Any type of hormonal contraceptive may increase risk of breast cancer
ox.ac.uk
ox.ac.uk
And contraceptives play with hormones that are central to what makes women women.
These hormones are not just limited to regulating when eggs are released from ovaries, they take part in a lot of other processes. It is absolutely not surprising then that there will be other effects of long term hormonal supplementation.
I think the best course of action would be to work on other, non-hormonal contraceptive alternatives.
Varying levels (big spikes, big valleys) are an issue too, but very few people are interested in doing anything about it. I'd love to be offered polyestradiol phosphate for instance. But such drugs are very rarely offered to anyone trans, because even after years of HRT, I could suddenly want to detransition and then this lasts too long. Or something.
By that logic sugar should be a controlled substance and we should all be gonadectimized. Gonadectimized animals almost always live longer.
> And contraceptives play with hormones that are central to what makes women women.
Weirdly estrogen in utero is central to what makes male mice male mice, and adult men adult men (20–55 pg/mL estradiol in adult men or about 1/10th the level of adult women). Estradiol plays many important roles in the body of all human adults.
> These hormones are not just limited to regulating when eggs are released from ovaries, they take part in a lot of other processes. It is absolutely not surprising then that there will be other effects of long term hormonal supplementation.
> I think the best course of action would be to work on other, non-hormonal contraceptive alternatives.
Maybe, maybe not, since chronic use of any medication will result in chronic side effects and physical interventions such as copper IUDs are also associated with a host of serious side effects. The best course of action would be to develop interventions that are safe in animal models, give them to humans for a while, and monitor the outcomes, which is what is going on here.
I'm surprised that the outcomes observed aren't worse, given how strongly carcinogenic estrogens are on a dose-dependent basis in animal models. Hormones are strange. Women with many children have reduced amounts of breast cancer despite being exposed to absolutely enormous levels of estrogens and progesterone during and after pregnancy.
Your response to hormonally induced cancer is extinction?
Babies and bathwater.
Obviously, copper IUDs are an alternative for many, though they have their downsides. One of the big uses of hormonal contraception is managing heavy periods, PMDD and other medical conditions. I had a friend who would throw up for days every time she was on her period. It went away pretty completely on birth control.
25% additional chance of getting hit by lightning and 25% additional chance of getting heart disease are two completely different results -- I don't mind the first but I would be scared by the second.
About 13% of women develop breast cancer during their lifetime. 25% increase is then very significant, this is about additional 4% chance of getting cancer.
The study didn’t measure lifetime risk, so your assertion is not correct. It measured risk of acquiring breast cancer before age 49. This is not the age when most women get breast cancer. Average age of onset for breast cancer in the US is 62.
In particular, since we don't know the mechanism in which contraceptives cause cancer, we can't say whether trend ends when women stop taking them or will increase their chance of getting cancer for the rest of their lives.
This very large meta-study showed the increased risk is no longer significant about ten years after stopping use: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8656904/
(btw, got that link from this article about the study in the OP, which points out potential confounders: https://www.statnews.com/2023/03/21/small-rise-breast-cancer...)
This doesn't work for everyone but I'm fairly responsible, and no accidental pregnancies, so it worked for everyone I was with. The same way went for my wife as well, and we have 2 kids now, with no accidentals ones. I'm going to teach my son this as well, that the responsibility is on both parties but as the man you need to control what you can control and don't leave things to chance, especially something as life changing/destroying as an accidental pregnancy.
My lady has had horrendous experiences with hormonal contraceptives. Based on what we know of it, if she ever expressed wanting to try it again, I'd ask she reconsiders, or that we explore other options. She would appreciate that as being thoughtful (not as me claiming to know what's better for her, better than herself.)
Maybe it's all about context, I'm not sure
+100
For everyone the circumstances and relationship dynamics are different.
And it's kind of disheartening to read a well-intentioned comment, see people assuming their own completely different context and then getting slightly aggressive about it.
What you're reading as aggression, I'm reading as a reasonable response to a perfectly plausible alternative interpretation, which is that he knows what's best for his girlfriends better than they do for themselves.
So many men have this corrupt mode of thinking that there is now an entire US state issuing bounties on women seeking control over their own bodies.
Everyone lives in a society where everyone else behaves like they know what's best for them. Men currently happen to have more power to enact their plans, but it's about power, not about gender, and all people who seek power think that they know best.
We are literally commenting on the article confirming using hormonal contraceptives increases the risk of cancer. So if your partner is using these you basically have two options: 1) ignore the issue and maybe not even mention it to her as this could be misinterpreted as influencing her decision, 2) address it out of pure concern for her future, even years ahead when you're no longer together.
I didn't force anyone, we had an adult conversation about it and all my gfs were on the same page. If any one of my gfs wanted to stay on contraceptives in the first place, then great, I would still do the exact same thing to avoid getting her pregnant in case she missed a day, etc. My wife wasn't on contraceptives in the first place so it was basically a non-conversation.
I think having an adult conversation is basic expectations for any healthy relationship. If you interpret broaching a subject as being cause for breaking up with someone... well, that's your prerogative.
Based on your schoolyard dismissiveness here, it looks like they're spot on and you don't actually care much for adult conversations. You can dismiss that all you want but when people view us negatively in situations like this, it only hurts ourselves, so it's usually our responsibility to communicate better
you're denying you have any unconscious motivation to "be controlling," as you again display in your response to GP's reasonable personal opinion.
I don't feel any particular need to defend my "Internet honor" and if anyone wants to interpret my post as some Handmaid's Tale order for women to submit to my demands, well that's their prerogative.
(Emphasis on the “because of their long term health” reasoning, because asking them to change because of exterior impacts can make sense)
This dude's girlfriends are free to tell him to fuck off (as one did) so there's no actual control.
There's a difference between "control" and "being on the same page about big deal stuff." I don't think my wife would marry me if I was a heavy drug user for example. That's not her controlling my life, it's her having a standard for herself. If we are not on the same page we just don't get married.
Presumably this dude doesn't want to date/marry someone who takes on heavy health risk when other options are available, especially when the nature of his can impact fertility and children. That's a very reasonable stance for him to take in his own life.
Likewise, my friend asking me to stop smoking because they care about my health is different than my boss saying to stop smoking or I'm fired.
Now if your partner brings the topic up to you and mentions health issues they’re experiencing then sure, it’s fine to offer your view, but that’s not how it sounds to us reading.
Also, people don't need perfect information to have good intentions that can help. My friend might point out that I should cut back on my swordfish intake because it's high in mercury. They don't know my body as well as I do, and they're not an MD, but this seems like a totally fine topic to bring up.
I did this, and I'm now vasectomized, but even without this operation, the deal was always "I think this may be harmful to you, I would suggest to stop taking it, but that's your move. If you're taking it for contraceptive reasons, we can figure out something else". But this makes for a way longer comment, when you are replying quickly to a topic to provide an opinion on a subject.
From medicines, to exercise, vaccines, going to GP, having more serious procedures, going to bed on time... contraceptives, condoms, vasectomy, pregnancy... tattoos, piercings... paying bills, mortgage, savings, joint/split accounts... partners will give inputs on everything. There is no overreach. Strange would be if they didn't worry about each other and the family future
You will always have the last say about yourself, but you will also be mad when your partner ignores something you think you're righter
Especially if you end up having children together and cannot handle disagreements on what best for their health and life in general
Am surprised only one did.
This is exactly what a proper partner does. Obviously you didn't force anyone to do it, but being passionate about such a topic is totally valid.
Your story reminds me of mine though - encouraged female friends to avoid the pretty obvious health risk. And also have two kids now and never before :)
chivalrous, even.
/s
> Instead I took responsibility for making sure she wouldn't get pregnant
You have to understand what a big statement that is. If she does get pregnant there’s only one person guaranteed to have to deal with the consequences of that, and that’s her. Being hesitant to transfer the responsibility to you is very rational, being mad at you over the topic is understandable.
I know your intention is good throughout here but there’s an implication that you know what’s better for their bodies than they do. A better approach (IMO) is to inform them of the risks (which you’re right they may not know) and let them make their own choice.
But not a choice made in a vacuum. It's a choice made in the context of their relationship.
https://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-control/ss/slideshow-birth-c...
The “context of a relationship” part is when a couple decide to cease birth control in order to have a child together. The OP is talking about still using birth control, just different birth control that he would prefer she use over the alternatives. Ultimately that should be her choice because the end result to him (no pregnancy) is the same.
Yes, but don't forget about the elephant in the room: There are a lot of women on birth control who wouldn't be if they weren't trying to avoid pregnancy.
>Ultimately that should be her choice.
Were you under the impression that he was physically preventing his girlfriends from taking birth control?
Don't get that, in most jurisdictions there is an almost guaranteed second one?
I'm quite surprised how well this works but we are in a stable relationship.
With or without plan b it would not be the end of our life's if we would suddenly getting a child.
Not sure how I would see it if I would be 20 and not above 30
Any type of hormonal contraceptive is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.
This is the reason behind the "pro-life" claim that abortion causes breast cancer--no, it simply doesn't provide the protection. Never-pregnant vs had-abortion is the same risk. Hormonal contraception is more effective and will reduce the oops rate and thus would be expected to show a positive correlation with breast cancer.
(And the oops rate is also why for a young non-smoker the risk of the pill is *negative* even if the response to an oops is an immediate abortion. Carrying it to term increases the effect by at least an order of magnitude.)
> These calculations were then adjusted to take into account established risk factors such as body mass index (BMI), number of recorded births, and the time since a woman’s last birth.
Is it the same as yours?
For reference, risks of breast and cervical cancers are increased in women who use oral contraceptives, whereas the risks of endometrial, ovarian, and colorectal cancers are actually reduced.
Also IANAD
Are there other solutions to acne, and weight loss? Yes. Endometriosis is far more complicated.
My opinion is that estrogen hormone therapy is not the best course of action for acne and is prescribed far too much.
I literally do not know what your beef is with my opinion, since you do not state yours, you just write in weird, obtuse statements, which is common on hn in, I would assume, an attempt to look smart on a subject, in which you are not. See also: contrarianism.
What did your doctor tell you about reversibility?
> The early failure rate of vasectomy (presence of motile sperm in the ejaculate at 3–6 months post-vasectomy) is in the range of 0.3–9% and the late failure rate is in the range of 0.04–0.08%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5110415/
8 out of 10,000 men is still a very low failure rate, although keep in mind that typically failure rates for contraceptives/sterilization are per annum.
So if you get a vasectomy with a 0.08% failure rate and then have sex for 30 years ... 0.08% * 30 = 2.4%.
Typical hormonal IUD annual failure rate = .1% [1].
.1% * 30 years = 3%.
Considering that one would have to get the hormonal IUD replaced (painful!!) every 3-8 years [1], while vasectomies only require check-ups two times after the procedure (not painful) after 1-2 months, and at one's discretion afterwards, that's a way better value proposition.