Dec 082008
Chris McGregor continues her interviews with Dr. Thomas Hilgers. We continue from the last post with “Contraception, p.2.” Dr. Hilgers talks about the orgin of the IUD (camels? really?), development of contraceptive technology, the politics of redefining pregnancy, the side effects of it all…
on 
on 
on 
on 
on
I went with the Paraguard IUD because I wanted non-barrier, non-hormonal contraception. The doctor who inserted it told me that it was not an abortive device, and from what I understand of the process, I agree. I highly recommend the copper IUD as a method of birth control for people who do not want to poison themselves with hormones but are not in a place where they are comfortable using the method of fertility awareness.
I understand where you’re coming from. I’ve not researched the Paraguard IUD, but my guess is that it is, in fact, an abortafacient. But I’ll get back to you on that after I do a little research. From what we know about Fertility Awareness (effectiveness, working with your body’s fertility and not against it), or natural methods of family planning, there’s no reason to be uncomfortable with it unless one subscribes to the negative and unfounded stigma.
I definitely respect NFP and would like to try it when I am able to handle it potentially failing– i.e. when I am open to the possibility of having a baby. Right now I am in a stable relationship but not financially or emotionally ready to start a family. I’d rather not have an abortion either– so the important thing for me is to prevent pregnancy. From what I understand the copper in my IUD kills sperm and the presence of a foreign object in the uterus also prevents fertilization. It may or may not also prevent implantation, which, depending on whether or not you believe life begins at conception, could classify it as an abortafacient method. This is not an issue for me personally; it’s kind of splitting hairs. Either way I despise hormonal birth control. Any method that does not rely on hormones is ok with me.
You know, it turns out Paragard works like any other IUD (http://www.paragard.com/custom/q-and-a), meaning that it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. That’s an abortafacient. Your doctor may tell you differently because he may be an ACOG member, which is a highly politicized organization that changed the definition of pregnancy years ago from fertilization to implantation so that contraception could be marketed as non-abortafacient. The DNA you have now Molly is the same DNA you had at conception before implantation. Also, do a search on “Paragard problems” and you’ll find loads of people very unhappy with copper IUDs: http://www.womens-health.com/boards/birth-control/3100-considering-paragard-copper-t-iud.html
As with all birth control methods, there are certainly problems. I weighed the risks very carefully before I got mine, and it’s been a great method for me. Being on hormonal birth control made me chronically depressed, the diaphragm was a fiasco, spermicide is shady, I distrust condoms, and as stated previously, I’m not ready to try NFP quite yet. I’ve spent months researching birth control, it’s a topic I’m very interested in and I think every woman should take it very seriously and find the best method for her. Anyway thanks for your informative website, I certainly agree with you that hormonal birth control is horrible even if we disagree about the IUD.
NFP has the same effectiveness in postponing pregnancy as the IUD. Period. Plus the continuation rate for NFP is much higher than the copper IUD because of the lack of side effects. I disagree that it’s not an issue for you personally because aside from the moral issue, you have Uterine puncture issues and IUD loss issues. Whether or not you believe life begins at conception, sloughing off a fertilized egg changes your biochemistry. Bruce Lipton has done work on cellular biology that really stresses the effects of that instantly happen after fertilization–from the beginning of placenta growth, to increased cell production in your breasts. You can’t interrupt those processes–whether you want to call it spontaneous abortion or “sloughing”–without changing your body chemistry and health for the worse.
You admitted about two hours ago that you hadn’t ever researched the copper IUD before, but that you ‘guessed’ that it was an abortive method. You then found links online that agreed with your biased, unfounded assumption.
A few minutes of googling on the topic of IUDs does not make you an expert on them, or give you the authority to tell me that it is the wrong method for me. I spent months researching it and other methods (including NFP) before I decided to get one, and I am glad I did.
Uterine perforation and IUD loss issues happen in a very, very tiny percentage of cases. I evaluated those risks before I decided on this method. The IUD is actually the most widely used method in the world.
Molly, but the tone of your reply you seem to think that I’m attacking you personally. I’m not judging you personally, nor am I tell you what to do with your body, contrary to what you’re perceiving about my reply. I simply feel strongly about the claim that IUDs are not abortafacient. The Physicians Desk Reference and the company’s own web disagree with you. Did you check the first link? How unbiased is information from the COMPANY THAT PRODUCES IT: “how ParaGard® works include preventing sperm from reaching the egg and preventing the egg from attaching (implanting) in the uterus.” My assumption was an educated guess based on my knowledge of how different contraceptives work. I am not a scientist, as you aren’t either, but I have also done my research. You’re getting defensive about the sloughing function of the IUD. All I’m saying is that the sloughing changes you biochemically because you’re body is not made to slough it’s own fertilized eggs.
But what about spontaneous abortions? Sometimes your body just naturally sloughs its own fertilized eggs, for various reasons. Sometimes you don’t even know it’s done that and just assume that it’s your normal period and don’t realize you were actually pregnant.
The interesting thing about how ParaGuard works is that really, nobody actually knows. Seriously. When you parse out the language used to describe what it does, you get lots of ‘theories on why it works are…’ and ‘how it works include…’. So maybe it’s always preventing sperm from reaching the egg, or maybe it’s always preventing the egg from attaching, and maybe it’s alternating between the two, but really, they don’t know. Thanks, scientific researchers, for caring enough to figure out how womens’ bodies work and respond to different contraceptive methods.
I take issue with you telling me that what I’m doing is bad for me, when it’s not something you have a lot of personal or research experience with. I understand and respect that you know a lot about NFP, and I wouldn’t tell you that it’s wrong or that you’re harming yourself by using it as a method. I suggested the IUD as an alternative for women who don’t want hormones, but don’t have the time or energy to devote to NFP. I suppose I made a mistake in assuming that since we both feel strongly that hormonal contraception is wrong, that we would agree about other non-hormonal methods, like the IUD.
I enjoy having these kinds of dialogues because I learn more from people who disagree with me, so I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this issue with me.
As to the difference between a spontaneous abortion and induced early abortion, I don’t know, or at least I don’t have the data for my hypothesis, so I’ll have to get back to you.
I understand what you were trying to communicate about the copper IUD as a non-hormonal alternative. For folks who don’t have issues with the abortafacient back up, go for it. But in the spirit of total body wellness, I wanted to bring up potential pitfalls of the abortafacient effect.
As to how exactly Paragard works, I find it honestly a *little* disconcerting that “really, nobody actually knows.” I’m not the former pharmaceutical rep that Kathleen Slattery-Moschka is, but my educated guess is that the scientists do, in fact know, but the producers of the drug have not availed themselves of this knowledge for less than altruistic reasons. It wouldn’t be a first. I’m a skeptic about this, though.
I agree with you about dialoguing with people one doesn’t disagree with. I’ve consistently said for years it’s not people I disagree with or my “enemies” that really anger me; it’s the lukewarm and the indifferent.