Unjust Stigma, Lack Of Physician Training Hinder Market For IUDs, Opinion Piece Says

Intrauterine devices "seem like the perfect form of contraception: simple to use, long-lasting, reversible, hormone-free, economical," Slate columnist Kate Klonick writes. She asks, "So why are American women so late to this party? Perhaps the better question is: Why did they leave the party to begin with?"Klonick explains the benefits of IUDs, calling them a "foolproof method of birth control" and noting that they are 99% effective and "can last up to 10 years." Although IUDs can cost between $300 and $500, it is a one-time expense that is often covered by insurance, according to Klonick. She notes that although efficacy studies show that birth control pills, patches and vaginal rings can be "99% effective in a clinical setting, real-life compliancy -- like forgetting to take the pill at the same time every day -- reduces its success rate." Klonick adds that the availability of hormone-free IUDs makes them an "ideal" option for "women prone to some of the negative effects of hormonal birth control, like weight gain, mood swings, acne or high blood pressure."According to Klonick, IUDs were used by almost 10% of U.S. women taking birth control in the late 1970s but are now used by less than 2% of such women. She writes that Katharine O"Connell, a gynecologist at Columbia University who specializes in contraception, believes IUDs still carry a stigma "due to the erroneous belief that they"re highly dangerous" partly due to a number of deaths that occurred in the early 1970s tied to a specific brand of IUD known as the Dalkon Shield. Because of bad publicity surrounding the devices, "the U.S. pharmaceutical industry abandoned the research and manufacturing of IUDs in the mid-1980s, claiming the devices were no longer profitable," Klonick states. According to O"Connell, most experts now agree that the Dalkon Shield"s problems were related to its design, which made users more susceptible to infection, and a lack of testing for sexually transmitted infections before insertion.There are now two major brands of IUDs -- Mirena and ParaGard -- on the U.S. market, but physican training remains a problem, according to Klonick. She writes that studies show that premedical students are not educated regarding IUDs to the extent they are about oral contraceptive pills. O"Connell also noted that many medical schools limit classes on contraception to one lecture, which often omits IUDs. Klonick writes, "This lack of training can leave many doctors feeling uncomfortable recommending the once-controversial devices to their patients." She adds that many physicians who know how to insert and remove IUDs "still refuse to recommend it to childless patients because of the device"s checkered history." She concludes, "With Mirena advertising on television, the downturn in the economy forcing people to economize, and more women concerned about the long-term effects hormones have on their bodies, perhaps the IUD"s stigma will finally become a thing of the past" (Klonick, Slate, 7/29).