Birth Control Thro­ug­ho­ut most of hu­man his­tory, the - TopicsExpress



          

Birth Control Thro­ug­ho­ut most of hu­man his­tory, the con­cept of li­mi­ting births wo­uld ne­ver ha­ve oc­cur­red to an­yo­ne; most chil­dren did not li­ve past the­ir fifth bir­thdays and the only cer­ta­in way a co­up­le co­uld pass on the­ir ge­nes was to ha­ve as many chil­dren as pos­sib­le. In ad­di­ti­on, in ag­ri­cul­tu­ral so­ci­eti­es the mo­re po­ten­ti­al far­mhands, the bet­ter. It was cer­ta­inly the de­si­re to pre­vent out-of-wed­lock preg­nan­ci­es that ge­ne­ra­ted early de­mand for birth con­trol, but as so­ci­ety be­gan to chan­ge, ot­her fac­tors ca­me in­to play. The In­dus­tri­al Re­vo­lu­ti­on sig­na­led the end of ag­ra­ri­an so­ci­eti­es and the ne­ed for very lar­ge fa­mi­li­es. As wo­men be­ca­me mo­re edu­ca­ted, they de­ve­lo­ped the de­si­re to con­trol the­ir own fer­ti­lity. Du­ring the two world wars, as mo­re and mo­re wo­men joined the work for­ce—at first tem­po­ra­rily to fill in for men who had go­ne to war and la­ter per­ma­nently—lar­ge fa­mi­li­es be­ca­me in­com­pa­tib­le with wo­men’s new li­fe-styles. Now, with over­po­pu­la­ti­on thre­ate­ning the exis­ten­ce of the pla­net, things ha­ve tur­ned to­tally aro­und: it se­ems that birth con­trol has now be­co­me a ne­ces­sity for the sur­vi­val of our spe­ci­es. The­re are two ba­sic met­hods of birth con­trol—the pre­ven­ti­on of preg­nancy and the pre­ven­ti­on of birth thro­ugh abor­ti­on. Abor­ti­on was pro­bably the first ave­nue tri­ed by wo­men, who may not ha­ve un­der­sto­od how they co­uld pre­vent preg­nancy but cer­ta­inly knew they wan­ted to end the­ir preg­nan­ci­es be­fo­re they re­sul­ted in births. Most of the abor­ti­on po­ti­ons co­oked up by witch doc­tors and me­di­ci­ne wo­men pro­bably did not­hing mo­re than ma­ke wo­men sick, but cer­ta­inly the de­si­re was the­re, if not the me­ans. In pre­ven­ting preg­nancy, do­uc­hing be­ca­me the first li­ne of de­fen­se. The first his­to­ri­cal evi­den­ce we ha­ve for such po­ti­ons is from gra­ves da­ted as far back as 1850 B.C.E., in which re­ci­pes for “sper­mi­ci­des” we­re bu­ri­ed with the de­ad. The­se sper­mi­ci­des in­clu­ded such in­gre­di­ents as ho­ney, car­bo­na­te of so­da, and cro­co­di­le dung. Ot­her birth con­trol met­hods used by wo­men in­clu­ded the di­ap­hragm, the cer­vi­cal cap and the fe­ma­le con­dom. The first “di­ap­hragm” may well ha­ve be­en used by the no­ted lo­ver, Gi­ovan­ni Ca­sa­no­va, who is sa­id to ha­ve pla­ced the hol­lo­wed hal­ves of le­mons over the cer­vi­xes of his par­tners. By 1864 the Bri­tish me­di­cal as­so­ci­ati­on had com­pi­led a list of 123 kinds of va­gi­nal bar­ri­er met­hods, or “pes­sa­ri­es,” be­ing used in the Bri­tish Em­pi­re. Du­ring the 1870s, with the pas­sa­ge of what we­re known as the Com­stock Laws, it be­ca­me il­le­gal to send birth con­trol de­vi­ces or in­for­ma­ti­on abo­ut birth con­trol thro­ugh the Uni­ted Sta­tes ma­il. In 1916 Mar­ga­ret San­ger, the fo­un­der of the Plan­ned Pa­ren­tho­od Fe­de­ra­ti­on of Ame­ri­ca, be­gan cam­pa­ig­ning to re­ver­se such laws. She be­li­eved that wo­men’s rights to con­trol the­ir own fer­ti­lity sho­uld not be li­mi­ted by go­ver­nment re­gu­la­ti­ons. Her bat­tle con­ti­nu­ed un­til 1965, when the Uni­ted Sta­tes Sup­re­me Co­urt, in Gris­wold v. Con­nec­ti­cut, struck down sta­te laws pro­hi­bi­ting birth con­trol. To­day con­doms ha­ve be­co­me the le­ading bar­ri­er met­hod of birth con­trol. They are sold and used not so much be­ca­use of the­ir abi­lity to pre­vent births as be­ca­use of the­ir ef­fec­ti­ve­ness aga­inst se­xu­ally tran­smit­ted di­se­ases. Most con­doms are ma­de out of la­tex, hen­ce the nic­kna­me “rub­bers.” Be­ca­use so­me men stub­bornly re­sist using a con­dom, a fe­ma­le con­dom was de­ve­lo­ped so that a wo­man co­uld be­ne­fit from the con­dom’s du­al ro­le as a pro­tec­tor aga­inst di­se­ase and preg­nancy. It has only re­cently be­co­me ava­ilab­le and re­se­arch is still scanty. So­me wo­men who ha­ve used it com­pla­in that it is dif­fi­cult to in­sert, but many wo­men, on­ce they get the hang of it, li­ke it. The fe­ma­le con­dom’s abi­lity to pre­vent preg­nancy and the spre­ad of se­xu­ally tran­smit­ted di­se­ase sho­uld ap­pro­xi­ma­te that of the ma­le con­dom. Two ot­her po­pu­lar bar­ri­er met­hods of birth con­trol are the di­ap­hragm and the cer­vi­cal cap. Both are in­ser­ted in­to the va­gi­na in or­der to block the cer­vix, the en­tran­ce from the va­gi­na in­to the ute­rus, thro­ugh which sperm pass to re­ach the eggs. The di­ap­hragm is slightly lar­ger and easi­er for a cli­ni­ci­an to fit and for the wo­man to put in­to pla­ce, but the cer­vi­cal cap can be left in pla­ce for up to forty-eight ho­urs, whi­le the di­ap­hragm can only be in­ser­ted six ho­urs in ad­van­ce of in­ter­co­ur­se and left in pla­ce for twenty-fo­ur ho­urs. Both of the­se de­vi­ces are used in com­bi­na­ti­on with a sper­mi­ci­de (a gel or fo­am that kills the sperm, which can nor­mally li­ve up to se­ven days). In typi­cal use, each is ra­ted at 18 (that is, 18 pos­sib­le preg­nan­ci­es per 100 wo­men for each ye­ar of use), but with per­fect use the ra­ting in­cre­ases to a 6. All of the­se bar­ri­er met­hods of birth con­trol are re­ver­sib­le—that is, wo­men can stop using them if they wish, and im­me­di­ately be­co­me preg­nant. The con­tra­cep­ti­ve spon­ge is anot­her bar­ri­er met­hod of birth con­trol. Li­ke the di­ap­hragm and cer­vi­cal cap, it is in­ser­ted in­to the va­gi­na in or­der to block the ope­ning of the cer­vix and ac­cess to the wo­man’s eggs. The spon­ge al­so con­ta­ins a sper­mi­ci­de. The spon­ge is not qu­ite as ef­fec­ti­ve as the di­ap­hragm and cer­vi­cal cap for wo­men who al­re­ady ha­ve a child. The num­bers are 28 and 9 preg­nan­ci­es per 100 wo­men per ye­ar of use, res­pec­ti­vely. (For wo­men who ha­ve not had a child, the spon­ge’s ef­fec­ti­ve­ness is the sa­me as the ot­her two met­hods.) With use of the spon­ge the­re is al­so a slight risk of a wo­man de­ve­lo­ping to­xic shock syndro­me. The spon­ge is ava­ilab­le wit­ho­ut a pres­crip­ti­on, as are many fo­ams, gels, cre­ams, films, and sup­po­si­to­ri­es (see con­tra­cep­ti­ve cre­ams, fo­ams, and gels) that work by cre­ating a bar­ri­er over the cer­vix and kil­ling the sperm with a sper­mi­ci­de. The­se pro­ducts are very easy to use, which is why many wo­men li­ke them, and the­ir ra­tes of ef­fec­ti­ve­ness are in a si­mi­lar ran­ge as the ot­her pro­ducts, 21 per 100 per ye­ar for typi­cal use and 3 per 100 for per­fect use. Si­de ef­fects are mi­ni­mal (so­me wo­men are al­ler­gic to them, as are so­me men) but they only of­fer li­mi­ted pro­tec­ti­on aga­inst se­xu­ally tran­smit­ted di­se­ases. The next gro­up of con­tra­cep­ti­ves are the re­ver­sib­le pres­crip­ti­on met­hods. The­se must be pres­cri­bed by a doc­tor and work eit­her by ke­eping the wo­man from re­le­asing her eggs or by pre­ven­ting a fer­ti­li­zed egg from im­plan­ting it­self in the ute­rus. The most fa­mo­us of the­se, and the one cre­di­ted with ini­ti­ating the se­xu­al re­vo­lu­ti­on, is simply cal­led “The Pill.” Com­po­sed of fe­ma­le hor­mo­nes, the pill ke­eps the ova­ri­es from re­le­asing eggs. The pill must be ta­ken on­ce a day. Wo­men who use the pill per­fectly, ta­king it every day, ha­ve less than a 1 per­cent chan­ce of be­co­ming preg­nant. Even the typi­cal ra­te—al­lo­wing for mis­ta­kes in use—is only 3 per­cent. The si­de ef­fects from using the pill are mi­ni­mal, es­pe­ci­ally with the new mi­ni-pills that con­ta­in lo­wer do­ses of hor­mo­nes. Wo­men over thirty-fi­ve ye­ars of age who smo­ke sho­uld not use the pill and it must be re­mem­be­red that the pill pro­vi­des no pro­tec­ti­on aga­inst se­xu­ally tran­smit­ted di­se­ases (see oral con­tra­cep­ti­ves). Be­ca­use wo­men so­me­ti­mes for­get to ta­ke the pill, ot­her met­hods of de­li­ve­ring the sa­me hor­mo­nes ha­ve be­en de­ve­lo­ped. One, de­po-pro­ve­ra, con­sist of an inj­ec­ti­on which lasts for twel­ve we­eks. Anot­her, cal­led Nor­plant, con­sists of six soft cap­su­les that are in­ser­ted un­der the skin of the up­per arm and re­le­ase hor­mo­nes con­ti­nu­ally for fi­ve ye­ars. Nor­plant is the most ef­fec­ti­ve of all the­se met­hods, with only 4 wo­men in 10,000 be­co­ming preg­nant du­ring one ye­ar of use: the­re is no pos­si­bi­lity of the wo­man ma­king a mis­ta­ke. Be­ca­use the­se hor­mo­nes do ca­use si­de ef­fects, they are not re­com­men­ded for use by every wo­man, and aga­in, they do not pre­vent se­xu­ally tran­smit­ted di­se­ases. Anot­her type of re­ver­sib­le pres­crip­ti­on met­hod of birth con­trol is the IUD, or In­tra­ute­ri­ne De­vi­ce. IUDs are small plas­tic de­vi­ces that con­ta­in eit­her cop­per or a hor­mo­ne and are in­ser­ted in­to the wo­man’s ute­rus by a cli­ni­ci­an. They work by pre­ven­ting eit­her the fer­ti­li­za­ti­on of the egg or by pre­ven­ting im­plan­ta­ti­on of a fer­ti­li­zed egg in the ute­ri­ne wall. In typi­cal use, only 3 wo­men in 100 per ye­ar will be­co­me preg­nant with an IUD in pla­ce. The string ex­ten­ding from the IUD must be chec­ked re­gu­larly to en­su­re that the IUD re­ma­ins in pla­ce. Most wo­men adj­ust to an IUD easily, but the­re are po­ten­ti­al si­de ef­fects, so­me of which, whi­le ra­re, are li­fe-thre­ate­ning. A cli­ni­ci­an will usu­ally ask a pa­ti­ent to sign a con­sent form sa­ying that all the risks we­re ex­pla­ined to her be­fo­re the IUD’s in­ser­ti­on. The next gro­up of met­hods are the per­ma­nent ones—tu­bal ste­ri­li­za­ti­on (see ste­ri­li­za­ti­on) for wo­men and va­sec­tomy (see Va­sec­tomy and the Ma­le Pill) for men. Both re­qu­ire sur­gery and both are very ef­fec­ti­ve (tho­ugh, sur­pri­singly, not 100 per­cent, even tho­ugh the fal­lo­pi­an tu­bes in wo­men and the vas de­fe­rens in men are per­ma­nently bloc­ked). The­se are both very sa­fe pro­ce­du­res, tho­ugh com­pli­ca­ti­ons can ari­se, and whi­le the ini­ti­al cost is hig­her than for ot­her met­hods, they are one-ti­me ex­pen­ses. The­se met­hods are not ef­fec­ti­ve aga­inst se­xu­ally tran­smit­ted di­se­ases, and it is very im­por­tant to re­mem­ber that they are ra­rely re­ver­sib­le, so if at a la­ter ti­me the de­si­re de­ve­lops to ha­ve anot­her child, that op­ti­on may be clo­sed. The fi­nal gro­up of met­hods falls un­der the ca­te­gory of na­tu­ral fa­mily plan­ning. With the­se met­hods the­re are no ar­ti­fi­ci­al de­vi­ces or pro­ce­du­res used. Many of the­se met­hods can al­so be used to help a wo­man be­co­me preg­nant, par­ti­cu­larly if she is ha­ving dif­fi­culty do­ing so, by let­ting her know when the best ti­me to con­ce­ive is in the ca­len­dar of her men­stru­al cycle. The first of the­se met­hods is cal­led ab­sti­nen­ce, which me­ans not en­ga­ging in se­xu­al in­ter­co­ur­se. When two pe­op­le are se­xu­ally in­vol­ved, for ab­sti­nen­ce to be 100 per­cent ef­fec­ti­ve, ca­re must be ta­ken not to bring se­men in­to con­tact with the va­gi­na, even wit­ho­ut in­ter­co­ur­se. If a man ejacu­la­tes clo­se to the va­gi­na, or if eit­her par­tner to­uc­hes the se­men and then to­uc­hes the wo­men’s va­gi­na, sperm co­uld be in­tro­du­ced in­to it and im­preg­na­te the wo­man. The ot­her met­hods are ba­sed on par­ti­al ab­sti­nen­ce (or the use of a con­tra­cep­ti­ve de­vi­ce only at cer­ta­in ti­mes). The­se met­hods rely on the wo­man kno­wing when she will ovu­la­te and ref­ra­ining from in­ter­co­ur­se or by using a con­tra­cep­ti­ve du­ring tho­se ti­mes. Be­ca­use sperm can li­ve up to se­ven days and the egg as long as three days, the pe­ri­od of ab­sti­nen­ce must be long eno­ugh to ta­ke the­se fac­tors in­to con­si­de­ra­ti­on. When used per­fectly, the­se met­hods can be very ef­fec­ti­ve, but in typi­cal use the­ir ra­te of fa­ilu­re is 20 per­cent per ye­ar of use. The most com­mon met­hod of par­ti­al ab­sti­nen­ce is cal­led the ca­len­dar, or “rhythm,” met­hod. The wo­man ke­eps a chart of her men­stru­al cycles and tri­es to pre­dict when she will next be fer­ti­le. The mo­re re­gu­lar a wo­man’s pe­ri­ods are, the mo­re re­li­ab­le this met­hod will be, tho­ugh even with per­fect use the fa­ilu­re ra­te is 9 per­cent per ye­ar of use. The wo­man must ab­sta­in from in­ter­co­ur­se or must use a con­tra­cep­ti­ve at le­ast eight days be­fo­re she thinks she will ovu­la­te and for three days af­ter­ward. With the ba­sal body tem­pe­ra­tu­re met­hod, the wo­man ta­kes her tem­pe­ra­tu­re every mor­ning be­fo­re ri­sing. As­su­ming the­re is no ot­her ca­use for her tem­pe­ra­tu­re to fluc­tu­ate (such as an in­fec­ti­on from a cold or flu) she will no­ti­ce a slight ri­se in her tem­pe­ra­tu­re on the day of ovu­la­ti­on. Anot­her way of tes­ting for ovu­la­ti­on is by the cer­vi­cal mu­cus met­hod. Nor­mally clo­udy, the mu­cus will be­co­me cle­ar and slip­pery in the few days be­fo­re ovu­la­ti­on. It can then be stret­ched bet­we­en the fin­ger­tips. (One way that so­me wo­men can con­firm that they ha­ve, in fact, ovu­la­ted is to be awa­re of mit­tles­chmerz, a slight pa­in in the lo­wer ab­do­men that sig­nals ovu­la­ti­on has oc­cur­red. But many wo­men ne­ver ex­pe­ri­en­ce the sig­nal.) Of co­ur­se, to op­ti­mi­ze the ef­fec­ti­ve­ness of the­se met­hods, they sho­uld be used in co­nj­un­cti­on with the ca­len­dar met­hod so that the wo­man can ref­ra­in from in­ter­co­ur­se (or use a con­tra­cep­ti­ve) eight days pri­or to ovu­la­ti­on and three days af­ter­ward. When all are used to­get­her, it is cal­led the symptot­her­mal met­hod. The­re is one last met­hod which so­me pe­op­le use as an in­ten­ded me­ans of birth con­trol—the wit­hdra­wal met­hod. In the wit­hdra­wal met­hod, the man wit­hdraws his pe­nis from the wo­man’s va­gi­na just be­fo­re he ejacu­la­tes. The ba­sic flaw to this met­hod is that be­fo­re a man ejacu­la­tes, the Cow­per’s gland re­le­ases flu­id which ser­ves as a lub­ri­cant to help the sperm ma­ke the­ir way up the uret­hra. This flu­id can al­so con­ta­in tho­usands of sperm which can be on the­ir way to fer­ti­li­ze the egg long be­fo­re the man ac­tu­ally ejacu­la­tes. The ot­her dan­ger is that if the man do­es not wit­hdraw fast eno­ugh, he may end up ejacu­la­ting in­si­de the va­gi­na. The wit­hdra­wal met­hod has a typi­cal fa­ilu­re ra­te of 18 per 100 and a per­fect ra­te of 4 per 100 per ye­ar. Fi­nally, the­re are tho­se pe­op­le who ta­ke no pre­ca­uti­ons, but play “Rus­si­an ro­ulet­te,” even tho­ugh they do not want to be­co­me pa­rents. Out of 100 such wo­men, over the co­ur­se of a ye­ar 85 will be­co­me preg­nant. That is why we ha­ve so many un­wan­ted preg­nan­ci­es, but it al­so why our spe­ci­es con­ti­nu­es to po­pu­la­te our pla­net. See Al­so RU–486 Birth Con­trol Myths Plan­ned Pa­ren­tho­od and Mar­ga­ret San­ger
Posted on: Wed, 26 Jun 2013 18:51:57 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015