[quote="GraceDK, post:12, topic:238708"]
I have the clear feeling that researching the causes and treatment of women's deseases is just not very prestigious in the medical world.. This is also why the NFP-doctors are so great... but so far inbetween them.
Besides of possibly not being very prestigious, I speculate that the wide-spread acceptance and use of birth control pills destroyed the financial incentive for pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs that would specifically target these gynecological problems. There ought to be a smarter way to treat them than with a birth control pill, but the birth control pill is already available and not very expensive. Add to this the fact that a large percentage of women "already take the pill anyway" - those who are sexually active and wish to avoid pregnancy. So, for a pharmaceutical company to develop some better drug, which is specifically designed and tested to treat heavy bleeding, PCOS, etc, their customers would only consist of young girls who are not sexually active, or else sexually active women who are aware of the many dangers of the Pill.
Besides, it seems like whenever it comes to the Pill (for daily use, for the morning-after pill, and so on) the regulators use a double standard and throw usual precautions to the wind - at least in the USA. "It's everybody's right to have easy access to the Pill", this mantra is used to quash legitimate concerns about the dangerous side-effects. Pills for monthly use with a low level of levonorgestrel are available on a recipe, but the Plan B morning-after pill which uses a higher dose of the same active ingredient is available over-the-counter in the USA. The equivalent of this situation would be this: you need a special license to drive a small car, but no license needed to drive a big 18-wheeler truck. Or, you need documentation to buy a small handgun, but no documentation needed to buy a fully automatic assault rifle. It's illogical that Plan B is available without a prescription, but the feminist ideal of easy access to contraception was used to trump the standard precautions that would be applied for the regulation of other, non-politicized drugs.
Meanwhile, I remember a nurse on this forums saying that she saw teenagers and young women in their twenties in the ICU, treated for stroke. And she was told, such things were unheard of before the birth control pills came to be used. Stroke used to be old people's disease, not something that afflicted young women. But I'm afraid, a fair discussion of the dangers and side-effects of the Pill is hindered by the fact that the feminist, pro-choice lobby would regard such discussion as a threat to their stated goal for easy access to the Pill. In other words, easy access trumps safety, and if the Pill causes cancer, thrombosis, stroke, and whatnot, that's an acceptable price for "easy access" and "reproductive freedom", as far as they are concerned.
Then in the next step, and that's what's happening today, the same Pill which has its serious dangers but got a pass on the account of "easy access to reproductive freedom", gets prescribed for other indications, even as trivial as acne treatment. By this point, the fact is overlooked that the "acne treatment medication" is the same dangerous drug that's known to cause breast cancers, stroke, and so on. Btw, I have seen some opinions according to which the Pill is a direct carcinogen, in other words it not simply increases the likelyhood of other carcinogens to cause cancer, but rather it causes cancer itself. And the WHO lately did put hormonal contraceptives in the class of carcinogens, together with such materials as asbestos.