2000
DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(05)73142-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Should menstruation be optional for women?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2000
2000
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Those who are opposed to menstrual suppression have argued that Coutinho and Segal's (1999) book is inaccurate and misogynist (O'Grady, 2001;Prior, 2000). They have also argued that continuous oral contraceptive use has not been sufficiently researched (McGurgan, O'Donovan, Duffy, & Rogerson, 2000) and can be harmful to women's health (Grant, 2000).…”
Section: Please Scroll Down For Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Those who are opposed to menstrual suppression have argued that Coutinho and Segal's (1999) book is inaccurate and misogynist (O'Grady, 2001;Prior, 2000). They have also argued that continuous oral contraceptive use has not been sufficiently researched (McGurgan, O'Donovan, Duffy, & Rogerson, 2000) and can be harmful to women's health (Grant, 2000).…”
Section: Please Scroll Down For Articlementioning
confidence: 99%
“…47 Others suggest that long-term uninterrupted use of oral contraceptives may result in adverse health effects. 49 Clinical trials of continuous oral contraceptives have cycled women for no longer than 3 months, 48 and longer intervals have not been thoroughly studied. However, in light of the discomfort and even disability that many women report with their menses and given that menstrual suppression is often a therapy for women with certain medical conditions, it is reasonable to discuss multiple cycling of oral contraceptives as an option for all oral contraceptive users.…”
Section: Further Considerations: the Pill-free Interval And The Sundamentioning
confidence: 99%