Talk:Contraceptive patch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Does anybody know

Does anybody know if it's safe to wear the patch 4 of 4 weeks instead of 3 of 4, if only for one cycle? Or if it's safe to only be without a patch for 3 days or so instead of 7? Thank you.

You oughtn't wear the patch at all. Chooserr 06:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] So basically?

...Free Republic is what passes for a source these days?--Aolanonawanabe 06:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC) ..Oh, no, see, it's all good now that he's added the Drudge Report as a source to give it some more balance--Aolanonawanabe 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that the [1] should be re-added because it is a source and it shows the gravity of the situation. Chooserr 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • The gravity of what situation? The link you're posting is to a law firm, it is not a source, it's a comercial for a non-notable law firm--Aolanonawanabe 06:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but if law firms are involved do you think that it's safe...if there is a law firm dedicated to helping women sue these people who put them in danger...do you think is safe. I believe that it accurately depicts the gravity of this situation! Chooserr 06:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuit

A link to the news page of an anti-drug website that doesn't cite it's sources is not a reliable source. Until you can produce a reliable source, it should stay out.--Sean|Black 06:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

You personally believe it unreliable...do a websearch if you please...just put the section back. Thanks, Chooserr 07:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] *sigh* send in the clow- meatpuppets

--Aolanonawanabe 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't need meat puppets if I wasn't afraid of being baited and banned like I was countless other times by your lot Chooserr

[edit] What I got rid of

The only thing I got rid of was the repetitive section on "you take off the patch, and put a new one on" which was repeated something like 3 times. Chooserr 08:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and I unbolded a piece of text. If they are so interested they can read through the article. Chooserr 08:27, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

This is vital to proper use. Without the 1 week where you don't use the patch, the estrogen levels are not maintained on a cyclical variation and breakthrough bleeding may be increased. Additionally, it is definitely necessary to to use a backup form of contraception such as spermicide or condoms for the first week of patch wear, because there is delayed onset of action.
Also, your points on religion and the patch are redundant with the Birth control content.
As a pharmacist, I am reverting for the sake of proper use.Uthbrian (talk) 08:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it says alot about the patch on that page...Chooserr 08:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
And as for the spermicide or condoms I'm sorry, I didn't know for I don't use them. That's no reason to scrap all my edits many of which were right and important. Chooserr 08:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Ok, you just admitted you don't know what you're talking about, but you're editing the article anyway???????--SarekOfVulcan 08:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I edited to the best of my knowledge and trying to compensate I use google. If I find something that isn't included in an article I will add it. You still haven't replied though to why your version of condoms which doesn't explain why HPV is not prevented very well is better than mine which has a link to the American Cancer Society...Chooserr 08:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification (Lawsuit)

Clarified that the effects being blamed on Evra (blood clots, thrombosis, etc) have been observed in users of the pill as well, and that no research is yet available to show how much more likely it is (or even if it is more likely) to occur in patch users. This is stated in the already referenced newspaper articles, and it didn't seem very NPOV to me to simply state that someone died on the patch and a lawsuit resulted without putting it in context with other similar hormonal birth control issues. Col.Kiwi 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skewed statistics

Claiming a three-fold increase in risk of death ("The Associated Press in 2004 demonstrated that the risk of death from using the patch is three times the risk of death from oral contraceptives.") based on such fine-grained measurements such as 1/200000 versus 3/200000 is grasping. Further, the claim in the first paragraph "The Patch has been associated with higher rates of strokes and thombosis than combined contraceptive pills" is unsubstantiated (vague, non-specific and unreferenced). -trax 11:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Religion & the patch"

Is this really a valid section? And with a link to "God," no less?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.162.240.117 (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I concur. This section seems out of place; the religion section should adequately cover the objections to contraceptives. JSacharuk 18:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight gain parameter in infobox

I would like to treat this parameter the same on all the hormonal contraception articles. Please read my opinion and discuss this issue at Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill#Weight parameter in infobox. LyrlTalk C 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)