hair; some vomited constantly; some gained weight; some lost weight. Doctors recommended backup contraception for three complete cycles; all recommended a "drug holiday" of one year every five years.
In terms of hormonal power, the first pills on the market were more than ten times as powerful as today's typical pills. Over the past fifty years, the pills have been made less strong as we have discovered what "therapeutic level" really means with these. The mix of hormones has changed and instead of simple oestrogen bombs we have essentially three different approaches using a variety of synthetic hormones. Originally, all pills were the same but today there are more than forty different formulations available and the hormones can be administered orally (pill), subcutaneously (implants), intra-muscularly (shot), transdermally (patch) or vaginally (ring). Some pills have iron added and some are advertised to clear up acne. God knows what else is rumoured around the women's residence hall.
You are correct that messing with the endocrine system can have serious side-effects. Many women try several different pills before finding one that has acceptable side-effects; some women do not adjust well to any hormones being added to their systems; some are not tolerating the most recent family of artificial hormones introduced about two years ago; some who could previously not use the pill are finding the new hormones to be more than acceptable.
Some women find the shot to be great - no periods; others have their cycles screwed up for a year or more after going off the shot. Same goes for the systems that reduce periods to a few a year.
Some doctors are more comfortable using some hormones or methods of delivery than others; some women react to some formulations very negatively and to others quite positively. The doctor and the woman must work together to find what works.
How many times has it been emphasized on this Board that not all women adjust to all hormones the same way? The study cited by the Telegraph is old news and I have not bothered to check out the original source for methodology or sample size and so will not comment on this specific study.
But, wake up ladies! Our grandmothers used diaphragms and out mothers used pills many times stronger, with commensurate side-effects. We have alternatives they did not have. The IUD, for instance, got a bad rap (for one design) thirty years ago and I still have patients who will not even speak of it. They were not even born when the difficulties were in the headlines! There is still the occasional post about not staying on the pill too long to be rendered infertile. That guidance changed forty years ago!
As for women "provided medication.....without information," that is an indictment of individual doctors and individual women. Women frequently ask questions on this Board that should have been answered before the prescription was filled and are addressed in the product brochure.
I respect any woman's reservations regarding hormonal birth control. Those reservations, or journalists interpretation of medical studies, should not be stated, or read, as blanket condemnation of perhaps the most socially important medication of the twentieth century.
Thank you for your opnion, Goddess. And thank you for all the information in your post Brandy! This is why I'm so happy with an MD on the forum. :) Really, much appreciated!
Brandy, you mention it being 'old news'. While I know many individuals, including myself, who have been told that this side effect was something that belonged to the past. And, perhaps naive-silly-girls as we are, we do believe this. So it's actually the other way around to me... I guess your wake-up call about how we're not living in the past and todays meds are better, is not necessary (not to me anyways :)) I am not blind to the fact that options are way more varied nowadays. And also: I'm happy every girl has the freedom to choose for herself! The wake-up call to me is: not everything changes! And that's sad in a way...
Also: it's a shame not all options are used... I did an extensive search on anticonception, when I had quit the pill and started dating my bf 2 months after (so typical my sexual interest was growing at the time? Hmmmm, makes you think...). Well, it's very hard to find a good alternative and good information about it! I think it's an overall trend here to put anticonception by pill (or at least: hormonal) before anything else. Most government-institutions only refer to the pill, condoms and occasionally IUD or nuvaring, etc (also: hormons). Diaphragms (or modern versions such as femcap)? Good luck with that! There are only very few doctors that will help you get one... Which makes it very unattractive: using something no-one seems to know what it is or how it should be used anymore... Same goes for spermicides (I mean: the one you can smear. Only specific condoms with spermicide allready put inside are for sale)... And if you want to get to know your own cycle? Your local doctor won't be of any help, cause it's not considered normal to want to know this... You 'normally' start with these kind-off questions when you're trying for kids and it's not working... And yes: I do know this is all from my point of view as an individual. But considering there are more like me, that is what makes such a topic significant. That's why articles such as these do bear significance...
Yes, I do know that the way research is conducted is very important! And thank you for pointing this out! It actually surprised me how many errors there are to be discovered, even in research that is published in trustworthy journals... And I do know journalism/media tends to interpret results. There are types of research that I will thoroughly investigate, before discussing. I'm just trying to not make a habbit out of it ;)
If anyone's interested: I've read a more extensive article about it, though not the article itself... this reasearch was published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine, was conducted with over 1000 sexual active women who filled in a a questionaire about sexual diffculties over the last year. Also: they were asked about anticonception. And the results of the questionaire were compared to this in groups. All I know is it concluded there was a significant difference. The comment I quoted above, was from the redactor of this Journal. Still this information does not mean anything about how worthy the conclusion is... I simply trusted that there must be some truth in it...
My original point was that questions about hormones and sexual response have been around since the pill was introduced. You did stir me to look a bit further. The study was conducted at the University of Heidelberg and the sample was 1000 women medical students. This would be an atypical group from the perspective of education, socio-economic background, stress in their lives and, greatly, EXPECTATIONS. In a survey or self-reported questionnaire, there is a strong tendency to measure against what we want rather than what is actual.
You are correct in that there was a statistically significant difference in the women's reported sexual desire and satisfaction. The data on pain (1%) and arousal difficulty (2.5%) are unsurprising and would be about normal for the total population. I find it especially interesting that the vaginal ring was not as objectionable as the pill. See several of my rants on this and I encourage patients to consider this even though it is not available through our NHS.
OK, good work. An age old (well, at least fifty years) question that will never be completely answered. The authors' conclusions include that no recommendations can be made and they still se the pill as the best, most convenient and least invasive choice available. Too bad the various news sources have over-analyzed what was already well analyzed.
Women who adapt well to the piil: stay with it. Women who do not adapt well to the pill: there are equally effective alternatives.
Redroses, visit your local Planned Parenthood office. They have specific brochures on every available type of contraception. And, by the way, I have two patients who still come for the size check on their diaphragms each year. To each her own.
Hmmm, so I should keep up my addiction of looking into things ;) Although I doubt if I'd have access? This was easier obtained while still in university... Anyways: THANK YOU, Brandye! :)
I'd really like that: 'Planned Parenthood office' or 'Family Planning centre'... After long and hard work of going through unknowing pharmasists, local doctor's, sexual health institutions, etc (as far as covered by my insurance) and being put up with short summary-like-brochures hoping to keep me as ignorant as possible... I went on roaming the internet; finding very much information about all these types contraception. Eventually bought books about it and about the female cycle. And by this I learned tracking it myself, since there were no experts on this available or accesable for me (to my knowledge at the time). Luckily, the organization from Belgium who promotes this way of pre- and contraception, now is active in Holland too. I am still considering taking an actual course on it.. As I have been an active user of it for 2 years now (an entire database full of data), I'm not sure how much use it will be... Something that does interest me, is that I could become a coach/teacher in this, but that would be quite a career-change... But that's really all depending on private issues, so that's not a question for this forum, just for me :)
I would not find it surprising that certain types of pills could be linked to low sexual desire. I would suspect that the progrestin-only pills would be responsible for this but I am not certain. I suspect this of the progestin-only pills because I was on the depo-provera shot for several years (which is progrestin-only) and it made my libido worse.