#norplant

[pjbifun]

Well I wrote my dissertation on Foucault, Arendt, feminism and reproductive technologies. Now I'm finally getting to Foucault's History of Sexuality Volume 4, Confessions of the Flesh. I'm almost afraid to read it! But here we go! Amy words on it are welcomed.

[freewhispersmaker]

Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories developed Norplant

Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories developed Norplant

Question Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories developed Norplant, a long-acting contraceptive, in the early 1990s. In the United States, the firm priced the contraceptive at $350, and in other countries, the firm priced it at $23.

See the section “Price Discrimination” in the Chapter

[a] Why would the firm price the contraceptive differently in different countries? Explain your reasoning.

[b] Assume the…

View On WordPress

[amantes-medicine-shelf]

[body-extensions]

[...] because of its package/drug-delivery system, Norplant could be used to enforce compliance coercively. In the USA, the desire to implement such uses accompanied Norplant from the day it was approved, December 10, 1990. Newspaper columnist Ellen Goodman reported that, the first day Norplant was announced, a caller to a radio talk-show proclaimed that every girl should have Norplant stuck in her arm at puberty. The next day, the Philadelphia Inquirer published an editorial urging readers to "think about" Norplant as a tool in the fight against black poverty. A California judge ordered a woman, who was guilty of child abuse, to have Norplant inserted as part of a plea bargain. Legislatures in 11 states proposed bills (although they passed none of them) to offer financial incentives to women receiving welfare, to encourage them to use Norplant. Federal Medicaid paid for the insertion of the implants, but states control Medicaid distribution, and in South Dakota, for example, Medicaid would not pay for the removal of Norplant in the absence of a medical reason for doing so. Such incidents, in the USA and in other countries, have raised alarms about the potential for misuse of Norplant. For the purposes of this paper, the example is provided in order to emphasise that it was not the hormone in Norplant, but rather its form of packaging, that made this contraceptive so easily subject to coercive use.

Gossel, P. P. “Packaging the Pill”

[pyotra]

Norplant was developed as a drug that could be used on unruly and recalcitrant populations not only in the third world but also in the first. It is long-acting, targets the woman, does not need a literate or numerate user, does not require the user's co-operation after it has been implanted, and can be monitored by the authorities with a glance at the woman's arm. Despite the huge investments in propaganda about woman's choice, Norplant's potential as an instrument of control was immediately recognized. In the USA, less than a month after it was passed by the FDA, a judge ordered that a convicted woman not be let out on probation unless she agreed to have the implant. A newspaper editorial suggested that because of growing poverty among black people, welfare mothers should be offered incentives to use Norplant (Philadelphia Inquirer, 12 December, 1990). Norplant is now promoted in much-advertised population control programmes in some of the most coercive regimes in the third world--Chile, Indonesia, the Philippines, China--and the somewhat less obliging Indian government is described as 'lacking political commitment' or indulging in 'procrastination...that hinders real progress' when the country is 'hurtling towards disaster.' .... The politics of the private are not addressed and no questions are asked about contradictions between various women's requirements and the national and international agendas of population control. Women's freedom begins to look alarmingly like the freedom to consume these expensive and dangerous multinational products in a climate of disinformation that makes a mockery of 'consent.' These discourses continue to address the question of women's rights and invoke women as free agents in vocabulary drawn from feminism, but only within the once-again depoliticised private domains of the family and of reproduction. The problem is that a whole range of issues that constitute the subjugation of women, and indeed their differential subjugation in relation to class, caste and community, are naturalised in the 'woman' whose freedom and right to privacy is invoked and who becomes the bearer of the 'right' to choose. The very same move also makes it possible to bring this individual's rights into alignment with the interests of population control and multinational profit. For instance, hormonal injectibles/implants might be considered as expanding contraceptive options for women in a situation where they have ready access to an efficient and well-equipped medical set up. To put it in different terms, for a woman whose class, caste and community positioning matches that of the citizen subject, hormonals can, with some reservations, be regarded as genuine 'choices.' Yet, ironically, these contraceptives were never developed for this woman. As their profiles clearly indicate, they were intended for 'less desirable' demographic groups: the teeming millions of the third world, first world immigrants, criminals.

Susie Tharu and Tejaswini Niranjana, "Problems for a Contemporary Theory of Gender" (1994)

[thereproductivezine]

Norplant: Not for This (Lady) Garden

Here's some history for our readers: 

Not to overuse the plant analogy, but... Norplant was the community garden that fed the women’s reproductive rights movement of the 90s. Its little branches spread only to be torn down by the bulldozer of public criticism. In 1990, the FDA approved the five year contraceptive method of Norplant. The system included 6 small silicone rods that would be implanted into a woman’s arm and slowly release a synthetic form of progesterone. It was reversible, but required a trained medical professional to be properly removed.

  Soon after the pill was introduced, the intrauterine device (IUD) came back onto the market (the IUD originated in the 1920s). Unlike the pill, which was marketed towards married couples, the IUD was marketed towards impoverished women thought to be likely to forget to take the pill and used as population control. The use of the pill by single women was still considered inappropriate in society. Norplant was then marketed by Wyeth-Ayerst towards upper class women who would be willing to pay the steep price of the implant,. This seemed to be an attempt to directly combat the image of ethically and morally questionable use of Norplant as population control for the underclass.

  States began to debate putting Norplant-related mandates in place. The mandates included Norplant as a condition for AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) recipients, probation, imprisonment or as a requirement for women who gave birth to children with fetal alcohol syndrome or drug addiction problems In ‘94, twelve states wanted to put mandates like these in place. This sparked massive debate in activist groups and courts.

  Removing the implant became a huge problem for women as their five years ran out or side effects appeared. Only a few locations had trained nurses and doctors for removal and training was not required to remove the implant. Some women required surgery, suffered scarring or dealt with hours of nurses digging in their arms trying to remove the tubes. Women’s reproductive rights activists pointed out these issues as motivations for women to take choice into their own hands - not rely on health care professionals to make the decisions for them.

  One of the unique and new factors that influenced Norplant was media involvement. Media coverage of the health and moral concerns surrounding Norplant supported movements for class action suits and public dislike for the product. By the end of the 20th century, Norplant was no longer commercially available.

  Norplant may have failed commercially, but it’s story shows a dramatic change in women’s reproductive rights. Conversation concerning birth control moved from population control to women’s individual control of their choices. The modern weighing of pros and cons by each women when choosing birth control developed as Norplant died.

  Sources: Watkins, Elizabeth Siegel. “From Breakthrough to Bust: The Brief Life of Norplant, the Contraceptive Implant.” Journal of Women's History, Volume 22, Number 3. The Johns Hopkins University Press. 2010. Print.

[nexplanontrials]

Day 1: Insertion

I had my Nexplanon implant inserted yesterday, September 19, 2014. I had been sweating bullets ALLL DAY. I was mildly nervous in the days leading up to insertion, but the day of I was starting to go a little crazy. I made a BIG mistake of watching a video of the insertion on youtube. I don't recommend it.

 I had a regular doc appointment at 2, and there the nurse looked back in my records and commented on how my blood pressure was much higher than normal -- which means it was about average, I have really low BP -- and that my pulse was around 105. Then I went to my gyno for my Nexplanon insertion and my pulse was around 108. I was having a little bit of anxiety! 

The nurse practitioner who did my procedure was really helpful. She explained all the steps and let me know what was going on every step of the way. First they made me pee in a cup for a pregnancy test. Then they asked me which arm I wanted it in, they didn't tell me to put it in my non dominant hand, but I chose that one anyway and they had me lay down on the doc office 'bed' if you can call it that with my arm at a 90 degree angle. 

Then they measure on your arm 8cm from your elbow along your humerus bone. At the end of 8cm is where the insertion is. After measuring they numbed my arm with some Lidocaine. It hurt less than giving blood or getting a shot. It burned a tad, but it was nowhere near as bad as all the times I accidentally touch a pot or pan that's hot. Once the area was numb, the NP rubbed some iodine around on my arm -- about the size of half a tennis ball? She didn't use a lot. I could feel that. I was freaking out because I could feel the iodine being rubbed around, but I was assured that the Lidocaine would keep everything from hurting. 

Next, the nurse took the applicator and lined it up on my skin at that 8cm mark. I could feel everything that was happening --- BUT IT DIDN'T HURT. It didn't even feel like pressure, like they tell you when you are getting a pap. I felt it, but it wasn't painful. It felt like someone was running a finger along my arm, just sensation. Then it was done!

I bled a bit at the insertion site and the NP had to keep gauze on it for a bit. It didn't hurt, just felt weird. I had some immediate bruising, wasn't bad, and still isn't, but everyones skin is different. After the bleeding stopped oozing, they put 2 steri strips on my wound and topped it with a gauze pad and a pressure wrap!

I left the office and my arm twinged a bit from time to time as I was driving home. As soon as I got home I took some acetaminophen and then I took some more about two to three hours later to help alleviate what was sure to be some pain. I ended up laying in bed with an ice pack on my arm watching Desperate Housewives. Not that it hurt, it was just uncomfortable and the ice helped with that.

I had some discomfort at night. I did find that sleeping on my stomach with my arm at an angle going over my head was the best way to sleep. I woke up a few times throughout the night. Not because it hurt, but probably because I had taken Pamprin. And had two coffees that day. And normally I am pretty caffine free because else I just don't sleep well.

[themedicalgaze-blog]

Bribed and Sterilized: Drug Addicts Targeted for Sterilization

The 20th century bore witness to the many horrors that can arise when humans attempt to create superiority within an equal species. Figures like Dr. Mengele and Adolf Hitler and their eugenics-based ideals come to mind, as well as their horrific attempts to “purify” the human race. Oftentimes, we like to place these events in the past, denying the possibility that they could ever happen again. But US-based Project Prevention shows us that the past may not be entirely behind us.

Barbara Harris is a 57-year-old woman from North Carolina. She is founder of a “charity” that gives drug addicts up to $300 dollars if they choose to undergo long-term birth control or sterilization. The idea behind this project is to avoid unwanted babies from entering a world in which they cannot be properly cared. So far, this donation-based group has made its way to four thousand drug addicts, and is looking to expand to the United Kingdom.

The medical community has heavily criticized this “prevention” group. It thwarts the efforts of those who want to give support and empowerment to addicts. Project Prevention plays heavily into the idea of social engineering, deciding for these addicts that they should not be allowed the right to reproduce. Her past adverts shockingly juxtapose photos of crack rocks and dead infants, with slogans like “Some things just don’t belong together.”

The methods used by this organization are entirely degrading to a group of people who have been determined as lesser than. It calls to question how intersectionality plays a role in this situation. Gender and class are both targeted heavily by this organization’s mission. Of the 4,348 addicts helped, a majority of those are women. Over 1,300 tubal ligations have occurred, a permanent form of sterilization, as well as the mass distribution of IUDs and implanted devices. By incentivizing sterilization, Project Prevention is:

Feeding the flame: drug addicts may not have the autonomy to properly utilize this amount of money, due to their life situations. PP operates under the guise of “caring” for these people, while doing quite the opposite.

  Permanently Changing Life Paths: A person with little funds to subsist on cannot undo the effects of these contraceptive methods. Therefore, what may seem like a temporary solution may turn into a permanent one.

  Promoting a culture of “otherness”: Drug addicts do not need to be robbed of their ability to reproduce. This does not help them with the problem they are facing. Instead, these bonuses could be put towards helping them out of their situation.

  Henrietta Lacks’ story shows us how misinformation can hurt the lives of others. Her family is still feeling the sting of not being told the whole story. This organization is taking advantage of an entire group of individuals.

-Priscilla Odinmah

<http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1981916,00.html>