Dak Posted August 9, 2008 Share Posted August 9, 2008 is there any evidence that latex intolerance (or intolerance to the pill, etc) is on the increase? I'm thinking that if there's a genetic basis, there should be some kind of reproductive benifit to having a harder time using contraception, but i can't find any papers on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Skeptic Posted August 10, 2008 Share Posted August 10, 2008 That's an interesting idea. I had thought that the use of contraceptives would result in an increase in people genetically predisposed to wanting to have children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimmydasaint Posted August 14, 2008 Share Posted August 14, 2008 Another question to accompany the OP. Is there evidence of intolerance to the pill at all and how would you know? I presume that intolerance would manifest in some immunological or biological contra-indications. From doing a (very) cursory search, it seems that there are only a few contra-indications and most doctors do not seem to hesitate to prescribe oral contraceptives (OC). I found some reference to adverse effects of using OC's: The first suggested that a low amount of women were more likely to be susceptible to venous thromboembolism to certain OC's (possibly due to resistance effects to activated protein C in OC's containing desogestrel). However, these effects were then discounted http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/321/7255/190 Other studies also seem to indicate that OC's are well tolerated in women http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/571231_4 Perhaps it may be wise to say that the jury is still out on this isuue and that evidence of resistance is scant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christiannnna Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 I'm thinking that people will probably start developing intolerance to the pill and latex, if it's genetically passed on. But there are still other natural ways of contraceptive. (calculating a females ovulation date) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big314mp Posted September 7, 2008 Share Posted September 7, 2008 Two points: First, there haven't been many generations since the introduction of contraception, so there hasn't been much time to adapt. Second, if someone had a mutation that made them resistant to the pill (or, god forbid, a mutation that destroyed condoms) they would most likely use a different method of contraception rather than just having unprotected sex. And then there are things such as what christiannnna brought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snare Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Forgive me, but what precisely do you mean by "intolerance"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 the body reacts badly to being in contact with it. it is applied in the same context as lactose intolerance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snare Posted September 21, 2008 Share Posted September 21, 2008 Oh! So we're speaking of things like an allergic reaction to latex/oral contraceptives. Thanks, I get it now. I thought it meant that latex condoms or oral contraceptives don't "work" effectively. Is there really any evidence that those with an intolerance to latex or oral contraceptives have a higher rate of pregnancy? Besides, can't an in utero contraceptive also be used in areas where it is available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now