looking for info re: NON hormonal IUD

[teddi]

Hey ladies,

If you have any good medically oriented websites/books that you'd like to share (or other info sources) I'd like to see/read them!

I am considering looking into (not necessarily soon but maybe eventually) a NON hormonal IUD.

I do not want hormones at all. I have my reasons which are numerous, both medical and belief based. I do not want to rely solely on a method that may act as an abortifacient. But I am wondering if there is a middle ground. Could I reasonably use an IUD and also use my current NFP avoidance rule of 72 hours if needed/wanted.

Essentially questions I am looking to answer (with hard data and facts, not just theory or a pharmacueticals desire to sell their product, or biased info against)

1) side effects
2) is ovulation possible to detect if it is occuring/changes to menstration/ changes to cervical mucus
3) impact on the uterus / uterine lining
4) studies on IUD after c/s

I'm not really thrilled with the idea of using an IUD until I was 100% done having babies (and hence lets hope DH would get the V anyway). I don't like having a scarred uterus and sticking something in there. Just asking for more potential problems (probably a very small risk but I don't want to go there at all). In general i'm anti-sticking things into the uterus unless the risks of not clearly outweigh the risks of doing so.

[bibliojo]

Don't have any wisdom here but I'll be very interested to read the replies to this topic. This is something that I've considered too. I have another question to add if I may...

My doctor told me that in studies that were done on the IUD they did find fertilized eggs in the tubes of women who used an IUD. Can anybody tell me how common an occurance that is? Like how every many fertilized eggs to 100 woman for example. Just thinking that if I combine it with another form of bc I'll cut that risk of there being a fertilized egg...

[aaronsmommy]

A found a couple of studies of IUD after csection (most of the studies are about insertion at the time of csection) but the conclusion of all of them was that it wasn't a problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... med_DocSum

The rate of fertilized eggs is much, much less than with no contraception.

My periods are a bit longer, definitely heavier, but certainly tolerable. I don't do NFP, but I do notice that my cervical mucus changes around the time of ovulation, so I think you should be able to continue with the NFP.

Last time I checked, the WHO had some good stuff about IUDs on their website.

[tlm5999]

A little over halfway down this site has the common side effects.

http://www.aafp.org/afp/981200ap/canavan.html

This site is just the copperT

http://www.drugs.com/pdr/paragard_t_380 ... ptive.html

[bibliojo]

Aimee, do you have to register at that site to view the info? It's not coming up for me.

[aaronsmommy]

No, it shouldn't be a problem, and it works when I click on it

[bibliojo]

Thanks Aimee. It works now.

[christineb]

HI-
I looked into the copper (non-hormonal)IUD a few years ago, after HG pg #2, and before deciding to attempt (HG) pg #3. To be totally honest with you, I decided "No" for the IUD.
The reason was that in my online research, I'd stumbled upon too many blogs/sites of women sharing their personal stories about how using that type of IUD had resulted in ectopic pregnancies that nearly killed them. That is a risk with the use of that IUD, and it's listed on the accompanying patient information leaflets, required to be given to you, by law, should you be in the final stages of the decision-making process regarding the IUD.

Additionally, with regard to your sepecific beliefs regarding contraception... JUST IN CASE you weren't aware of this...the IUD is THOUGHT to work mostly by preventing implantation of the pregnancy. This means fertilization will have occurred, but the fertilized egg cannot implant and be carried onto further development. (Believe it or not, medical experts aren't EXACTLY 100% sure HOW the IUD actually DOES work.)In theory, this means that you could very likely be losing fertilized eggs - a pregnancy by many people's beliefs, early on, repeatedly. I don't know if this is what you'd be comfortable with?
Personally, I do not have any religious or spiritual beliefs that restrict any form of contraception, so this is just fact I'm presenting to you, with respect for your beliefs, and also concerns or your safety.
(: I had contraception restrictions due to blood clot issues - no estrogen-based birth control whatsoever, for me! I got the depo shot up until DH's vasectomy. (No estrogen in that, surprisingly!) I gained weight on it, had a voracious appetite, lost ALL interest in s-e-x (gee, I think THAT's the REAL reason the stuff worked, LOL!)- and basically was a moody jerk on it. In my case, it was worth it, having recently miscarried and recuperating form organ failure. It was a no-brainer for me with my situation. I wouldn't have used it long-term, however. It DID help me gain back the HG weight loss, but had I stayed on it longer, I am SURE I'd be signing-up at Weight Watchers right now! ( : It can also cause osteoporosis - as early as 6 months after starting the shot... LOTS of calcium supplementation to go with it, even more than the normal recommendation, since we HG vets are so depleted overall. Short term, though, I think depo is a decent bet.
Good luck, Teddi!
I hope this helped you a little!

[teddi]

Thanks for your response Christine. I am aware that the IUD can function as an "anti-implantant" for lack of a better word.

It really bothers me that medicine at some point changed the definition of contraception without educating women, or engaging the public in any kind of discussion before doing so. Some folks don't care- men and women both. But some do. I was really really angry that I was taught in school, and in womens/health magazine that "the pill" worked by stopping ovulation. A contraceptive. Then, a month or more into my use of Micronor (a minipill) I actually busted out the insert and started reading. And wow, to my surprise it said it worked in three different ways it worked. Two of which worked to prevent conception and the third just by making implantation difficult.

No one told me this, though they were eager to get me on birth control before I left the hospital. No one asked me about my beliefs. I had no idea. Now I do read things before taking them....

I know the risks generally associated with an IUD. Perforation, dislocation, infection from insertion, allergic reaction even, increased rates of tubal pregnancies, etc. Most of those risks are really low. But low isn't really comforting... from an ob/gyn perspective... the lowest risk of nothing going wrong is not sticking anything up into the uterus at all.

I do believe new individuals lives begin at conception, and any child I do concieve I want to provide age appropriate care for (meaning a safe environment the first week or so, then uterine lining in good shape from then on).

I'm also not going to use hormonal methods. The issue of breast cancer IMO still needs some real HONEST researching- which in todays climate may have ALOT of resistance by the pharmeceuticals. A) My history of depression- PPD two times, I do NOT want any hormones in my body unless it is corrective. I really do not wish to dabble with those for my mental health reasons. I also want to know if the huge increase of breast cancer rates and also other female cancers might be linked to artificial hormones in the body.

Rates started going up after the introduction of "the pill" and the Roe V Wade (abortion breast cancer link). Maybe there is no connection, but I am not going to be a genuiea pig. No hormones for me! Not to mention just about a month ago I think that new study came out and showed a DROP in BC rates for the first time- and many theorize that the dramatic shift away from HRT is probably why! SO???? What about all the other hormones women are putting in their bodies? What about that progesterone and estrogen (esp the estrogen)? The same ethical objections that apply to IUD's in general apply to any hormonal method. The pills of old were so much higher doses that they probably did almost always prevent ovulation - the same cannot be said of the new generation pills, the low dose hormones.

I'm just info gathering at this point. I have a gyn exam in March and I'd like to get some idea of options. I don't want permanent...don't want hormones...don't really want things stuck in me or any invasive procedures of any kind... yep I want my cake and to eat it too!

If I did opt for an IUD, i'd still be wanting to incorporate NFP with it. IE, still try to avoid conception. It will probably be a "no". Just want some good data to make my decisions with.