|
solo_soprano22 -> RE: When does personhood begin? (4/12/2008 7:54:49 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: CCCdnt
quote:
ORIGINAL: solo_soprano22
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3cappuccinosmom
quote:
I think a good thing to note here is that not everyone buys the "fact" that bc causes this to happen, including some doctors and scientitsts
But it is still *fact* that it is designed and intended to to this, and it is stated by the makers themselves.
If the makers themselves state it, that doesn't make it true-- that goes for everything. [8|] Even the literature conflicts about it. The fact is that they SAY this or that, not that it is so. Some don't believe that it is so. It's fine if people do; all I'm saying is that not everyone believes it or holds it. I suspect it may work that way for some women, but not all.
Do you have a reference for the literature that says this mechanism does not exist? I have read much literature that supports it, including the Physician's Desk Reference.
Just how common of a practice is it for doctor's to recommend/prescribe a drug of some kind to someone that may have a side affect or mechanism of action stated by the manufacturer and/or PDR that the person would take issue with, but the doctor recommends/prescribes it anyway because the doctor does not believe what the manufacturer/PDR says?
I'll see if I can dig some up when I'm back (low on time today). But that secondary mechanism (that it makes the endometrial lining inhospitable this preventing implantation) is a hypothesis. People want to say it's a fact. A hypothesis isn't a fact. But there are different kinds of birth control. It doesn't really matter to me if someone thinks it does or doesn't do that; what bothers me is when people say something is fact but it's not. The mechanism may exist, but call it what it is, and tell patients the truth as we know it right now. They can decide for themselves.. if it bothers them that it *might* prevent implantation, then they don't have to go with it.
I was able to find one quick article from a google search for you though:
HERE; it's basically one paragraph (the top and bottom are the same-- I think the top was meant to be the abstract).
And this one site here... it's a pro-life one actually: "An extensive review of pertinent scientific writings indicates that there is no credible evidence to validate a mechanism of pre-implantation abortion as a part of the action of hormone contraceptives. On the contrary, the existing evidence indicates that "on pill" conceptions are handled by the reproductive system with the same results seen with "off pill" conceptions..." From HERE
This one might especially interest you:
"Although these changes are consistently seen in women taking OCs, there is currently no direct evidence to link these changes to preembryo or embryo loss in women taking OCs. However, this hypothesized postfertilization effect seems to be so well accepted that in many medical articles and textbooks it has been explicitly listed as the third mechanism of OCs (after suppressing ovulation and prefertilization effects).1,10,17,18 For example, the Food and Drug Administration–approved product information for OCs in the Physicians’ Desk Reference states, Although the primary mechanism of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical mucus, which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus, and changes in the endometrium, which reduce the likelihood of implantation.11" From HERE
I'm sure I've saved some articles or can find some. Most of the places that I learn about this is in some kind of biology or science where we have to know how things work. The paper trail may have long thus escaped. Lol.
|
|
|
|