If You’re On The Mini Pill You Might Want To Read This

Any woman who takes the pill knows it comes with risks: mood changes, irregular periods, mental health issues, and cancer.

If you’re on the ‘mini pill’ there’s a slight chance you could develop breast cancer, researchers now say.

The new study in PLoS Medicine journal is the first of its kind to analyse the risks for users of the mini pill. We know that taking the pill can be a negative experience for women but some hormonal contraceptives can lower the risk of womb and ovarian cancers. All in all, women need to weigh up their options before choosing a contraceptive pill.

What is the mini pill?

The mini pill also known as the progesterone-only pill stops pregnancy by thickening the mucus in the cervix to stop sperm from reaching an egg, according to the NHS.

It must be taken every day at the same time in order for it to work. If taken correctly, it’s more than 99% effective.

There are two different types of progesterone-only pills:

  • 3-hour progestogen-only pill – (traditional progestogen-only pill) this must be taken within 3 hours of the same time each day
  • 12-hour progestogen-only pill (desogestrel progestogen-only pill) this must be taken within 12 hours of the same time each day

What are the risks of developing breast cancer?

The risk of developing breast cancer on the mini pill increases with age. Younger women are less likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer although this age group is most likely to be on the pill.

30,000 patient records that were held by family doctors were analysed by the researchers. The risk of a woman developing cancer within the next 15 years increased by 20-30% if she’s been on the pill for five years, but it’s contingent on the age of the woman.

The researchers in this study concluded that in a group of 100,000 women aged 35-39, nearly 2000 of them are likely to develop breast cancer within the next 15 years though this is determined by several factors which are not linked to being on the pill. So in actuality, it isn’t a large number.

“I don’t really see that there’s any indication here to say that women need to necessarily change what they’re doing,” Oxford University researchers, Prof Gillian Reeves, said.

“The main purpose of doing this research was really to fill a gap in our knowledge.”

What are the signs of breast cancer?

Manveet Basra, head of public health and wellbeing at Breast Cancer Now, says many women may know that a lump can be a possible symptom of breast cancer, but it’s “vital” to know that there are other signs to be aware of too.

These are:

  • A lump
  • Thickening of breast tissue that feels different from the rest of the breast
  • Nipple discharge
  • Dimpling or puckering of the skin of the breast (looks like orange peel)
  • The breast looking red or inflamed
  • Swelling in the upper chest or armpit
  • A change in breast size or shape
  • Your nipple becomes inverted or changes shape
  • Constant pain in your breast or armpit

While most breast changes won’t be cancer, it’s crucial you get any new or unusual breast changes checked by your GP right away. But, what does a lump actually feel like?

“It can either be deep or toward the skin itself. Typically it is not painful. It’s typically not easily movable but oftentimes fixed in a particular space, meaning it doesn’t shift in its location all that easily. In terms of shape, it is oftentimes round but sometimes it can be a little bit more irregular than that.”

Some experts have suggested the size of a breast lump ranges from as small as a pea to larger than a golf ball. Indeed, Kamal notes that many of his patients have compared it to a pea.

Share Button

No, Telling Men To Get Vasectomies Is Not The Answer Right Now

Since news of the overturning of Roe V Wade broke on Friday, ending the constitutional right to abortion in the US after almost half a century, abortion rights activists have galvanised, and social media efforts have amplified.

You may have seen posts alluding to the fact that a woman can only foster one full pregnancy a year, while a man can impregnate multiple people in a day, should he have the opportunity. And the solution often suggested: vasectomy, the surgical procedure that cuts or seals the tubes that carry a man’s sperm.

Amid so much anger around the policing of women’s bodies, the impulse to suggest that men’s bodies should also be policed is understandable.

In a world of reduced abortion access, where women are left either to manage birth control or carry their babies to full term, people are once again suggesting we shift the onus to men in the form of mandatory vasectomies.

In fact, this view has been circulating on social media for a while now. And while many people are probably not being literal in their calls for vasectomies, it speaks to the widespread rage over moves to control bodily autonomy.

However, many people are pointing out the flaws in the argument.

Vasectomies aren’t an ‘alternative’ to abortion

This suggestion has basic logistical failings, as PHD researcher Georgia Grainger, from the Centre for the Social History of Health and Healthcare in Glasgow, has pointed out in a Twitter thread.

As a historian of vasectomies, Grainger, aka @sniphist on Twitter, stresses that the procedure is not an alternative to abortion.

This is because women will still need terminations, she says, both of wanted and unwanted pregnancies, regardless of vasectomies and other forms of birth control.

Nor are vasectomies a failsafe form of birth control – and when in rare cases they do fail, it’s not usually obvious until the pregnancy is identified, she says.

In her thread, Grainger also highlights that even if someone had insisted they’d had the surgery, could you trust that they really had?

Especially, in the case of abusive relationships or sexual assault, why would someone who doesn’t respect consent take up an invasive surgery for the benefit of someone else?

Forced sterilisations are deeply problematic

Grainger stresses this important historical point. Forced sterilisations have been trialled as several points during history and they enforce eugenics, she says. The policy has predominantly been targeted at minority groups to stop them from procreating.

In US history, indigenous Americans, Black and Latinx people, incarcerated peoples, and poor communities endured forced sterilisations.

These groups were targeted throughout the 20th century, with nearly 70,000 people forcibly sterilised (and not just men, an overwhelming amount were working-class women of colour).

Germany also has a history of coercive sterilisation, having sterilised disabled people, institutionalised people, and even alcoholics. In Nazi Germany, the Hereditary Health Court also known as the Genetic Health Court, was a court that decided whether people should be forcibly sterilised.

Grainger is not the only one to point out these troubling historical precedents.

Bodily autonomy for all, not some

People have also pointed out that if we want better rights and autonomy for women and people who can get pregnant, this has to mean protecting these rights for everybody

Do we really want men to face the same bodily scrutiny applied to women – and for men who chose not to go through the procedure to be vilified?

Nor does the vasectomy vs abortion binary do much for trans and nonbinary people who also need access to abortions, and are often excluded from discussions of these human rights.

As the debate continues, Grainger’s insights have gone viral on Twitter, amassing more than 75,000 likes.

But, as she pointed out in her own thread, she is still pro-vasectomy, as long as they’re for the right reasons and for people who genuinely want them.

Ultimately, we shouldn’t pit vasectomies against abortions, she says. Abortions will always be needed, whether because the pregnancy is failing, the pregnant person is at risk, because there wasn’t consent to the sex in the first place, or simply because the pregnant person doesn’t want children.

So next time you see calls for mandatory vasectomies or are temped to make one yourself, remember that it’s not as straightforward as it seems.

Share Button

Marie Stopes UK Finally Changes Name To Cut Ties With Eugenicist

HuffPost is part of Verizon Media. We and our partners will store and/or access information on your device through the use of cookies and similar technologies, to display personalised ads and content, for ad and content measurement, audience insights and product development.

Your personal data that may be used

  • Information about your device and internet connection, including your IP address
  • Browsing and search activity while using Verizon Media websites and apps
  • Precise location

Find out more about how we use your information in our Privacy Policy and Cookie Policy.

To enable Verizon Media and our partners to process your personal data select ‘I agree‘, or select ‘Manage settings‘ for more information and to manage your choices. You can change your choices at any time by visiting Your Privacy Controls.

Share Button