We are right to be wary of marketing, excessive medication, and exploitation of self-image.

Yet it's possible this drug could be of genuine help to some women. Some horrible symptoms, suffered by as many as 2-3% of women (including my sister), are directly associated with menstruation. These include migraine headaches, distorted vision, nausea and fainting as well as the more usual mood swings and mess.

To suggest that people attempting to deal with things that make several days of each month a misery are mere dupes in a corporate marketing campaign is to oversimplify the case unfairly.

I'm as wary of big corporations as anyone, and I'd love to see a drug industry where research is publicly funded and published in the public domain; where patents, sales and marketing are not justified to amortise private research funding; where medicine is made available to practitioners and patients "at cost" in the third world and the West alike.

Under such a regime it would probably be possible for such things as hormonal therapies to be tailored (by a specialist practitioner) carefully to satisfy each patient's exact requirements, without pushing a patented brand on anyone, and with proper consideration of alternatives which may be effective.

But that isn't how it works right now, so people in search of solutions to real problems have to shop around within the medical system with its highly professional drug pushers for a brand-name which works for them, occasionally making daring and expensive sorties to "unqualified" practitioners like homeopaths and acupuncturists. It's very much hit-and-miss, and as no one practitioner sees the whole market in operation it doesn't contribute much to the medical profession's expertise.

I'm not a woman but the thought of facing hideous pain every month would certainly turn me to drugs. Anti-depressants are useful for psychological pain and it's understandable why people take them. That said, to make the natural process of a period completely disappear seems fraught with problems. Any drug which makes pain disappear only hides symptoms. Pain occurs for a reason - it tells us something is wrong with our bodies and we need to do something. Not just mask the problem.

Women can exercise choice. Where is the problem?

With Cornflower on this one. Free choice. Where's the polemic?

I've had a browse back through some of the authors other articles on OLO to see if my impressions of her approach were justified.

The impression I get is that a common theme is addressing what are often implications we should be aware of relating to choices being made available to women but treating those choices as some kind of unfair burden. The women as victim of more freedom, victim of more effort being made to provide opportunity for women.

- Women suffer because there are more options tailored for them regarding their health and appearance than men.
- Females suffer because a vacine with some risks is but also potentially significant benefits is made available to them before it is available to males.
- Women suffer because of the opportunity to enter into surrogacy arrangements.
- Females suffer because they have more opportunities to express themselves sexually than they used to have (and now face some of the same peer pressures that males have faced for a long time).

I get the impression that many of the issues Melinda raises are serious and need to be debated and considered. She talks about real risks. Where I find myself in disagreement is with the idea that those choices and opportunities are somehow about victimising women.

Drug companies market products to women because they are more likley to buy them than men (and they are working at socialising men to become consumers of their products as well).
Gardasil was made available to girls because the expected health benefits to them were considered important, not because girls are considered more expendable than boys.
Women are not forced to enter surrogacy arrangements.
Women (and teenage girls) will make bad choices about their sexuality, the ability to make bad choices is a consequence of freedom.

Talk about the risks of products. Talk about the consequences of doing stupid things for acceptance or to make a dollar but please stop equating more choice and opportunity with victimisation.

R0bert

I don't believe drug companies are out to get women - I don't think they're particularly choosy: anything to make a buck.

Although no-one is proposing mandatory use of this drug I do worry that the choice made by many concerning it will not be an informed one.

While clinics, classes and a wealth of printed and visual material are provided for women to make choices about childbirth or menopause, not many young girls approach menstruation with such education.

Often a sketchy run-down from mum, gruesome stories from school and even the quasi-religious belief that this is the "curse" put on womankind by a wrathfull god for Eve's transgressions, are as much information as some women take through their whole life concerning this subject.

The fact that millions of women suffer needlessly every month without even knowing that dysmenorrhea is a treatable condition is adequate proof of this lack of knowledge.

Instead of a welcome reminder that their bodies are working seamlessly, a wealth of old wives tales and vague feelings fostered by adverts in which "mess" and odour and delicate shudders feature, lead many young girls and women to feel that menstruating is somehow dirty.

These are the people who are going to leap at the chance of an inadequately tested product whose results through a lifetime of use can only be guessed at.

As long as it can be defined as a choice - it must be ok right? Why is it that this word "choice" can justify or gloss over so many problems?
*Everything* we do is a choice, to drink drive or not, to take drugs or not. Especially with health, there are wise and not so wise choices. Each choice has to be weighed up and considered based on the information given. Melinda's article has demonstrated that when it comes to choosing this medication, we are given inaccurate information and marketing designed to appeal to a woman's dissatisfaction with herself and her appearance. On what basis then can we expect women to make a wise, informed choice? I'm not against the pill, but I know so many women who have suffered nasty side effects - myself included. The fact that a drug like the pill is marketed in the same way some cosmetics are is disturbing and incredibly sexist. Drugs should be taken to give health benefits, yet clearly the marketing for this drug is to offer cosmetic benefit.

When will women wake up and realise that the worst kind of oppression of a woman is telling her she's not acceptable just as she is and just how her body works naturally! How revolting that women would allow themselves to again be oppressed by men just like they were decades and centuries ago by making their bodies available to men 24 hours 7 days a week for sex without any consequences or need for responsibility and care on the part of the male! If all of this so called "sexual freedom" for us is so good and improving our lives as women, why then are there more articles then ever before being written about how we can improve our sex lives.......I thought they were supposed to be good already because of our "sexual freedom"? Are we missing something really obvious here?

Raven

R0bert expressed exactly what I think.

If Melinda were a male she would receive a barrage from women about her paternalistic attitude. Drug companies couldn't care less how they make their money. If we are stupid enough to buy into something without being fully informed as to why we can't really cry crocodile tears and play the victim.

Women are quite capable of thinking for themselves and taking responsibility for their own actions. Just as men are. Not only women are targeted by money making drug companies. Men too. Have you seen those ads about 'erectile problems'? Viagra and Cialis is sold by the bucket load.

yvonne, thanks and well said. I recall the large number of adds I used to get via email some time ago for "enlargment" treatments, it's enough to make a guy nervous.

I don't think that men generally get targetted as heavily for the same stuff as women but we get targetted by advertisers and social messages in other areas.

Should the young male who spends too much money hotting up his car to try and impress then blame women for his choices or just accept that it's his choice and live with it? Should the guys who feel the need to be "buff" to impress women blame women for that or just accept that it's their own choice?

Raven, I have the impression that it's mostly women telling other women that they need to look a certain way to be acceptable. Some people will always try and make others conform to how they think they should be. Think about the flack wearers of budgie smugglers get in the media and elsewhere if they don't happen to be built like elite athletes. Think about how often you hear the term "Size does matter" in relation to the way men are equipped.

I know some women who enjoy sex themselves, not just for the pleasure it gives males. I don't know any who are "making their bodies available to men 24 hours 7 days a week for sex without any consequences or need for responsibility and care on the part of the male" but I tend to mix in a fairly tame crowd.

Some women do use sex for the power it gives over males, those run the risk of finding themselves in difficult relationships. Others behave as adults and make grown up choices about what they do to and with their bodies.

R0bert

The question is, if there wasn't any money to be made from it, would anyone still be promoting it? I say the answer is no. Why do I suspect this?

I recently asked an obstetrician friend of mine if she offered her patients the choice of Natural Family Planning (NFP) as an alternative to other contraceptives. The NFP services are provided and taught by the hospital she works in with no effort required by her. She said no. Why? Because that would probably involve her (the obstetrician) having to learn about NFP and spend more time with her patients helping them to understand their cycle and fertility. Easier to throw a packet of pills at the patient and move on to the next patient.

It's easy to bandy around the word "choice" but you need to make sure there actually is "choice" on offer. More often than not the doctor offers one quick-fix option and it's up to the patient to research the other available options. How many people have unsuccessfully used IVF not knowing there are natural alternatives on offer such as NAPRO Technology which work in accordance with the woman's cycle, highlighting and solving her health problems rather than trying to eradicate her cycle.

If I have one message for my daughters, it is "Don't mess with your fertility." You just don't know that you will come out the other side fertile.

True, drug companies want to make money. But has Melinda ever considered that some women with painful, heavy periods might benefit from the pill? All drugs carry side effects, even the aspirin on the supermarket shelf.