An interesting column in the Chicago Tribune claims there is a lack of good information for women about new options to stop or limit menstrual periods.
The columnist blames journalists for biased coverage, doctors for failing to know enough about the risks and benefits of menstrual suppression, researchers who are "more interested in fighting for their point of view in a medical journal than provided balanced information to the public," and drugmakers "who are adept at promoting only the data that will help them sell their products."
The focal point of the current debate is the pending FDA approval of an oral contraceptive, Lybrel, the latest drug proposed to suppress menstruation.
The debate raises issues of what is "natural" for women, and whether there are elements of disease-mongering in treating menstruation as a disease - promoting prescription drugs to treat or surpress what some emphasize is a natural condition.
But that also raises issues of women's freedom to avoid bleeding if they can.
Still, safety questions hang over the entire discussion.
As it is, the column suggests that "American women are likely no closer to making an informed decision about whether to halt a function so seemingly integral to their bodies."
Posted by schwitz at August 7, 2006 11:10 AM | TrackBack