Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Taking the Pill cuts the risk of cancer
The Times (UK) ^ | September 12, 2007 | Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor

Posted on 09/12/2007 6:38:01 PM PDT by neverdem

Times Online Logo 222 x 25

From
September 12, 2007

Taking the Pill cuts the risk of cancer

Pill plus HRT may bring cancer risk | Decade of Pill use doubles risk of cervical cancer

Taking the Pill reduces the risks of a woman getting cancer later in life, according to one of the largest studies ever undertaken.

The conclusion will reassure millions of women who took the Pill 30 or 40 years ago and are now of an age when the risks are growing.

The study found that overall cancer risk was up to 12 per cent lower for women who took the Pill for less than eight years. But, for the minority of women who took it for more than eight years, the news was less good: for them, the risk of cancer increased by 22 per cent.

The risk of developing bowel and rectal, uterine and ovarian cancers was most reduced. There was no evidence that the risk of developing breast cancer either increased or decreased with short-term usage.

“Many women, especially those who used the first generation of oral contraceptives many years ago, are likely to be reassured by our results,” the authors of the new study say. “The cancer benefits of oral contraception outweigh the risks.”

Maria Leadbeater, of Breast Cancer Care, said: “The findings of this research will be welcomed by the thousands of women across the UK who have used, or are currently using, an oral contraceptive.”

The team, from the University of Aberdeen, used data gathered by the Royal College of Physicians since 1968, which asked 1,400 GPs to provide information on women who were taking the Pill, and a matched group who were not. A total of 46,000 women were recruited, aged 29 on average. All were married or in a stable relationship.

The women were then monitored until 2004, and any cancers they developed were recorded.

The team also had more limited data up to 1996 provided by the women’s GPs, giving them two sets of statistics from which to work.

The results, reported in the British Medical Journal, show that the Pill reduced the overall risks of cancer for most women, though the degree of benefit depended on which dataset was used.

Using the main dataset, the team found a reduction of 12 per cent in the risk of getting any cancer. That represents one fewer case of cancer for every 2,200 women who have used the Pill for a year.

The smaller dataset also showed a benefit, but a smaller one: a 3 per cent reduction in overall risk, equivalent to one fewer case for every 10,000 women per year.

The exception was for women who used the Pill for more than eight years – about a quarter of Pill-users. Their risk of cancer was significantly increased. The average Pill user in the research took the contraceptive for 44 months.

Professor Philip Hannaford, who led the research team, said: “These results show that, in this UK cohort, the contraceptive Pill was not associated with an overall increased risk of any cancer; indeed it may produce an important net public health gain.”

About three million women use the Pill each year in Britain and 100 million around the world. More than 300 million women have used the Pill since its launch in 1961.

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times.

© Copyright 2007 Times Newspapers Ltd.

This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcontrol; bravosierra; cancer; contraceptives; health; medicine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: All
Pray for and end to
contraception and aobtion
and the conversion of America to life!

21 posted on 09/12/2007 8:33:37 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: A.A. Cunningham; cripplecreek
enter the Table of Contents of the Catechism of the Catholic Church here
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
(click on the book for the link.)
 
 
2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

 

2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.

22 posted on 09/12/2007 8:34:32 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

I’m for rampant procreation myself.


23 posted on 09/12/2007 8:53:54 PM PDT by cyborg (Long Island Half Marathon finisher!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: grjr21

Because the results of this study run counter to most of the other which say the opposite.


24 posted on 09/12/2007 8:58:55 PM PDT by Pyro7480 ("Jesu, Jesu, Jesu, esto mihi Jesus" -St. Ralph Sherwin's last words at Tyburn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: cyborg

If it’s rampant procreation of conservative patriots, I’m all for it.

;-)


25 posted on 09/12/2007 9:01:28 PM PDT by RockinRight (Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice. -Thomas Paine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: RockinRight

;o)


26 posted on 09/12/2007 9:02:13 PM PDT by cyborg (Long Island Half Marathon finisher!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: VanShuyten
That isn't how the pill works. The pill forces menstruation even if there is a fertilized egg implanted in the uterine wall.

You are confusing the "day after pill" with the standard oral contraceptive "pill". There is no fetus with standard oral contraceptives because no egg pops out to be fertilized.

The ignorance demonstrated on this thread is astounding. I thought most pro-life folks (myself included), exception to Catholics of course, were comfortable with contraception that prevents conception (i.e. a zygote).

Why are people ragging on the pill? Is this the Freerepublic or the flatearth society?

27 posted on 09/13/2007 12:05:27 AM PDT by Maynerd (Bush is trying to sell a "War on Terror" against a "Religion of Peace." Confusing isn't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Maynerd
The ignorance demonstrated on this thread is astounding.

There is no fetus with standard oral contraceptives because no egg pops out to be fertilized.

I was going to give you a pass until you got rude.

The Pill works in a couple of ways. One way is to prevent ovulation. The second way is to change the lining of the uterus so that a fertilized egg cannot implant, IN CASE the Pill did NOT prevent ovulation.

28 posted on 09/13/2007 5:14:50 AM PDT by Dianna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Dianna

Once again you are confusing the day after pill with standard oral contraceptives. Ovolation is surpressed ergo no fertilization. Hypothetically, if ovulation was not surpressed your aborticant scenario may be true. But it is rare and little more than a weak rationalization against OC.

As this thread demonstrates there is no shortage of exaggeration and misinformation regarding the pill.


29 posted on 09/13/2007 7:40:39 AM PDT by Maynerd (Bush is trying to sell a "War on Terror" against a "Religion of Peace." Confusing isn't it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Maynerd
Once again you are confusing the day after pill with standard oral contraceptives. Ovolation is surpressed ergo no fertilization. Hypothetically, if ovulation was not surpressed your aborticant scenario may be true. But it is rare and little more than a weak rationalization against OC.

I've confused exactly nothing. Ovulation is NOT ALWAYS surpressed, although, I agree it is a main goal.

How common this failure is, I have no idea. I did, however, experience it personally, for about 6 months on one particular pill.

I suspect it is more common than you wish to believe.

30 posted on 09/13/2007 2:46:26 PM PDT by Dianna
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: perfect stranger

bttt


31 posted on 09/13/2007 4:54:22 PM PDT by perfect stranger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Maynerd

Pregnancy is possible even with the pill. It’s in the warning that comes with the package.


32 posted on 09/13/2007 8:33:44 PM PDT by Jaded ("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

I wonder what child-bearing does to the risk of cancer later in life?


33 posted on 09/14/2007 7:44:58 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Profile updated Wednesday, September 12, 2007. https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson