SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for chromas
The Sugar Pills in Your Birth Control Pack Were Put There to Placate The Pope
For nearly 60 years, women have been taking the birth control pill in a less than ideal way, and weirdly enough, the reason is not scientific - instead, it can be traced back to the Catholic Church.
The seven inactive pills, included in most oral birth control packets, are not there for a medical reason. Each time a woman pops out a sugar pill, it actually represents a futile attempt to placate the Pope.
[...] One of the gynaecologists working on the pill, John Rock, was Catholic. He knew that in order for the Pill to be accepted by the Catholic Church and its followers, it would have to be sold as a "natural" form of contraception based on hormones already present in the female body.
[...] Their efforts were made in vain. In 1968, years after FDA approval, Pope Paul VI declared all forms of "artificial" contraception to be against church doctrine.
[...] A study from 2014, for instance, found that women who continuously took the pill "fared better in terms of headaches, genital irritation, tiredness, bloating, and menstrual pain."
What's more, some research has found that continuous use of oral contraceptives can help patients manage their endometriosis better, reducing pelvic pain, boosting sexual activity, and generally improving the quality of life for this debilitating condition.
It's taken decades, but medical guidelines are finally catching up to the facts. The United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS) is the latest government body to shake itself free of this common misconception.
Adhering to the best available evidence and expert consensus, the institute's Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (FSRH) has now admitted that there is no health benefit to a seven-day break from the birth control pill, and, as such, this form of birth control can be taken every day of the month.
The new guidelines argue that the consistent use of oral contraceptives "is associated with a reduced risk of endometrial, ovarian and colorectal cancer", not to mention the benefits of "predictable bleeding patterns, reduction in menstrual bleeding and pain, and management of symptoms of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), endometriosis and premenstrual syndrome."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Monday January 28 2019, @07:58PM (6 children)
This seems like the simpler explanation to me:
(FTA)
Of course, it was difficult to correctly count days and remember when to start the next pill pack, so soon enough brands entered the market that marked the off days with sugar pills.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 28 2019, @08:12PM (3 children)
TFS didn't really make the connection for me of why it would make the Pope happier to have them in and the parent comment is why I was told they were in there. Was there never a medical reason for the break? I thought there was suppose to be. Even if the thought was - you don't need it for those days and as a general guide less medicine is better if not needed.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 28 2019, @08:47PM
TFA answers this too, although according to a note at the bottom it was edited from its original version to clarify this point.
It says "... the symptoms induced by the hormonal contraceptives made women think they were pregnant, so Rock and his collaborators advised women to skip the pills for five days before starting the next pack, which would trigger a false period and assure them a pregnancy had not taken place."
The issue of the Roman Catholic Church accepting it seems to be a bonus which the creators hoped for but didn't pan out.
The article later says that more modern studies seem to indicate that, if you don't need this reassurance, it would be better to take the real article every day.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 28 2019, @09:10PM (1 child)
It's kinda like the blank randomly placed in an execution squad. Each shooter can sleep better at night thinking it wasn't really them that did the executing. The catholic women and the pope can sleep better not knowing exactly which BC pill actually killed the "child".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 28 2019, @10:18PM
So aim for the head to be sure you got a live round.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Snow on Monday January 28 2019, @08:40PM (1 child)
That's not the point of the article. They are saying that instead of taking the sugar pills, they would continue to take the actual pill. Doing this prevents menstruation.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday January 28 2019, @09:34PM
In that case, the point of the article is invalidated because it has only subsequently been shown that regular monthly menstruation is not necessary for reproductive system health. If they had known that at the time, then there would be some merit to the religious appeasement angle. But without the long term studies that we have today, the then known instances of skipped/missed cycles were correlated with reproductive health issues, so it appeared to be best to maintain the natural cycle and sugar pills were added because it's easier to take a pill every day rather than take them for 23 days and then skip 7.
Now, there may be an argument that religion has come into play in delaying and limiting the spread of the new information regarding the best methods of use. Although, it would have to show that new info on this topic is slowed disproportionately relative to other equally sensitive topics that do not have as many religious considerations. Short of that, it's just anti-religious hand wringing.