Yesterday I had my yearly lady-parts examination (or I should say every two years now, but that's a different rant) and it went like it always goes, awkwardly.
It's just the nature of the experience--and, well, I hope, all sexually active women are experiencing it.
But I'd like to note something my doctor said that rather irked me.
Warning, it's going to get a bit personal.
I was complaining because I am on a progesterin-only pill and since starting the pills I haven't had my period. It weirds me out to not have a period.
She replied, "Since the invention of the pill 50 years ago women have become accustomed to having their periods every month; before that women were having babies and breast feeding, and didn't have a regular period."
Okay Doc. Point heard. But I don't get the logic?
1) It's not 1954
2) The point of the pill is to NOT have babies
3) If I wasn't on the pill and I wasn't having babies then I'd be having a regular monthly period because that's the way the freaking female body works.
Don't try to reassure me with information that isn't even relevant.
And I know the pill isn't all that wonderful for women, with the whole blood clot, weight gain, lack of sex drive, higher risks for cancer stuff, but I have to live with all those risks because having a baby would be so much worse.
Most women would probably love to not have their period, but when it's not around for months at a time it seems a bit suspicious and it seems entirely unhealthy--no matter if the doctor tells me it's "harmless."
All I want is to not have a baby. Why does it have to turn into a big health concern? And why do these doctors feel the need to pretend that it's not? Or to disregard issues that may be important to their patient's health--whether it's physical or mental?
I would have preferred her to just say, "Yes, this pill causes some women to not have their periods, but isn't that better than having a baby?"
And I would have very much agreed.
No comments:
Post a Comment