NationStates Jolt Archive

I was watching tv today, and saw a commercial that I usually see on during the day, selling the item "Minera", which is an intrauterine contraceptive for women. I usually don't pay too much attention to it as it doesn't apply to me, but today something caught my ear. In the commercial it was listing off the type of women this was suitable for. One of the people it was appropriate for was women who are in a stable, monogamous relationship. That struck me as odd. So i went on the site and looked up some more info on it. The site says this:

Mirena® intrauterine contraceptive is appropriate for women who:

* Have at least one child
* Are looking for a hassle-free and reversible form of birth control for up to 5 years (or less, if you choose)1
* Are in a stable, mutually monogamous sexual relationship

It's important for you and your healthcare professional to discuss which birth control method is right for you. Mirena® offers effective birth control for busy women who want to keep life simple with a hassle-free contraceptive option.


Questions Your Healthcare Professional Will Ask to Help You Make the Right Choice About Birth Control.

* Are you in a stable relationship in which you and your partner are not having sex with other people?

My question for this specific case would be why the company feels it can advertise its product to certain people who follow a moral code? Why isn't this product suitable for women who are having sex with multiple partners?

Now, that brings me to my next question, which covers a broad area; Should those in the Medical sector implant morality in their services or products? Whose morality should they abide by and use? How far is too far? If there is no set code of morality, will there be any negative side affects for patients?

It doesn't prevent STDs.

Umm, I think you just invented the moral code part. What I think they meant is that this method of birth-control does not protect against STDs.

My question for this specific case would be why the company feels it can advertise its product to certain people who follow a moral code?

Oh, dear. You really seem to think that's what they're doing. Come on, Zilam. Think. I know you can. Just think. And do it further than you usually do, that is to say to a sensible conclusion. Two posters have already helped nudge you in the right direction.

Well, the pill doesn't prevent STDs either, but nobody mentions stable monogamous relationships in pill ads on tv. I also wonder why they mention it in IUD ads but not in pill ads.

EDIT: Actually, I hadn't looked at any web-sourced info, so I'd never seen that part about not having sex with other people. All I ever heard before was the recommendation that a candidate for an IUD should be in a stable realationship, and I thought that had to do with the risk of infection or injury from IUDs that can cause sterilization. That's also why women are advised not to start an IUD until after they have already had at least one child. There is a slight risk that, with an IUD, they could lose the chance to have a child later. For a lot of people, not being able to have children can harm their chances of getting married (or at least they think it can) or can harm a relationship that isn't really strong to begin with. With that in mind, I thought that's what the stable relationship thing was about.

EDIT: The more I think of it, the more I think that is what this is about -- that the risks of IUDs might potentially harm a relationship that is not fully committed, as evidenced by lack of monogamy. I guess. Though I could very easily be wrong.

I think it's the infection risk as well as concerns about liability.

Well, the pill doesn't prevent STDs either, but nobody mentions stable monogamous relationships in pill ads on tv.

The pill doesn't exacerbate STIs. There is considerable concern and indications that IUDs do (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9678122?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed), if not as strongly with the new kinds and in more recent studies as compared to older ones, leading to an increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease ("In conclusion, IUD users, selected for low risk of sexually transmissible disease, do not have excess PID"). Hence women who are more prone to contracting STIs should be encouraged to choose forms of contraceptives other than IUDs.

I think it's the infection risk as well as concerns about liability.
So, then I guess the risk of infection is to the partner as well -- a risk of spreading bacteria to others?

The pill doesn't exacerbate STIs. There is considerable concern and indications that IUDs do (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9678122?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed), if not as strongly with the new kinds and in more recent studies as compared to older ones, leading to an increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease ("In conclusion, IUD users, selected for low risk of sexually transmissible disease, do not have excess PID"). Hence women who are more prone to contracting STIs should be encouraged to choose forms of contraceptives other than IUDs.
Oh, I see. Thanks.

The pill doesn't exacerbate STIs. There is considerable concern and indications that IUDs do (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9678122?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=1&log$=relatedreviews&logdbfrom=pubmed), if not as strongly with the new kinds and in more recent studies as compared to older ones, leading to an increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease ("In conclusion, IUD users, selected for low risk of sexually transmissible disease, do not have excess PID"). Hence women who are more prone to contracting STIs should be encouraged to choose forms of contraceptives other than IUDs.

I did not know that. You learn something new every day.

:soap:"contraceptive for women. I usually don't pay too much attention to it as it doesn't apply to me"?
Do you not have sex? Please remember that contraception is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's. Thank you! :soap:

is it that long since we had IUDs in the US that y'all dont know that that (fass's explanation) is why they make those recommendations?

is it that long since we had IUDs in the US that y'all dont know that that (fass's explanation) is why they make those recommendations?

Shoot, I just put two and two together and figured it out.

Shoot, I just put two and two together and figured it out.
Yo, yo! Sup Vet! Haven't been round much lately, missed you! Totally OT, but when's Portal 2 coming out? It was too cool a game to leave it at the little taste we got :eek:

Why is this thread titled as though it's about medicine when it's about marketing?

:soap:"contraceptive for women. I usually don't pay too much attention to it as it doesn't apply to me"?
Do you not have sex? Please remember that contraception is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's. Thank you! :soap:

You should always carry an IUD with you.

is it that long since we had IUDs in the US that y'all dont know that that (fass's explanation) is why they make those recommendations?
Actually, after all the complaints about the old IUDs, I was surprised to see new ones on the US market.

You should always carry an IUD with you.
that would make for fun times eh?

"oh honey, do you have a condom"

"no dare but i have THIS" *pulls iud out of his pocket* "i like to think of insertion as foreplay"

Actually, after all the complaints about the old IUDs, I was surprised to see new ones on the US market.
did you notice that they call it an IUC instead of an IUD?

did you notice that they call it an IUC instead of an IUD?
Yes, I did. Brilliant marketing ploy that, eh? ;)

Yes, I did. Brilliant marketing ploy that, eh? ;)
might help them bypass that whole google problem

I don't know much about birth control, but I'd like to make an analogy for this.

I remember when I went to a group tutorial for math and the guy running them said "Last time you went to one of these tutorials you were lost in the course, I want to remind you that's not what these tutorials are for, these are for people who come to them weekly, who've been on top of it to stay on top of it, and if that's not the case I'd suggest you go to a private tutor, I wouldn't want you to be throwing 20 bucks away." or something like that...

It probably seems off topic, but I felt reminded of that for a good reason; the similarity is in terms of the idea of "questioning your customers"; to look beyond what they're paying you to do it and look into why they want it done. Just like the math tutorial guy might've felt bad about me having given him another $20 because I misinterpreted the reason for the tutorials, the people in that birth control company might've felt bad about polygamous customers buying their products.

Or, perhaps they didn't really give a shit and just wanted to cash in on the taboo against polygamy by trying to work "moral codes" into their product so as to make their company more appealing to those who were anti-polygamy and wanted some birth control method. I don't know.

It doesn't prevent STDs.

Umm, I think you just invented the moral code part. What I think they meant is that this method of birth-control does not protect against STDs.

In the commercials they mention specifically that it doesn't prevent STDS. I just assumed since they already covered that aspect that there would have been another reason for them limiting it to women in monogamous relationships. It seemed to me that they were maybe trying to create a product that would provide a good service but would not be given out to "loose" women. That is why I thought it was a moral thing.

Now that being said Fass said this:
Originally Posted by Fassitude
The pill doesn't exacerbate STIs. There is considerable concern and indications that IUDs do, if not as strongly with the new kinds and in more recent studies as compared to older ones, leading to an increased risk for pelvic inflammatory disease ("In conclusion, IUD users, selected for low risk of sexually transmissible disease, do not have excess PID"). Hence women who are more prone to contracting STIs should be encouraged to choose forms of contraceptives other than IUDs.


This explains it for me. I was wrong in my assumption. It happens.

In the commercials they mention specifically that it doesn't prevent STDS. I just assumed since they already covered that aspect that there would have been another reason for them limiting it to women in monogamous relationships. It seemed to me that they were maybe trying to create a product that would provide a good service but would not be given out to "loose" women. That is why I thought it was a moral thing.

I'm pretty sure birth control might in fact be more morally distasteful than multiple sexual partners to the kind of people that have a problem with it...

Every time I see "IUD" I keep thinking of "IED," and nasty images follow.

Also, the OP is a tardmuffin. ;)

-Gloe

:soap:"contraceptive for women. I usually don't pay too much attention to it as it doesn't apply to me"?
Do you not have sex? Please remember that contraception is as much the man's responsibility as the woman's. Thank you! :soap:

as soon as they invent a pill for men, i am going to be taking it.