A tubal ligation would solve the having any more children problem. (a great new method has just arrived in the US, more info here -> I’m planning mine for 12 months from now)
An Endometrial Ablation may help with the periods. For those too lazy to click on the link, an endometrial ablation is the removal of the uterine lining, designed for those who have very painful and heavy menstrual bleeding. It doesn’t always completely stop the bleeding, but it usually slows it down significantly.
I think it would be extremely difficult to find a doctor who would perform an elective hysterectomy. AFAIK, there are plenty of possible side effects that you may want to look into. I know nothing of menopause and its effects (being a young 'un).
If your doctor suggests only different BC pills whenever you complain about your PMS, I would suggest changing doctors. Perhaps then you may get some different advice or options. Too many doctors think it’s just like having a stomach ache. I for one, am blessed with almost no period pain, but one of my best friends is virtually incapacitated for a few days each month, and is in complete agony, so I know it’s not always something that you can just grit your teeth through, or have an aspirin.
All the best in whatever you decide to do, Dragongirl.
The HRT study involved post menopausal women who still had their uterus(es?). In women without a uterus, hormones have shown no risks because they are different hormones than those used in HRT. In HRT, progestrone is added to prevent uterine cancer. After a hysterectomy, you do not take progestrone.
I seriously doubt this statement. Women following hysterectomy and oopherectomy take estrogen only as HRT - but it’s exposure to unopposed ESTROGEN that is thought to be the primary cause of the increased cancer risk. Since these women no longer have a uterus or ovaries, they are at no risk for endometrial carcinoma (cancer of the uterine lining) or of ovarian carcinoma - but they still have breasts, and almost certainly face a higher risk of breast carcinoma (how high, I’m not sure) than they would if they used no HRT.
“While one part of the Women’s Health Initiative has been terminated, another part—the long-term health effects of estrogen alone on women who have had hysterectomies—will continue. (The hormone progestin is added to estrogen in HRT for women who have their uteruses in order to prevent cancer of the uterine lining.) To date, participants in that part of the study have not shown an increase in breast cancer.”
This trial is investigating the effects of HRT only in postmenopausal women (minimum enrollment age is 50), and “long-term” in this case is 8.5 years (and the trial, IIR, has not gone on that long yet; this wing was terminated early). Dragongirl is 30, and to my knowledge there have been NO studies of extremely long-term effects (20+ years) of estrogen-alone HRT in relatively young women who’ve undergone hysterectomy plus oopherectomy. The data’s not there to say whether they do or do not face an increased risk of breast cancer. What we DO know is that women who are nulliparous have an increased risk of breast cancer over that of the general population, and the effect seems to be due to the increased estrogen exposure that occurs as a result of the additional menstrual cycles they experience. Any increased risk must be smaller than for the combined estrogen/progesterone HRT that was used in the recently terminated wing of the Women’s Health Initiative (or it would have been seen by now in the course of that study), but it still may be significant, especially over extremely long time periods. We won’t know until more studies are done. Dragongirl’s better off not messing with her naturally occuring hormone levels unless it’s absolutely necessary.
It’s not that there are NO risks - there are ALWAYS risks to taking hormones. Always. It’s just that in the hysterectomy wing of the study it is not yet demonstrated whether the risks of hormones therapy outweigh the benefits or vice versa. QUITE different than saying “no risk as all”.
By the way - I didn’t get that off WebMD. I got it out of the original published article in a peer-reviewed journal. A little harder to read, and not at all full of soundbites, but much more factual.
