emergency contraception

Ema of the Well-Planned Period Explains to XO Jane Editors Why Plan B is No More

Sun, 2011-10-16 21:13

Photo via Tumblr. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Image via Tumblr

Hormonal contraception expert Ema of The Well-Timed Period says the whiny "the stores are out of Plan B so I can't have sex" piece by the so-called Humor "Health Editor" at XO Jane has to be satire because... well... she's more generous than I'd be.

The upshot being that there's an exceedingly good reason why nobody can get Plan B anymore, in New York City or pretty much anywhere else once current supplies are gone.

Plan B isn't pining for the fjords, it's no more

Pharmacies are out of Plan B because Plan B has been discontinued by its manufacturer quite some time ago. So forget about Plan B and familiarize yourselves with the available emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) brands.

Source: The Well-Timed Period

Go read Ema's post for a nice, reassuringly long list of new and improved Emergency Contraceptives.

While there's been considerable back and forth about the "morality," sensibility, responsibility, and cost of using a $50-per-use method of contraception, Ema avoids all that and points out exactly why "morning after" type pills aren't a good idea:

ECP postcoital birth control is only to be used in an emergency for the simple reason that it's not as effective as the other available methods when used on a regular basis.

And then there's her bottom line:

Forget Plan B, remember Plan B One-Step, Nextime, Next Choice, Postinor, Postinor 1/Postinor2 Unidosis, and ella. Don't substitute ECP for regular birth control. And, last but not least, even in emergencies avoid attempts at satirical articles on birth control.

I love me that Ema-style expertise.

The Story Behind the Story Behind the 20% of Brit Women Use EC Story... Plus an EC Product Packaging Suggestion

Thu, 2011-01-06 12:03

Ever notice how sometimes the deeper one digs the more interesting some news tidbits become?

In a news-roundup post, Beth Saunders of RHRealityCheck.org passes along with insufficient comment a tidbit from an anti-choice website that...

Twenty percent of British women used emergency contraception in the past year, according to a survey by the Co-Operative Pharmacy.

Source: RHRealityCheck.org

If you go to the site itself (LifeSiteNews) you get a little more background... but obviously you also get more anti-choice slant (emphasis mine)

A Co-Operative Pharmacy survey of 3000 people found that 20 percent of women aged 18 to 35 took the “emergency contraceptive” pill last year. The same group said they had typically used the drug, which only acts as a genuine contraceptive in some cases, when they had had sex after using drugs and/or alcohol.

The poll further found that up to 250,000 women had used the drug two or more times during the year. One in fifty 18-21 year-olds said they used the MAP as their normal form of contraception. One sixth of the women surveyed said they had contracted a sexually transmitted disease.

Source: LifeSiteNews

And if you go to the actual Co-Operative Pharmacy press release you get the same core information minus (shock, gasp, surprise!) mention of "only acts as a genuine contraceptive in some cases."  Which is good because, of course, that would be factually incorrect.  Here's the straight story from the source.

Thousands of women risk waking up on New Years Day with more than a hangover as over one in five blame partying with drink or drugs for not using contraception with a new partner, figures* reveal today (1 January 2011).

The Co-operative Pharmacy, part of The Co-operative Group, questioned 3,000 people about contraception and found that one in five women aged 18 to 35 years old have used the morning after pill in the last 12 months. One in six women admitted to having had a sexual disease.

The research also revealed that the preferred method of contraception for almost half of all women was the pill and two out of five favoured condoms. 250,000** women have used the emergency contraceptive three times or more and more than one in 50 of those aged 18 to 21 said they preferred to use the morning after pill as a regular form of contraception.

Source Co-Operative Pharmacy

I don't feel qualified to comment on on-the-ground experiences (feel free to chime if you know otherwise) but it sounds like most pharmacists don't agree that EC is all that great on one's system.  From the Co-Operative press release:

Mandeep Mudhar, Head of NHS Development at The Co-operative Pharmacy, said: “Our research shows that some women are taking unnecessary risks with their health. The morning after pill should be a last resort to prevent an unwanted pregnancy after having unprotected sex or if another method of contraception has failed, such as if you have forgotten to take one of your contraceptive pills.

“However, the emergency contraceptive pill does not protect against sexually transmitted infections. Pharmacists provide free accessible advice about contraception but we would always urge people to use a condom, particularly with a new partner, as it offers the greatest protection.”

That sounds about right.  I'd just add, though, that the key word above would be "particularly with a new partner."

Few young single people have "Jersey Shore" style lifestyles where they're prepared at every moment to be ready to fall into bed with someone new.  Instead, most young single people, women as much as men, tend to go through sexual "boom and bust" relationships.  And for people for whom hormonal contraception is an option (obviously only women so far, darn it) it often doesn't feel worth the hassle and often the discomfort of staying on a medication you may expect to need only a few times a year.

To that extent that most women who report using emergency contraception as their "primary contraceptive" are almost all still using it only once a year we're not necessarily talking about a giant epidemic of "irresponsibility" here.  Nor, I would add, does that suggest epidemics of "promiscuity" either.  Unless by promiscuity you mean "once last year."

The EC/STI connection is a little more problematic.  First of the STI question seems to have been about lifetime experience with STIs whereas the rest of the survey reports about annual experience with contraception.  I mention this only to tidy up the numbers, not to minimize the actual risk.  Second, by focusing on the EC angle the story almost necessarily underplays the story of very large numbers of people using no protection for first-time sex.

Proposal: I know it sounds counterintuitive but I think it occurs to  me it might be a very good idea to encourage manufacturers and/or pharmacists to include a condom in every package of EC.  It's counterintuitive because one tends to view EC as something you take after the fact.  And indeed it is.

EC is not, however, always purchased after the fact.  I expect it's a lot easier to remember that if you've already Backed Up Your Birth Control it might be easier to remember you've also got at least one backup condom.  And even if not?  Well, you've still got a condom for next time.  Even if, as those survey numbers suggest, next time also happens to be next year.  And one way or other, knowing there's a condom in the box "puts the idea into consciousness" as the new-agers say.

Extra credit if the condoms have the retro-20th-Century "for prevention of disease only" motif!

Too Bad it Costs $30 to Read an Editorial That Sensibly Equates Emergency Contraception and Fire Extinguishers

Thu, 2010-09-30 07:50

Owning emergency contraception doesn’t imply eagerness to engage in unprotected sex any more than owning a fire extinguisher implies eagerness to have a grease fire in your kitchen. And as luck might have had it, an editorial in a respected medical journal made that exact point in 2002.

Via Discover Magazine’s NCBI ROFL blog, here’s a link to a 2002 opinion piece available on the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) PubMed.gov website. It was originally published in American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Volume 187, Issue 6 , Pages 1536-1538, December 2002.

“Fires and unintended pregnancies are important causes of morbidity, mortality, and financial loss in the United States. Home fire extinguishers and emergency contraception are both effective preventive interventions. The disparity between access to fire extinguishers and emergency contraception is irrational and indirectly hurts women’s health. Although fire extinguishers require the user to make a diagnosis, choose the appropriate treatment, and assume some risk of serious injury and death, these canisters of pressurized chemicals are widely available without restriction. In contrast, women face several unnecessary obstacles to overcome before using emergency contraception, which is both simpler and safer to use. Clearly, a double standard prevails in prevention strategies for women.”

Read the quote in context here.

Sounds like a great metaphor. Especially so considering it came up pretty early in the campaign for over-the-counter emergency contraception.

But if I may grind a personal axe for a moment, can I ask a quick question? How much would you be willing to pay to read the rest of that American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology opinion piece? $30.00? I didn’t think so either. Oh well, at least in this case and unlike the vast majority of pay-out-the-nose-to-read-it journal articles you can’t say the research for the opinion piece was paid for with public funds.

But it does illustrate the principle that a lot of very fine writing languishes behind some excessively high paywalls, largely unpaid for, and therefore largely unread, and therefore largely ineffective when it most likely would have made the biggest difference.

Two Interesting Notes About IUDs: As Emergency Contraception, As Politically Rather Than Medically Contraindicated

Sun, 2010-08-15 14:50

Sungold of Kittywampus has some interesting, and cool, news about new uses for IUDs

Actually, this isn’t a truly new option, just one that has gotten no press up to now: using an IUD for emergency birth control:

“A copper intrauterine device was 100 percent effective at emergency contraception in a study of almost 2000 Chinese women who had the device implanted up to 5 days after unprotected sex.”

Read the rest of her post, and follow the links, here.

Sungold adds that she thinks IUDs would be…

Especially for anyone who’s a repeat customer for EC, the IUD seems like a highly sensible choice. While IUD insertion can cause cramping (which can persist for a few days), Plan B can inflict pretty intense nausea. Having to chase down EC repeatedly is stressful for body and soul. Where 1 in 100 women will still get pregnant on Plan B, it’s fewer than 1 in 1000 with the IUD as EC. And in the long run, a woman who chooses the IUD is highly unlikely to face an unwanted pregnancy.

That’s not a panacea. But it’s a pretty excellent option.

I think that’s about right. But then of course I’ve always been a big fan of post-Dalkon-Shield-debacle IUDs, going back to the original low-impact copper Ts of the 1970s. But then there’s the bit about how healthcare providers remain reluctant to provide IUDs… even caregivers who use and swear by them personally. And since I’ve got a vasectomy I’m not exactly a candidate for IUDs, and so my enthusiasm has always been muted with a great deal of deference.

Which is why I was happy to see Sungold’s update based on comments on her post by MomTFH. MomTFH said

According to a midwife who taught me about birth control, the reason why IUDs were not recommended for women [who haven’t been pregnant] were because so many of them successfully sued over the Dalkon shield. The company had to pay a much higher settlement to women who never got to have children due to their injuries than they did to those who already had children. The indications for the newer IUDs, including the copper T, originally said the ideal candidates were parous women, but that is no longer the case. New recommendations say that pretty much any woman who does not have active pelvic inflammatory disease is a good candidate.

The Dalkon shield was a completely untested, unresearched, unregulated piece of scrap metal. The copper IUD is a much more carefully created and substantiated device. It has a higher rate of continuance of use than any other form of birth control. Not only do I have an IUD, but the IUD is an incredibly popular form of birth control among female ob/gyns I have very unscientifically surveyed.

That makes a little more sense. Not in the conspiracy-theory sense, just in the practical institutional-memory-informs-practice sense. With the benefit that institutional memory will shift as people in the medical industry, like MomTFH, begin speaking out.

Final note: I’m not sure anti-choice wingnuts are going to be cheery about IUDs as emergency contraception. But then again they already oppose IUDs anyway. So… cry wolf much?

Cute Backup Your Birth Control Promo: "If You Can Accidentally Text Your Grandmother On New Years Eve What Else Can Go Wrong?"

Wed, 2009-12-30 00:19

You know how there’s that sort of informal recommendation that you replace your smoke-alarm batteries twice a year when daylight-savings time changes? Vanessa of Feministing says there’s a similar movement afoot around backing up your birth control after New Years Eve.

[E]mergency contraception sales more than double the days after New Year’s Eve. It’s good to see someone addressing that; this comes from a new project of the Back Up Your Birth Control Campaign.

Read the quote in context, and find a link to a can’t-help-but-giggle video, here.

To be honest you probably don’t need to replace modern smoke-alarm batteries every six months, though you should check at least twice a year to make sure they work correctly. And to be honest the day after New Years Eve might not be the best time to backup your birth control, as for at least some people the message instead might be to restock. But for those with a serious prospect of partnerships that could result in an unplanned, unwanted pregnancy it’s just as important to keep your emergency (and regular!) contraception up to date as it to make sure your smoke alarms are in working order.

_In case I forget, remind me to add

March 25th is Back Up Your Birth Control Day of Action

Wed, 2009-03-25 07:50

Yesterday Megan of Jezebel had some good emergency-contraception news.

A federal judge ruled that the Bush-controlled FDA violated its mandate by restricting over-the-counter sales of emergency contraceptives to women over 18, and encouraged it to remove all other restrictions on its sale.

She said it here.

Seems particularly timely, by the way. Today (March 25th) is Back Up Your Birth Control Day of Action, an initiative to remind potentially fertile people to buy Plan B contraceptives *before* you need them so they'll be on hand *if* they're needed. (Via EvilSlutopia.)

Reframing the Baby-Seller Position

Fri, 2008-02-22 14:25


Photo by Flickr user Leonski. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Since I’m wicked busy and still a bit under the weather I’m going to try that lazy/conservative-pundit blogging style and just say…

indeed.

Hmm. I must not be one of those lazy/conservative-pundit blogger types because it wasn’t that good for me. Still, what else could I possibly add?

Misconception information gap

Mon, 2007-10-15 05:51


Babylonian scratch plow with seed drill. Source: Singer et al (1954).
Source: History of Agriculture Lecture, Perdue University.

Last summer Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon prompts a social research question that, I think, is critical in the debate over contraception, abortion, and, especially “Plan B” style emergency contraception.

Two questions, really:

The first is actually biological: How long after penis-in-vagina intercourse does it take for ejaculated sperm to reach and egg, enter it, combine genes to form the complete new full set of human chromosomes required to be considered a complete, unique single cell genetically distinct from either donor sperm or donor egg?

The second is social, and in a lot of ways, far more important: How long do people think it takes? Especially people who oppose contraception and, particularly, emergency contraception?

—-

The best available answer for the first question, taking into consideration the time required for capacitationin the sperm in the woman’s reproductive tract, sperm/zona-pellucida binding once sperm finds egg, penetration/migration through the zona pellucida, sperm/oocite binding, acrosome reaction is “a minimum of 24 hours assuming an egg is already available and viable and all other conditions are surpremely ideal.” (And it’s worth mentioning the evidence that intercourse stimulates ovulation, with the result that fertilization often takes as long as five days, which, perhaps not coincidentally, is how long after intercourse emergency contraception may still be effective.)

The best available answer for the second question… isn’t, as far as I know, nobody knows!

But!

The controversy generated by anti-choice/anti-sex activists over contraception in general, and emergency contraception in particular, suggests a widely-held belief that fertilization happens mere moments after ejaculation. I happen to think it has something to do with our agricultural metaphors for heterosexuality — man as farmer (the original meaning of “husband,” by the way), intercourse as “plowing,” semen or sperm as “seed,” women as “fertile,” and so on.


Source: Minnesota Historical Society

So!

So? So first of all, if you have more accurate answers for question one or, more importantly, question two please let me know either in comments, in email, or if you’re a blogger in your own post.

And second of all, if you’re involved in sex-related social research, have access to polling resources, or are otherwise in a position to gather answers to question #2 I’d really, really appreciate further investigation and, especially, publication of the results.

And finally, if you’re writing or speaking professionally in the fields of sex education or sex-ed curriculum development I think it would be very helpful to have the insemnation/conception lag explained as simply, and frequently as possible.

I think the result would be a wider understanding of the remarkable-when-you-think-about-it time difference. And I think the benefit would be more reassurance for waverers in debates about contraception in general, and emergency contraception in particular.

User login