<p>To add to that, I wonder what the hospital’s defense is going to be (they aren’t saying anything yet).</p>
<p>“We didn’t think he’d notice?”
“It was unusually small anyways.”
“We did it at his wife’s request”
“This is Alabama, what do you expect?” (I consider myself entitled to make Alabama jokes, due to family ties)
“Well, he got more than he asked for. No extra charge”</p>
<p>This is going to be fodder for comedy shows for a long time. Poor guy.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>As the mother of a med student in Alabama, I do take exception to that. Med schools in Alabama are excellent, and the doctors wouldn’t confuse the procedures.</p>
<p>My husband and all my in-laws are from Alabama. Even they joke. I like to take the opportunity, because I get plenty of flak that comes my way. And a joke is just a joke.</p>
<p>But to show respect to your child, I’ll declare that the doctor who confused the procedure was obviously from somewhere else, and surely did not go to med school in Alabama!</p>
<p>I actually just picked up my first prescription from CVS for Estrogel this morning since, for the last two months, I’d been using samples my GYN’s office had given me. When I was at the drive-thru, the pharmacy tech asked me, “Do you know how expensive this is?” Which I didn’t, but I wasn’t going to say no to it based on expense - I’m pretty desperate right now. But my co-pay ended up being just over $60 - that was for a three-month supply. I actually don’t consider that very expensive, but the pharmacy tech thought it was. </p>
<p>I also think BHRT has been around a long time, but provided by compounding pharmacies for much of that time. I know people who use compounding pharmacies, and while I’m glad they have that option, I’d prefer to use a drug that has been through more rigorous testing, or at least start there.</p>
<p>Just over three years ago I was seeing a GYN who did BHRT through a compounding pharmacy. Based on some symptoms I’d been having, she started me on progesterone, estrogen and testosterone. My blood tests did not indicate that I needed any of it, but she was trying to convince her patients that it was more about how a patient feels, as opposed to what their blood tests said. In hindsight, it was a HUGE mistake. It started me on a downward trajectory of health problems that took years to clear up. Thankfully I was able to find another GYN who prescribes BHRT, but with a more scientifically-based approach. It is becoming more widely accepted as more and more studies are being released. </p>
<p>Yes, you really need to get someone good, like you have. My clinic only prescribes based upon blood test results. Got to get those tests, expensive as they are. That is terrible that your GYN did that to you.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Well there is speculation (probably more than speculation) that homone-based BC methods are linked to cancer.
"</p>
<p>How many times do we have to repeat that bcp are PREVENTATIVE against endometrial and ovarian cancer? </p>
<p>Pizza, do you have the link to the study? </p>
<p>^^
Yes, but those aren’t the only cancers a woman can face, right? There is an increased risk of cervical and breast and perhaps liver cancer. </p>
<p>Oh good lord. The decrease in endo and ovarian ca is GYN 101. There is not just “one study.” You might as well be asking me for the “study” that proves a link between smoking and lung cancer. </p>
<p>Cervical cancer is generally easily detectable. It’s a different ball of wax from endometrial and ovarian which are often far advanced by the time they are detectable. Don’t lump all cancers together. </p>
<p>“lot of what’s in the media regarding the use of hormones is based on the WHI study. One flaw with that study which many doctors do not take into consideration when prescribing or not prescribing, is that the average age of women in the study was 64 years old. Women at that age are just going to be at higher risk for a lot of things opposed to someone in her late 40s and 50s.”</p>
<p>Teri is exactly right here. The average age in the WHI was much higher than intended, and unfortunately that study was horribly reported in the media. You know, menopause isn’t all that “natural” either since most of our female ancestors died (often from childbearing complications - oh wait, that’s “natural” too) before they got to that age. </p>
<p>I myself take maybe 6 Tylenol a year and that’s it - I’m not a big med taker myself - but I hate when people ignore science and just go on “feelings.” There are pros and cons to every medication and science can tell you what those are. If you personally weigh the cons as greater, great, but don’t willfully ignore pros or pretend they aren’t there. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives”>http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives</a></p>
<p>Here. A bunch of studies cited there. </p>
<p>I have not seen the study about the link about lung cancer and smoking but I’ve heard of it. However, I have never heard of endo and ovarian ca study. My gynecologist never mentioned it. I’ve never read about and I like to read about these things, particularly after my mom died of lung cancer.</p>
<p>From the link that romani provided above, it states the following:</p>
<p>
It doesn’t seem conclusive or GYN 101 as you posted.</p>
<p>For my own family, I have 3-5 aunts from both mom and dad’s side who are in their 80s, never took birth control because they had multiple children to prove it(13-9/each aunt) and they are still alive and kicking. What health problem they have are not related to ovarian cancer.</p>
<p>Well, that’s a non-sequitur. No one said that if you didn’t take bcp you were guaranteed to get ovarian cancer. My 95 yo gmother never took bcp, had 1 child and is alive and kicking. What does that prove? </p>
<p>M2ck, the thing about the cervical ca link is that cervical ca is spread by sex w someone who has HPV. People who have more than one sexual partner are more likely to take bcp, and thus they are more likely to have HPV exposure, but that’s not a causative link, and that’s not at all the same as saying bcp “cause” cervical cancer. </p>
<p>The cancer.gov link obliquely refers to this - “Virtually all cervical cancers are caused by persistent infection with high-risk, or oncogenic, types of HPV, and the association of cervical cancer with oral contraceptive use is likely to be indirect.”</p>
<p>DrGoogle, your username really scares me. The link upthread supports exactly what I’m saying. Now you’ve learned something new - that bcp protect against ovarian cancer. </p>
<p>I’m sorry for your loss. </p>
<p>Why? I’m not a doctor if that’s why you infer?
What about this?
</p>
<p>So I read the study again, and here it says
<a href=“Oral contraceptives and the risk of hereditary ovarian cancer. Hereditary Ovarian Cancer Clinical Study Group - PubMed”>Oral contraceptives and the risk of hereditary ovarian cancer. Hereditary Ovarian Cancer Clinical Study Group - PubMed;
</p>
<p>What about it? BCP protect against ovarian cancer. The study right above this post was done among women who have the br ca “cancer gene” and showed similar results. What do YOU think these links say? </p>
<p>Maybe you’re confused by the use of the word “may” and think that there should be one conclusive study for everything? That’s not how science works, and that’s why your screen name scares me. </p>
<p>ok, I think this is the article I was looking for, but only got the abstract. How do I get the who article?
<a href=“Oral contraceptive health benefits: perception versus reality - PubMed”>Oral contraceptive health benefits: perception versus reality - PubMed;