# Birth Control Options



## Liquesce (Nov 4, 2006)

Can anyone give me a rundown of birth control options which do not prevent the implantation of or otherwise damage fertilized eggs? Off the top of my head I'm thinking spermicides, diaphragms, condoms, and NFP. Anything else?


----------



## Elowyn (Nov 3, 2003)

The sponge would be an option. And of course permanent sterilization methods.


----------



## Pyrodjm (Jan 9, 2007)

Abstinence







.Hmm... withdrawal, devices like Ladycomp that aid in FAM/NFP. I have used the Today sponge with success for months (on fertile days as a barrier, I use FAM). I reccommend it if neither of you are sensitive to spemicides.


----------



## Carlyle (Mar 31, 2007)

Cervical cap--it's a bit harder to put "on" than a diaphragm, but MUCH nicer--less rubber between you and your partner. Fewer urinary tract infections for me too...


----------



## Transcender (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Carlyle* 
Cervical cap--it's a bit harder to put "on" than a diaphragm, but MUCH nicer--less rubber between you and your partner. Fewer urinary tract infections for me too...

I've heard the diaphragm tends to cause urinary infections. I don't understand why though - can anyone explain? Is there any way to use it differently (i.e., not use spermicide but use only the diaphragm as a barrier) to reduce or stop the infections? I recently brought up using a diaphragm to my doctor and now I'm looking for more information.


----------



## Transcender (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Pyrodjm* 
(on fertile days as a barrier, I use FAM).

I feel ignorant here - what do you mean by FAM?

Also, what kit are you using to determine your fertile days?

I've been relying on condoms and withdrawal (along with some vague sense of when I'm ovulating), and that no longer feels safe to me to prevent pregnancy at this time. I'm also considering tubal ligation, but I was scared off that idea for a bit because of what I read about syndromes afterward.

In fact, it was my research into these issues that brought me to the forums here, and then I registered.


----------



## takasmom (Mar 16, 2007)

FAM=fertility awareness method, by charting your temperature and checking your cervical fluid and position.

if you have a history of urinary tract infections, a diaphragm can be a problem bc of the way it is positioned--the hard rim of the diaphragm has to "catch" above your pubic bone (on the inside) which means it is pressing on your bladder/urethra from the back. if you can kind of visualize that.

i personally had that problem so my doctor sized me for a cervical cap instead, which is like diaphragm but just suctions onto your cervix with no pressing against pubic bone. much better!

recently i switched from my old cervical cap to a FEMCAP. it is a new(er) cervical cap you can buy online from canadian pharma websites. (my doctor had not heard of it, and PP here does not offer it either.) i love it because it actually has a little strap on it to make the removal EASY.


----------



## Transcender (Jul 6, 2007)

Thank you for that information. Good explanation about the diaphragm and UTIs.

I found my ob/gyn wasn't helpful in some respects when I was asking about such options. I'm assuming it was a time issue...He did mention that the spermicide used with a diaphragm or the sponge, Nonoxynol-9, could actually facilitate, instead of hinder, transmission of the HIV virus. I am still dating, so protection as much as possible against STDs is also an issue for me.

I was just reading about the FEMCAP because of your post - thanks for mentioning it. I might pursue that with my doctor. I see it has no hormones, and it looks like it can be effective when used without spermicide.










Do devices like the FEMCAP and the diaphragm cause more yeast infections?

I think I would feel a lot safer using condoms, a barrier like FEMCAP, and some device to track my ovulation. I want to get away from any reliance on withdrawal. I'm unable to use the pill because of other medical issues.


----------



## fishface (Jan 6, 2007)

I would really not use a cervical cap or diaphragm WITHOUT spermicide.


----------



## Transcender (Jul 6, 2007)

I thought with the diaphragm and cap, the effectiveness of these methods was _primarily_ through the mechanical barrier rather than through the spermicide? I thought the spermicide was an additional protection rather than essential?

Any feedback here or through pm would be a big help.


----------



## Carlyle (Mar 31, 2007)

I thought diaphragm and cervical cap needed the spermicide to be as effective as they are supposed to be. Just one womans opinion...


----------



## Liquesce (Nov 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Transcender* 
I thought with the diaphragm and cap, the effectiveness of these methods was _primarily_ through the mechanical barrier rather than through the spermicide? I thought the spermicide was an additional protection rather than essential?

I'd found the following when I was searching for diaphragm effectiveness rates ... does anyone know better?

Quote:

Using spermicide with cervical caps appears to improve somewhat the contraceptive effectiveness of the caps. One-year pregnancy rates for women using cervical caps with spermicide range from 5 percent to 21 percent, according to various studies.6 One-year pregnancy rates for typical use of cervical caps alone range from 20 percent for nulliparous women to 40 percent for parous women.

Whether use of a spermicide with a diaphragm increases or even decreases the contraceptive effectiveness of the diaphragm is unknown. In various studies, 12-month pregnancy rates have ranged from 10 percent to 21 percent for women using a diaphragm with spermicide.7 A 12-month pregnancy rate for typical use of the diaphragm alone ranges from 1 percent to 29 percent.

Typical use of a diaphragm without spermicide may actually provide more effective contraception than diaphragm use with a spermicide. The messiness, cost, and inconvenience of using spermicide with a diaphragm can discourage consistent diaphragm use. In addition, researchers have speculated that continuous use of a diaphragm would be less inconvenient, and perhaps more consistent, than the traditional use of diaphragms, with insertion occurring just before intercourse and removal recommended within 24 hours.

Two studies involving a total of 1,670 users, in which diaphragms were worn continuously (up to one year in one study and up to four years in the other) show excellent contraceptive protection rates. Using diaphragms continuously without spermicides resulted in pregnancy rates of 3 percent and 1 percent a year, respectively.8 However, an FHI-sponsored study conducted among 110 women by the London-based Margaret Pyke Centre of a continuously used diaphragm over 12 months without spermicide found a 24 percent annual pregnancy rate.9 In all three studies, diaphragms were briefly removed for cleaning each day at least six hours after intercourse, then immediately reinserted.

Other studies have found that use of a diaphragm in the traditional way -- with spermicide and with insertion just before intercourse -- is associated with lower pregnancy rates than continuous use of a diaphragm without spermicide. However, no significant difference has been demonstrated.10 In general, no differences in discontinuation due to medical reasons have been observed between the two modes of diaphragm use.

Continuous use of a diaphragm without spermicide is considered an experimental method and is not recommended for general use.

from http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/Networ...spermicids.htm


----------



## Transcender (Jul 6, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Liquesce* 
However, no significant difference has been demonstrated.10 In general, no differences in discontinuation due to medical reasons have been observed between the two modes of diaphragm use.

This is some great information to discuss with my doctor.

Thanks, Liquesce!


----------

