I know this procedure has been discussed here before…anyone here actually undergone it? How is the recovery? Success in treating heavy menstrual flow? Downside/complications?
Really…no one?! Time to find and Ob/Gyn forum :shrug:
I have a friend considering it, because she is in her 40s and her periods have just gotten insane. But I don’t have any real knowledge or experience to offer. Sorry! :o
what is it???
My wife had the procedure 1.5 years ago and is VERY satisfied with it. Reduced menstrual flow (almost zero) reduced PMS (very noticeable) and no cramping or ****** feeling each month. She would say " It’s a miracle".
I am sure that many on this board would either condemn this procedure or hold it in high suspect mode as it does require a absolute avoidance of pregnancy. Once done, the uterus is not capable of supporting a pregnancy as its lining has been destroyed. Many OB/GYN’s will not do it unless the couple has had a tubal or a vasectomy. I personally would not depend on NFP for birth control in this case as it would be dangerous for the woman.
She went in to the clinic at 10 and was out a 12, the only directions were no sex or tampons for 4 weeks and she took a week of antibiotics.
Is this similar to cervical ablation?
Uterine ablation makes women sterile, so I can’t imagine it’s acceptable for Catholic women. Catholics can’t even get tubals if the next pregnancy could be fatal, so I can’t imagine the Pope would allow us to get a sterilizing procedure just for bad periods.
Someone might clarify, but I think it’s wrong.
And because of this, it’s a morally questionable medical procedure, however a call to the National Catholic Bioethics Center might be a better strategy ncbcenter.org/
Uh, yeah, the friend I know who is thinking of having it done… last time she had one of her really bad periods, her potassium and iron got so low from the blood loss that she ended up in the ER. And that was the SECOND TIME. So, it’s not “just” bad periods. Some people can have a problem so bad that it threatens their health in very real ways, and also their quality of life. She needs to be available to the kids she has already, KWIM?
If the procedure is done for a valid medical reason, like my friend has, and the side effect is sterility, then it is acceptable. If you do it directly to make yourself sterile, then it is not. Just because a medical procedure might make you sterile does not mean you can’t have it. If I get the ovarian cancer that killed my grandmother, I am getting rid of my ovaries and I won’t think twice about it.
Cousin had it done in January and had only cramping afterwards for the day. The proicedure was very quick.
She has been completely satisfied.
It’s not that the ablaction causes sterility, you can’t carry a baby to term and it’s dangerous to get pregnant once you have this done and then you are expected to be surgically sterilized. That’s the difference. A hysterectomy is allowed in such cases as you outlined above, but I’m not sure the morality of having this procedure and then getting sterilized? That’s why I suggested contacting the Catholic Bioethics Center (and a VERY orthadox priest and a very CATHOLIC Doctor would help, too.)
How can that be? My doctor made it clear that I should undergo some form of permanent sterilization if I were to consider the uterine ablation. As a result, I have decided against it. As it happens, my periods have lightened up since I made this decision so it is no longer a concern for me.
But that’s beside the point. If the ablation prevents a woman from carrying a child to term, how can it be “ok”, unless there are significatn medical reasons which warrant the procedure?
No idea. Message Father.
I shall keep watch of this thread with much curiosity. I have just had my doctor look over my NFP charts and she also suggested ablation to me(having periomenoposal issues for about a year) If someone does ask the good father I hope it will be posted here. I am also going to discuss this with my parish priest.
Someone did ask, and he said it’s fine.
What people are wondering is whether or not the “required” sterilization after the procedure is within bounds.
What exactly is the “danger” the ob/gyn’s are so worried about if you get the uterine ablation but not the tubal? Is there an increased risk of a tubal pregnancy or something?
My ob/gyn told me the same thing. “Gee, yeah, it looks like you have fibroids and they’re causing you a lot of problems.” (including anemia so bad, I was totally wiped out and nauseous all the time) “You can go on the pill, go on Depo-Provera, get a uterine ablation, or get a full hysterectomy.” And then he just sat and stared at me. No info offered, no suggestions. :mad:
I told him the first two options were right out, since they were not designed to fix fibroids and I had moral issues with them, anyways. And I’m only 33, so a complete hysterectomy is such a DUMB idea, I don’t know why he even mentioned it.
(and for whoever suggested “just get a complete hysterectomy, it’s more moral,” I’m not sure you understand much about the drastic hormonal changes that happen (i.e. a sudden crash into menopause with the associated increased cancer risks, made much worse by early onset of menopause), the internal problems of shifting organs, etc. when someone gets a hysterectomy. Our fertility is not something we can just excise with impunity; personally, I need those hormones to be running for another twenty years or more for many other reasons besides my fertility (which is nonexsistent, anyways). Would you tell someone to have their entire stomach removed for ulcers? No, of course not; you do what you need to do to fix the problem, no more.)
It’s dangerous to get pregnant. The uterous lining is thinned a great deal. I think bleeding/hemmoraging is the problem.
You can have a hysterectomy and leave the ovaries so that the hormones remain. My mother had one done when I was little for excess bleeding problems, but they left her ovaries and she went through menopause normally, except for the bleeding.
For those interested in the facts about this procedure (not really looking to enter a debate about the “morality” of the procedure as it was investigated in my case as a treatment of a medical condition, not as a means to birth control) you can read more at www.novasure.com.
That’s what I understand. The uterine lining is so thin that it is impossible for an embryo to imbed itself into it.
As I understand it, you basically “fry” the lining of your uterus.