a question...

[urania.livejournal.com]

i'm new here, and not expecting to be bleeding for a couple of weeks (thank goodness! tho orthotrycyclen is a godsend...i know when to expect things...)

but i have a question.

what do people know about the idea of taking b/c pills month-round to eliminate menstruation altogether? from what i've read (a fair amount) the consensus tends to be "there really seem to be no negative side effects, but there haven't been *enough* studies for us to be comfortable saying 'go ahead.' "....and it's something i'd like to look at. maybe next time i see my gynecologist i'll ask her.

but i'm curious about feedback or stories...?

Comments

[sweetalyssm.livejournal.com]

I heard that in the early days of the bitth control pill, that women didn't menstruate at all. They didn't take a cycle of placebos for seven days. However, I think women felt that it was unnatural for them to not have a period at all. I guess scientists thought it better for them to have a little period every month. Now, I only heard this, so I don't know if it's 100% fact. It would probably be wise to do some research on it and ask your doctor.

[nysidra.livejournal.com]

There's a story about this....

::searches::

http://www.msnbc.com/news/395750.asp

That's the link...but here's the gist of the story:

Yes you can permanently supress your period. No, it's not harmful.

The reseason the placebo pills are given is to assure a woman she isn't pregnant. In essence, a placebo for the mind. But the period had during that placebo week isn't a "true" period. That's why I, and a few other have expressed, the period after bc pills is much stronger and heavier. I kinda missed seeing that bright gush of red liquid as opposed to the burgundy light stuff I had been seeing for months.

[artemii.livejournal.com]

If it's not harmful at all to permanently suppress it, then why is not having it a sign of so many possible bad things (like PCOS, anorexia, overly low or high weight, etc.) and something you're therefore supposed to bring up with your doctor?

This isn't a rhetorical question; I'm honestly wondering where the "no bad effects" claim is coming from in the study.

[urania.livejournal.com]

just because its absence *can* mean bad things, doesn't mean it *must.*

in fact, many cultures where nursing children is continued up until the age of five or six (like many native american cultures did) or cultures where much more physical exertion or more frequent pregnancy was/is the norm, menstruation was much less frequent. however, in today's society, it's more likely that it is a sign of anemia, et c, and therefore should be brought up. all this at least from an article i read, that was dispelling the fears of it being "unnatural" not to menstruate every month.

[artemii.livejournal.com]

I agree that it's not unnatural to sometimes not menstruate. What I was asking about was permanently stopping, which is why that's the way I phrased it in my question.

[nysidra.livejournal.com]

If a period stopped on it's own - there would be a reason to question the cause. However, if the period is stopped due to a horomone - then the cause is known. At least, that's how I would rationalize it.