Where am i wrong here?

[Guest guest]

Ok - let us look at one area of OCP-related morbidity and mortality -- cardiovascular effects. Most of us would accept that there are increased risks with OCPS regarding increased thromboembolic events (increased DVTs, pulmonary emboli -- blood clots in the lungs, stroke and heart attacks). Those of us who treat patients see more common benign effects, like increased blood pressure and increased cholesterol while women are on the pill, they go off the pill and these things get better. So, contracepting women have increased rates of cardiovascular events (and i have pulled over 30 studies which prove this). As an aside, the newer 3rd generation progestins were supposed to have LOWER cardiovascular risks -- they do not - and now we have class action lawsuits against yaz and yasmin because many

women died from such events.

So, going back to the original question, OCPS have increased cardiovascular risks, the other side acknowledges this but then says, but the pregnant state also has increased thromboembolic events associated with it, and so contracepting women's rates are really no different or perhaps just slightly higher than pregnant women (except when you are dealing with women over 35 and/or smokers -- in those 2 cases, the thromboembolic events from OCPS are 10 times the pregnant state).

My question: why have we let them define the comparison? Why do we compare contracepting women to pregnant women?

The TRUE comparsion should be women who choose to manage their fertity with contraception versus women who choose to manage their fertility with Natural family planning.

When you do that, the increased thromboembolic/cardiovascular risks associated with the pill are blatantly obvious.

Where am i wrong on this argument?

If you would agree with me on this, then can you anser why have "we" let "them" define the argument? Why don't we challenge more of these conventions?

Blessings, rebecca