13 ms·

Not your job to police women's bodies. If she is fully informed and wishes to use one then this is her personal decision. Not yours.

rubiquity 11y ago
That's completely fair! I'm not trying to make the decision for anyone and I'm not sure where you got that from my post. But isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs? Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this?
- noelwelsh 11y ago
  Do you like jails? Do you like cars and roads? Do you like electricity? States and countries put their backing behind many things with well known, negative tradeoffs. Update: for example, a paper on the psychological damage done by jailing people: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm
  - rubiquity 11y ago
    Your argument is ridiculous so I'm just writing to let you know I won't even entertain you. Hopefully nobody else does either.
    - noelwelsh 11y ago
      Nice attempt at ducking the argument. Let me spell it out for you (and other readers should they be so misguided). You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?" The state supports many things with that have negative aspects. I listed a few obvious ones in my previous comments. In fact everything in life involves a tradeoff. One can study these things and develop some quantitative measure of the negative and positive effect. Here are some studies on IUD complications: http://www.popline.org/node/490794 http://www.popline.org/node/490794 (youths) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406002897 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406... (following birth) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600026994 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600... (UIT infection specifically) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 (general) You can see that the complications are generally regarded as being quite minor or low probability. For many people this is a tradeoff worth making, given the near 100% success rate in prevent pregnancy. Now this refers to IUDs. The Colorado program also provides hormonal birth control, via a long lasting implant. I'll let you do your own research on these.
- balls187 11y ago
  > Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this? In the US, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over drugs such as birth control. Your argument suggests that negative side effects are harmful, and certain. In the teeny amount of research I've done, it doesn't appear that this is the case.
- KirinDave 11y ago
  > But isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs? There is no such thing as tradeoff free medicine. Things we can ingest without unusual side effects have a special name in medicine: food. IUDs are, on balance, considered a much safer form of birth control. They do not flood the user's bloodstream entirely with hormones (rather delivering it directly to the area of effect), and the treatment can be quickly discontinued in the case of the rare negative reaction. In many cases, negative reactions to IUDs are indicators of other more severe reproductive organ issues like Endometriosis. For other reproductive issues, IUDs can actually be proscribed as a treatment. The actual risk profile for IUDs is quite favorable. The actual risks of pregnancy are much larger than people like to talk about, and most women (even young women) take over a year to physically heal from their ordeal carrying and delivering a child and that's entirely ignoring the social and economic impacts of said pregnancy. Most importantly, IUDs have fantastically high compliance rates because they are always on and most of their failure conditions are obvious (results in falling out). By contrast, the mechanical failure of a condom or diaphragm is often difficult to catch in the heat of the moment and human factors come into play with pill compliance. Of course, knowingly or not, your actual cause here is to be Sargent Rubiquity of the Womb Police. I don't believe for an instant that any logic or compassion motivates your post.
balls187 11y ago
You're making a straw man argument here. The parent commenter is asking the risks of intrauterine birth control. In the US, the FDA polices all medical drugs for safety and efficacy, regardless if they are for reproductive health or not.
deelowe 11y ago
I think the topic is more spurred from this being a government sponsored service that is offered to minors. Overall, this seems like a shining success. However, are IUDs the safest option? Should the government offer others? No "policing" is necessary to answer these questions.
TallGuyShort 11y ago
My concern here would just be parental knowledge. I would permit my daughter to get an IUD at a young age if that was her decision regardless of our families religious / moral views (though I would encourage her to be informed), but if I'm responsible for her health and safety, I damn well better know what someone else is implanting in her.
- DanBC 11y ago
  How old until she's allowed to control her medical treatment in your opinion?
  - TallGuyShort 11y ago
    I'm not saying I control her medical treatment, I'm saying I would want to be aware. If she's getting an IUD implanted without my knowledge, is she likely to come to me or her mother for help if / when she suffers a serious side-effect?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - DanBC 11y ago
      Why would she go to you for medical advice?
      - TallGuyShort 11y ago
        Um... because we're her parents and we would see to it she received all the care she needed should a complication arise?
  - VLM 11y ago
    Locally everything medical(ish) that isn't sex related needs 18 yrs. Everything from vaccination requiring a signed consent form and if under 18, a parent or legal guardian, to ear (or other) piercing, to tattoos. The traveling health care fair came to my employer recently and I remember pretty much "everything" required a similar boilerplate consent form, even just pricking your finger for blood sugar screening. For consistencies sake, 18 yrs sounds reasonable. If we're going to apply boilerplate almost everywhere, why not simply apply it everywhere? There is no particular reason 18 is a good age. Eighteen and a day passes for all medical decisions but weirdly enough not to drink a simple beer, and some states have really weird legislation about exactly which vegetation is permitted to possess / smoke. Somewhere in the range of 13 to 22 for all of the above sounds about right.

rubiquity 11y ago

That's completely fair! I'm not trying to make the decision for anyone and I'm not sure where you got that from my post. But isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs? Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this?

noelwelsh 11y ago
Do you like jails? Do you like cars and roads? Do you like electricity? States and countries put their backing behind many things with well known, negative tradeoffs. Update: for example, a paper on the psychological damage done by jailing people: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm
- rubiquity 11y ago
  Your argument is ridiculous so I'm just writing to let you know I won't even entertain you. Hopefully nobody else does either.
  - noelwelsh 11y ago
    Nice attempt at ducking the argument. Let me spell it out for you (and other readers should they be so misguided). You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?" The state supports many things with that have negative aspects. I listed a few obvious ones in my previous comments. In fact everything in life involves a tradeoff. One can study these things and develop some quantitative measure of the negative and positive effect. Here are some studies on IUD complications: http://www.popline.org/node/490794 http://www.popline.org/node/490794 (youths) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406002897 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406... (following birth) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600026994 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600... (UIT infection specifically) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 (general) You can see that the complications are generally regarded as being quite minor or low probability. For many people this is a tradeoff worth making, given the near 100% success rate in prevent pregnancy. Now this refers to IUDs. The Colorado program also provides hormonal birth control, via a long lasting implant. I'll let you do your own research on these.
balls187 11y ago
> Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this? In the US, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over drugs such as birth control. Your argument suggests that negative side effects are harmful, and certain. In the teeny amount of research I've done, it doesn't appear that this is the case.
KirinDave 11y ago
> But isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs? There is no such thing as tradeoff free medicine. Things we can ingest without unusual side effects have a special name in medicine: food. IUDs are, on balance, considered a much safer form of birth control. They do not flood the user's bloodstream entirely with hormones (rather delivering it directly to the area of effect), and the treatment can be quickly discontinued in the case of the rare negative reaction. In many cases, negative reactions to IUDs are indicators of other more severe reproductive organ issues like Endometriosis. For other reproductive issues, IUDs can actually be proscribed as a treatment. The actual risk profile for IUDs is quite favorable. The actual risks of pregnancy are much larger than people like to talk about, and most women (even young women) take over a year to physically heal from their ordeal carrying and delivering a child and that's entirely ignoring the social and economic impacts of said pregnancy. Most importantly, IUDs have fantastically high compliance rates because they are always on and most of their failure conditions are obvious (results in falling out). By contrast, the mechanical failure of a condom or diaphragm is often difficult to catch in the heat of the moment and human factors come into play with pill compliance. Of course, knowingly or not, your actual cause here is to be Sargent Rubiquity of the Womb Police. I don't believe for an instant that any logic or compassion motivates your post.

balls187 11y ago

You're making a straw man argument here. The parent commenter is asking the risks of intrauterine birth control. In the US, the FDA polices all medical drugs for safety and efficacy, regardless if they are for reproductive health or not.

deelowe 11y ago

I think the topic is more spurred from this being a government sponsored service that is offered to minors. Overall, this seems like a shining success. However, are IUDs the safest option? Should the government offer others? No "policing" is necessary to answer these questions.

TallGuyShort 11y ago

My concern here would just be parental knowledge. I would permit my daughter to get an IUD at a young age if that was her decision regardless of our families religious / moral views (though I would encourage her to be informed), but if I'm responsible for her health and safety, I damn well better know what someone else is implanting in her.

DanBC 11y ago
How old until she's allowed to control her medical treatment in your opinion?
- TallGuyShort 11y ago
  I'm not saying I control her medical treatment, I'm saying I would want to be aware. If she's getting an IUD implanted without my knowledge, is she likely to come to me or her mother for help if / when she suffers a serious side-effect?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - DanBC 11y ago
    Why would she go to you for medical advice?
    - TallGuyShort 11y ago
      Um... because we're her parents and we would see to it she received all the care she needed should a complication arise?
- VLM 11y ago
  Locally everything medical(ish) that isn't sex related needs 18 yrs. Everything from vaccination requiring a signed consent form and if under 18, a parent or legal guardian, to ear (or other) piercing, to tattoos. The traveling health care fair came to my employer recently and I remember pretty much "everything" required a similar boilerplate consent form, even just pricking your finger for blood sugar screening. For consistencies sake, 18 yrs sounds reasonable. If we're going to apply boilerplate almost everywhere, why not simply apply it everywhere? There is no particular reason 18 is a good age. Eighteen and a day passes for all medical decisions but weirdly enough not to drink a simple beer, and some states have really weird legislation about exactly which vegetation is permitted to possess / smoke. Somewhere in the range of 13 to 22 for all of the above sounds about right.