IUD for teens

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

IUDs for teens are likely good as a matter of public health for certain portions of the population who are never going to use condoms or take the pill reliably

You don't agree that teens fall into that category?

Well, given your reading comprehension, I'll have to assume your offspring is as big of a dipshit as you. So an IUD is probably best.

Why'd you chop off the rest of the sentence? I said it is likely a poor choice for many individual teens. And, yes, there are many teens who take the pill reliably and use condoms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mine totally ruined my health - heavy periods and weird discharge . My body did not like have a foreign object in it.
I wouldn't recommend it.

It seems like a big threat to a teen would be sexually transmitted diseases - herpes, chlymydia , gonorrhea, AIDS ?
Seems like conform use would be a much better idea.

No reason you can't use an IUD and a condom.

They won't, trust me.
All of the girls in college who were on the pill didn't use condoms either.
Men are always looking for a reason not to wear a condom and if they find out you are already on birth control - forget it.
It's not happening.

In that case your argument is: girls should use not-very-effective method of contraception in order to prevent transmission of STDs.

I don't think much of that argument.

I'm not arguing anything. Just sharing a fact of what/how young people think.
Condoms are plenty effective - I'd argue that.

[Anonymous]

Who are these teens who will agree to have these things out into their bodies by the way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
This. There's a lot of money to be made by too many people if all American parents of teenage girls believe that IUDs are largely without risk and a good idea. I think it defies logic that it would be a good idea to implant a foreign object into a young teen's uterus, which will stop her cycles (if the IUD is hormonal)...all at the very time her body is supposed to be adjusting to its new capabilities and growing. This is the first generation of young teen women who will be implanted with these things, so there's hardly decades of evidence pointing to this being an actually a low risk thing to do.

Yeah, there are plenty of resources saying it's fine...but there are also plenty of resources that claim that epidurals don't interfere with labor...and there are also plenty of studies that say once an old silicone breast implant has ruptured that the leaky silicone doesn't cause health issues.

IUDs for teens are likely good as a matter of public health for certain portions of the population who are never going to use condoms or take the pill reliably, but I think they are likely a lousy choice for many individual teens.

What her body would ordinarily be doing at this very time, without contraception, is getting pregnant and having babies. But we generally agree that this would not be a good thing, right?

Also, why doesn't it defy logic that it would be a good idea to introduce foreign hormones into a young teen's body, in the form of oral contraception (or Nexplanon, the contraceptive patch, or the contraceptive ring)?

And the portions of the population who don't use condoms reliably or take the pill reliably is -- basically every portion of the population. Even affluent mothers with advanced degrees from fancy universities, who post on DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm not arguing anything. Just sharing a fact of what/how young people think.
Condoms are plenty effective - I'd argue that.

If you use condoms perfectly every single time you have sex, they're 98% effective at preventing pregnancy. But people aren't perfect, so in real life condoms are about 82% effective — that means about 18 out of 100 people who use condoms as their only birth control method will get pregnant each year.

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms

(98% effective means that 2 out of 100 people (or 1 out of 50 people) who use condoms are their only birth control method will get pregnant each year.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who are these teens who will agree to have these things out into their bodies by the way?

Teenage girls/women who want a safe, appropriate, and highly-effective method of contraception.

http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Adolescent-Health-Care/Adolescents-and-Long-Acting-Reversible-Contraception

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There's a lot of money to be made by too many people if all American parents of teenage girls believe that IUDs are largely without risk and a good idea. I think it defies logic that it would be a good idea to implant a foreign object into a young teen's uterus, which will stop her cycles (if the IUD is hormonal)...all at the very time her body is supposed to be adjusting to its new capabilities and growing. This is the first generation of young teen women who will be implanted with these things, so there's hardly decades of evidence pointing to this being an actually a low risk thing to do.

Yeah, there are plenty of resources saying it's fine...but there are also plenty of resources that claim that epidurals don't interfere with labor...and there are also plenty of studies that say once an old silicone breast implant has ruptured that the leaky silicone doesn't cause health issues.

IUDs for teens are likely good as a matter of public health for certain portions of the population who are never going to use condoms or take the pill reliably, but I think they are likely a lousy choice for many individual teens.

What her body would ordinarily be doing at this very time, without contraception, is getting pregnant and having babies. But we generally agree that this would not be a good thing, right? Right.

Also, why doesn't it defy logic that it would be a good idea to introduce foreign hormones into a young teen's body, in the form of oral contraception (or Nexplanon, the contraceptive patch, or the contraceptive ring)? It does. However, I think the Pill is the lesser of evils mentioned because it is perhaps the most studied medication in history. There's also no device being implanted into the uterus which could damage and puncture it.

And the portions of the population who don't use condoms reliably or take the pill reliably is -- basically every portion of the population. Even affluent mothers with advanced degrees from fancy universities, who post on DCUM.

Untrue. I know plenty of individual women who take the Pill reliably.

Do what you want, lady. You're free to use your daughter as a teen IUD guinea pig. I don't care, and hopefully your daughter won't either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a heterosexual cisgendered woman who has been dodging unwanted pregnancy for what feels like a million years and the mom of a teen (though a boy), I am very much pro-IUD. I wish I'd been able to get on that bandwagon when I was a teenager.

I think suggesting she talk to the gyno about the Mirena is a good idea. I'm sure both you and the gyno will tell her this if you have't already, but she still needs to use condoms to protect against STIs.

Yeah, I'm not going to use these terms. Ever. Nice try, though.

Getting all uptight about someone using these terms says more about you than it does about them. Chill out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There's a lot of money to be made by too many people if all American parents of teenage girls believe that IUDs are largely without risk and a good idea. I think it defies logic that it would be a good idea to implant a foreign object into a young teen's uterus, which will stop her cycles (if the IUD is hormonal)...all at the very time her body is supposed to be adjusting to its new capabilities and growing. This is the first generation of young teen women who will be implanted with these things, so there's hardly decades of evidence pointing to this being an actually a low risk thing to do.

Yeah, there are plenty of resources saying it's fine...but there are also plenty of resources that claim that epidurals don't interfere with labor...and there are also plenty of studies that say once an old silicone breast implant has ruptured that the leaky silicone doesn't cause health issues.

IUDs for teens are likely good as a matter of public health for certain portions of the population who are never going to use condoms or take the pill reliably, but I think they are likely a lousy choice for many individual teens.

What her body would ordinarily be doing at this very time, without contraception, is getting pregnant and having babies. But we generally agree that this would not be a good thing, right? Right.

Also, why doesn't it defy logic that it would be a good idea to introduce foreign hormones into a young teen's body, in the form of oral contraception (or Nexplanon, the contraceptive patch, or the contraceptive ring)? It does. However, I think the Pill is the lesser of evils mentioned because it is perhaps the most studied medication in history. There's also no device being implanted into the uterus which could damage and puncture it.

And the portions of the population who don't use condoms reliably or take the pill reliably is -- basically every portion of the population. Even affluent mothers with advanced degrees from fancy universities, who post on DCUM.

Untrue. I know plenty of individual women who take the Pill reliably.

Do what you want, lady. You're free to use your daughter as a teen IUD guinea pig. I don't care, and hopefully your daughter won't either.

Are we talking about individual people or portions of the population? An IUD might be a good choice for a population group as a whole, but not necessarily for every individual person in that group, right? Somebody (you?) said that in the top post. Well, exactly the same is true for oral contraceptives. And one reason why oral contraceptives might not be a good choice for an individual person is that the individual person would not reliably take them.

Also, there is actually plenty of evidence supporting ACOG's recommendations on long-acting reversible contraception (including IUDs) for adolescents. You can read it here: http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Adolescent-Health-Care/Adolescents-and-Long-Acting-Reversible-Contraception Nobody is being a guinea pig.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
This. There's a lot of money to be made by too many people if all American parents of teenage girls believe that IUDs are largely without risk and a good idea. I think it defies logic that it would be a good idea to implant a foreign object into a young teen's uterus, which will stop her cycles (if the IUD is hormonal)...all at the very time her body is supposed to be adjusting to its new capabilities and growing. This is the first generation of young teen women who will be implanted with these things, so there's hardly decades of evidence pointing to this being an actually a low risk thing to do.

Yeah, there are plenty of resources saying it's fine...but there are also plenty of resources that claim that epidurals don't interfere with labor...and there are also plenty of studies that say once an old silicone breast implant has ruptured that the leaky silicone doesn't cause health issues.

IUDs for teens are likely good as a matter of public health for certain portions of the population who are never going to use condoms or take the pill reliably, but I think they are likely a lousy choice for many individual teens.

What her body would ordinarily be doing at this very time, without contraception, is getting pregnant and having babies. But we generally agree that this would not be a good thing, right? Right.

Also, why doesn't it defy logic that it would be a good idea to introduce foreign hormones into a young teen's body, in the form of oral contraception (or Nexplanon, the contraceptive patch, or the contraceptive ring)? It does. However, I think the Pill is the lesser of evils mentioned because it is perhaps the most studied medication in history. There's also no device being implanted into the uterus which could damage and puncture it.

And the portions of the population who don't use condoms reliably or take the pill reliably is -- basically every portion of the population. Even affluent mothers with advanced degrees from fancy universities, who post on DCUM.

Untrue. I know plenty of individual women who take the Pill reliably.

Do what you want, lady. You're free to use your daughter as a teen IUD guinea pig. I don't care, and hopefully your daughter won't either.

Are we talking about individual people or portions of the population? An IUD might be a good choice for a population group as a whole, but not necessarily for every individual person in that group, right? Somebody (you?) said that in the top post. Well, exactly the same is true for oral contraceptives. And one reason why oral contraceptives might not be a good choice for an individual person is that the individual person would not reliably take them.

Also, there is actually plenty of evidence supporting ACOG's recommendations on long-acting reversible contraception (including IUDs) for adolescents. You can read it here: http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Adolescent-Health-Care/Adolescents-and-Long-Acting-Reversible-Contraception Nobody is being a guinea pig.

09:03 again. Yes, I agree with you that other options might be good for the population as a whole, and that IUDs might be a great choice for an individual teen. I feel like you keep asking me the same question, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. My issue with is with ACOG's insistence that IUDs ought to be overwhelmingly the first line of defense for all teens. I am saying each teen should be evaluated as an individual, and that many teens are responsible to enough to avoid pregnancy without implanting a device into their uterus which could cause damage.

You choose to believe whatever research ACOG drags out in front of you, but I believe that doing taking it all on face value is a bit reckless. That's fine. We can agree to disagree. Ultimately, this is the first generation of nulliparous teens for which this recommendation of IUDs has been made. We have yet to see how this will shake out, both in terms of long-term consequences to the fertility of current teens and in terms of STD rates. Further, there is a pile of medical devices and drugs throughout the course of history which have been approved and then taken off the market, or approved but only to have unforeseen consequences pop up later.

I'd say that the excitement that some parents display over the approval of IUDs for teenagers is a little bit strange. For parents who think their child is certainly not responsible enough to set a reminder on their phone to pop a pill each day at the same time, I'm not sure why they are SO convinced that their kid is responsible enough to be diligent about condom usage each time. In fact, I'd think that the - pretty much guaranteed - absence of pregnancy concerns would make a teen far less likely to use condoms, and boys far more likely to pressure girls into going without condoms even if they want to use one. Just look at the STD rates of retirement communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

09:03 again. Yes, I agree with you that other options might be good for the population as a whole, and that IUDs might be a great choice for an individual teen. I feel like you keep asking me the same question, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. My issue with is with ACOG's insistence that IUDs ought to be overwhelmingly the first line of defense for all teens. I am saying each teen should be evaluated as an individual, and that many teens are responsible to enough to avoid pregnancy without implanting a device into their uterus which could cause damage.

Which insistence is that? Here is what ACOG actually says:

ABSTRACT: Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)—intrauterine devices and the contraceptive implant—are safe and appropriate contraceptive methods for most women and adolescents. The LARC methods are top-tier contraceptives based on effectiveness, with pregnancy rates of less than 1% per year for perfect use and typical use. These contraceptives have the highest rates of satisfaction and continuation of all reversible contraceptives. Adolescents are at high risk of unintended pregnancy and may benefit from increased access to LARC methods.

http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Adolescent-Health-Care/Adolescents-and-Long-Acting-Reversible-Contraception

I also seriously doubt that ACOG would dispute that idea that each teen (or each anybody else) should be evaluated as an individual.

Nor is the purpose of an IUD to be the contraceptive method for irresponsible people. It's one contraceptive method for people to consider who want a highly-effective method of reversible contraception with a high rate of satisfaction.

Now I, personally, do wonder why you are fine with teenagers taking hormones orally, intramuscularly, or transdermally, but not fine with teenagers having devices in their uteruses, but that's beside the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

09:03 again. Yes, I agree with you that other options might be good for the population as a whole, and that IUDs might be a great choice for an individual teen. I feel like you keep asking me the same question, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. My issue with is with ACOG's insistence that IUDs ought to be overwhelmingly the first line of defense for all teens. I am saying each teen should be evaluated as an individual, and that many teens are responsible to enough to avoid pregnancy without implanting a device into their uterus which could cause damage.

Which insistence is that? Here is what ACOG actually says:

ABSTRACT: Long-acting reversible contraception (LARC)—intrauterine devices and the contraceptive implant—are safe and appropriate contraceptive methods for most women and adolescents. The LARC methods are top-tier contraceptives based on effectiveness, with pregnancy rates of less than 1% per year for perfect use and typical use. These contraceptives have the highest rates of satisfaction and continuation of all reversible contraceptives. Adolescents are at high risk of unintended pregnancy and may benefit from increased access to LARC methods.

http://www.acog.org/Resources-And-Publications/Committee-Opinions/Committee-on-Adolescent-Health-Care/Adolescents-and-Long-Acting-Reversible-Contraception

I also seriously doubt that ACOG would dispute that idea that each teen (or each anybody else) should be evaluated as an individual.

Nor is the purpose of an IUD to be the contraceptive method for irresponsible people. It's one contraceptive method for people to consider who want a highly-effective method of reversible contraception with a high rate of satisfaction.

Now I, personally, do wonder why you are fine with teenagers taking hormones orally, intramuscularly, or transdermally, but not fine with teenagers having devices in their uteruses, but that's beside the point.

Since you're ignoring much of what I've said, I'll ignore 90% of the points you're making when providing my answer, too.

I am in no way fine with teens taking hormones, and never said as much. However, I do believe that the pill is the the lesser of the evils you're listing. It is a good option for many people. It is one of the most studied medications in history, and it is probably wise to have some form of a backup to a condom. Spermicide and diaphragms are probably a much better option for back up, but I know women who have had a lot of trouble getting them in and out as a young nullip. Plus it diaphrams and spermicide are another another form of birth control that need to be done before the actual act, and you can see how a teen just scrap it altogether. A pill is remembered during another time of the day, and not during the heat of the moment.

We can keep going round in circles. I absolutely don't care what you do for your teen, but I'm free to think it's stupid. I have no vested interest in your teen's uterus.

Although, I'm sure your kid is as dopey as you are. In which case, like I said upthread, an IUD is probably best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am in no way fine with teens taking hormones, and never said as much. However, I do believe that the pill is the the lesser of the evils you're listing. It is a good option for many people. It is one of the most studied medications in history, and it is probably wise to have some form of a backup to a condom. Spermicide and diaphragms are probably a much better option for back up, but I know women who have had a lot of trouble getting them in and out as a young nullip. Plus it diaphrams and spermicide are another another form of birth control that need to be done before the actual act, and you can see how a teen just scrap it altogether. A pill is remembered during another time of the day, and not during the heat of the moment.

OK, you believe that, and I'll take my medical advice from the medical doctors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I am in no way fine with teens taking hormones, and never said as much. However, I do believe that the pill is the the lesser of the evils you're listing. It is a good option for many people. It is one of the most studied medications in history, and it is probably wise to have some form of a backup to a condom. Spermicide and diaphragms are probably a much better option for back up, but I know women who have had a lot of trouble getting them in and out as a young nullip. Plus it diaphrams and spermicide are another another form of birth control that need to be done before the actual act, and you can see how a teen just scrap it altogether. A pill is remembered during another time of the day, and not during the heat of the moment.

OK, you believe that, and I'll take my medical advice from the medical doctors.

Dear Jesus. I've never said that any of the medical advice coming from ACOG wasn't coming from medical doctors. Do what you want, and I'm not restating any of my arguments to someone so dense.

I will, however, underscore that it is probably a great thing that you support such a fool proof method of pregnancy prevention for your snowflake. You should get one, too, while you're at it!