daved@hplsla.UUCP (daved) (09/26/86)
On the back page of one of Seattle's local newspapers, the Weekly, in an
information/classified ad section reads the following ad:
Cervical Caps - Birth Control
Cervical caps are the newest, yet oldest form of birth control. They
have been found to be safe and effective, yet convenient and spontaneous
and they require NO chemicals. Cervical caps are available at.....
Does anyone know what cervical caps are? My closest guess is that they are
actually diaphragms, but the "NO chemical" quailifier seems to cut them
out (unless the spermicidal adhesive isn't being considered a chemical).
If cervical caps are something new (..yet old..) how effective are they?
Has anyone had any experience with them?
Thanks in advance,
Dave Dow (aka redwood)
{hplabs!hp-pcd|uw-beaver!tikal}!hplsla!davedrb@cci632.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (09/30/86)
In article <11800001@hplsla.UUCP> daved@hplsla.UUCP (daved) writes: >On the back page of one of Seattle's local newspapers, the Weekly, in an >information/classified ad section reads the following ad: > Cervical Caps - Birth Control > Cervical caps are the newest, yet oldest form of birth control. They >have been found to be safe and effective, yet convenient and spontaneous >and they require NO chemicals. Cervical caps are available at..... >Does anyone know what cervical caps are? >If cervical caps are something new (..yet old..) how effective are they? > Dave Dow (aka redwood) The following information is based (roughly) on information reported from Australia, Canada, and U.K. Cervical Caps are another "barrier method" of preventing contraception. They are similar to diaphragms, but are placed over the cervix opening itself. In this sense they are "old". The shape is such that the barrier effect is more complete than with a diaphragm or condom. Most of what I have read indicates that a doctor places it, much like an IUD, to insure a proper fit. This may have only been for research purposes, I don't know. It may be possible for the woman to place it herself, but it would require some training and practice. The blockage is more complete, and the amount of "maintenance" is much lower. Typically, it only needs to be removed during menstration, if even then. It has not been available in this country for general use, pending F.D.A. approval. If it is actually available now, I'd like to know. Several IUD makers have been investigating the cap because of it's subtanially lower risk of complications compared to the IUD. As mentioned above, several other countries have been testing and using this method. Results are comparable to the pill, yet without the risks. It as been reccomended for women who smoke, or have various medical problems that would contra-indicate the pill. Some more conservative doctors may also reccomend the "mini-pill" as a supplement. There are still risks of infections, but with proper maintenence, these can be minimized.
glp@osu-eddie.UUCP (Georgia Pritchett) (10/03/86)
>In article <11800001@hplsla.UUCP> daved@hplsla.UUCP (daved) writes: >>On the back page of one of Seattle's local newspapers, the Weekly, in an >>information/classified ad section reads the following ad: >> Cervical Caps - Birth Control >> Cervical caps are the newest, yet oldest form of birth control. They >>have been found to be safe and effective, yet convenient and spontaneous >>and they require NO chemicals. Cervical caps are available at..... In article <428@cci632.UUCP> rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes: >The following information is based (roughly) on information reported >from Australia, Canada, and U.K. >Cervical Caps are another "barrier method" of preventing contraception. >They are similar to diaphragms, but are placed over the cervix opening >itself. In this sense they are "old". The shape is such that the >barrier effect is more complete than with a diaphragm or condom. > >Most of what I have read indicates that a doctor places it, much >like an IUD, to insure a proper fit. This may have only been for >research purposes, I don't know. It may be possible for the woman >to place it herself, but it would require some training and practice. > Actually it takes about 1/2 an hour to learn how to put one in. I was involved in the FDA program to test them. The FDA "required" you to follow a few rules that were supposed to make the caps more effective. (if you didn't follow these rules, you were told them so on the questionaries). First, you used them in combination with spermicide (an application inside the cap before you insert it and another application before each sexual encounter). Also you were only supposed to leave it in for 3 days (in Europe they leave them in except during your period). One problem with them is that you can't use them during your period (They won't stay on then anyway. No suction). Also, I had one friend who had reoccuring yeast infections so she had to replace her cap. I am no longer using mine (I didn't like the new person at the clinic where I got it). But I think that when they become more readily available I may switch back. Definitely nicer than having to remember to take a pill every day. georgia
gagen@bgsuvax.UUCP (kathleen gagen) (10/06/86)
In article <428@cci632.UUCP>, Rex Ballard writes > Most of what I have read indicates that a doctor places it, much > like an IUD, to insure a proper fit. This may have only been for > research purposes, I don't know. It may be possible for the woman > to place it herself, but it would require some training and practice. > Although a Cervical Cap must be fitted by a physician, most women can be easily trained to insert and remove it for themselves. In this respect it is similar to a diaphragm. > The blockage is more complete, and the amount of "maintenance" is much > lower. Typically, it only needs to be removed during menstration, if > even then. > At least three major designs of cervical cap have been used. One variety is equipped with a valve like device for the purpose of allowing secretions to flow from the uterus into the vagina. Although some women leave their devices in place for extended periods of time, in my opinion this is probably not a great idea. For one thing, the effectiveness of the cap is increased when spermicide is placed within the device befor insertion. > It has not been available in this country for general use, pending > F.D.A. approval. If it is actually available now, I'd like to know. It is my understanding that the cervical cap is presently being studied in clinical trials in this country. Only those physicians who are participating in these trials are authorized to fit and prescribe the device. I personally hope that the FDA speeds up aproval of the cervical cap. It's ease of insertion, low cost, high effectiveness (comperable to the pill, diaphragm with spermacide, and IUD), and very low rate of significant side effects (most are due to alergic reactions to the spermacide), make it an appropriate method of contraception for many women. Kathi Gagen Dept. of Biological Sciences Bowling Green State University
brian@apollo.uucp (Brian Holt) (10/10/86)
In article <249@bgsuvax.UUCP> gagen@bgsuvax.UUCP (kathleen gagen) writes: > ....Although some women leave their >devices in place for extended periods of time, in my opinion this is >probably not a great idea. For one thing, the effectiveness of the cap >is increased when spermicide is placed within the device befor insertion. When the cervical cap was first approved for clinical testing in the US (about 4 or 5 years ago!), people were talking about the experience of women in Europe: no spermicide, long-term wearing, etc. Suddenly, when it became available through clinics participating in the test studies, women were being told to use spermicide, not to leave it in longer than *48 hours*, etc. Apparently, the feeling among the clinics was that they wanted to keep things as safe as possible. The hypothesis was that the spermicide would aid in keeping the seal tight (for suction), and that it was not a good idea to leave anything made of hard rubber inside the body for very long. Unfortunately, this meant that the testing conditions were completely different from the usage in Europe, and any eventual FDA approval would be based on the test practices. Apparently, however, many of the women (an undocumented percentage) are leaving the cap in all month, and not using any spermicide, so who knows what the studies will represent. >> It has not been available in this country for general use, pending >> F.D.A. approval. If it is actually available now, I'd like to know. > >It is my understanding that the cervical cap is presently being studied >in clinical trials in this country. Only those physicians who are >participating in these trials are authorized to fit and prescribe >the device. I have not heard of any FDA approval yet, either. In fact, the problem with the cervical cap is that it has no corporate backer. Methods such as the sponge (a disposable contraceptive) rushed through the FDA approval process because someone (the sponge makers) spent the time, money and effort to get it through. In contrast, the cervical cap is essentially a one-time purchase. Even if you do use spermicide, the amount necessary is minute compared to the cream/jelly used for traditional diaphragms or the foam used by many in conjunction with condoms. The bottom line is that nobody thinks they can make much money on it, so nobody is expending the necessary effort to speed up approval. An excellent reference on all things contraceptive (including the cervical cap) is _Contraceptive Technology_ from Harris Publishing in NY. (I'm 95% sure it's Harris, I'll check my copy when I get home tonight). Although CT (pardon the nickname...) is just what it claims (Technology) and its intended audience is the general medical practitioner, it is in fact one of the most up to date and reliable sources of information. It is published either annually, or every two years (depending on the amount of change in the technology) and includes excellent discussions of side-effects, contra-indications, and benefits of all forms of birth control. I have no connection whatsoever with the publishers or authors of the book. You can often pick up a year old copy at Planned Parenthood, or at least you could a few years ago. -- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "If you can't say something nice, say something surreal" - Zippy's latest Usenet: ...{mit-erl,mit-eddie,yale,uw-beaver,decvax!wanginst}!apollo!brian BIX, Delphi: brian GENIE: b.holt and assorted other identities... Brian R. Holt Apollo Computer Chelmsford MA. (617) 256-6600 x7610 --------------------------------------------------------------------------