Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Contraceptive pill reduces the risk of cancer for women, says report

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date:
12 September 2007
TAKING the pill does not increase a woman's chances of developing cancer - and actually appears to reduce the risk, researchers said yesterday.
Previous studies have linked the contraceptive to a higher risk of breast and cervical cancer.

But a new analysis of 46,000 women by Aberdeen University found that taking the pill did not lead to an increased risk of cancer during a woman's lifetime.

In fact, it appeared to cut the risk of all cancers by up to 12 per cent, according to the study in the British Medical Journal.

The researchers, led by Professor Philip Hannaford, said the findings should be reassuring to women who were using oral contraceptives.

However, they said the risks of cancer were greater in women who took the pill for longer than eight years.

The new research used data from the Royal College of GPs' Oral Contraception Study, which followed the women for 36 years. Half were using oral contraceptives and half had never used the pill.

The women's health was monitored, taking into account factors such as age, smoking and social class, and cases of cancer were recorded.

Overall, there was a 12 per cent reduction in the risk of cancer among pill-users. This would mean one less case of cancer for every 2,200 women who have used the pill.

Prof Hannaford said the research should be a comfort to women. "My message for women is that if you want to use the pill for contraceptive reasons, then go ahead. It will not increase your lifetime risk of developing cancer," he said.

"If you want to use it for longer than eight years, then the risk increases slightly but that does not mean they have to stop using it. It just means that women should make sure they attend for cervical screening. But I think the pill should be used for contraceptive purposes, and not to prevent cancer."

Maria Leadbeater, a nurse specialist at the charity Breast Cancer Care Nurse, said the findings would be welcomed by the thousands of women across the UK.

"From talking to women on our helpline we know the anxiety that concerns over the pill can cause. This research will be a great reassurance to them."

Toni Belfield, from the Family Planning Association, said: "This study adds to the evidence that as well as providing a safe and effective form of contraception, the contraceptive pill can help protect against the risk of different types of cancer.

"The study further confirms that for the majority the benefits far outweigh any risks."

In the UK an estimated three million women use the pill each year.

BREAST IS BEST CLAIM QUERIED

BREASTFEEDING does not protect children against developing asthma or allergies, a study revealed yesterday.

A trial involving almost 14,000 children found no evidence of a protective effect among youngsters who were breastfed.

Previous studies have shown breastfeeding helps to boost a baby's immune system and can help protect against respiratory infections.

There has also been debate over the past 70 years about whether breastfeeding can protect against allergies, with conflicting results from a variety of studies.

The latest research in Canada followed the children until they were six-and-a-half years old, with tests carried out to see if there was any sign of asthma or allergies.

The researchers, led by Dr Michael Kramer from the Montreal Children's Hospital, found no evidence of a drop in asthma, hay fever or eczema among the children of mothers who were supported to breastfeed for longer.

The researchers said public-health measures to increase breastfeeding seemed unlikely to have had a major impact on reducing the level of hereditary conditions such as asthma or eczema.

They said: "Our results underline the importance of seeking other explanations for the recent epidemic of allergy and asthma."

Dr Geoff Lawson, policy officer at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, said breastfeeding had many other beneficial effects.

"There is absolute evidence that breastfeeding reduces rates of stomach infections in babies," he said. "It can also reduce the risk of respiratory infections. There is strong research showing breast-fed babies are less at risk of obesity."

Page 1 of 1

 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/09/2007 00:38:24

A 'VERY' Bold statement to make!
Is this a Political statement, to curve us having-Babies'?
Oestrogen, IS a known fact, to cause cancer related illness, there is NO doubt about that one, breast cancer being the worst!
This for me has been, related to loved ones and the research I have undertaken, I for one, would question this!

2

Scullion,

Canada 12/09/2007 00:51:14

#1
You are free to contradict any study you wish.
However, if you wish to do it scientifically (and thus credibly) please deliver your data.

3

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/09/2007 01:02:54

2. Scullion, I will, but its late now in the UK, gotta go bed, keep DYW warm!
This topic I DO know loads on and will post later today!
'nite-nite' from Edinburgh.

4

Littlehorse,

12/09/2007 01:38:06

Well 1 & 2 i cant wait until tomorrow's shots are fired! lol

5

sam the god,

12/09/2007 07:16:52

more to the point it stops them getting pregnant (nae spropgs)

6

Boy Wonder,

12/09/2007 07:39:52

How do you know who to believe? One study is negative, thwn another is positive ... wait a few years and then whoops ... here's another study confirming the first one and a few months after that, yet another study rejects the first and agrees with the second!

Happily, my partner no longer takles the Pill, we have two lovely daughters and I got the snip!! In the long run, it's safer! I encourage all men to think of their partners' continued good health, and once you've had your 3 to 5 kids ... get the snip. Why should the women always be the sacrificial lamb?

As for breast-feeding, mothers have been doing it since the year dot! I know some can't for whatever reasons ... but generally a mother's milk is still the best thing for babies! Anything else is there to supplement and nurture!

7

Pickleskin 25,

12/09/2007 08:15:41

What a contradictive opening when a few para's down they explain that it actually will of it is taken for more than eight years!!

8

morris,

Edinburgh 12/09/2007 08:21:46

Interestingly enough according to the BBC Breakfast news the research at Aberdeen concluded quite the opposite?I seem to recall something about prolonged use seems to increase the chance of CANCER. This eight year differentiation is mentioned above eventually,but the headline gives the impression that this is conclusive and without exception.
Its difficult enough to know whats going on without the press reporting what did NOT happen, which is in effect what the Hootsman does here.This paper continues to slide sown the trusted and newsworthy scale,and its not got far to go now before it fails to register at all!

9

Findlay Thompson,

London 12/09/2007 09:04:38

Think of this...

Consider all the cash that has been ploughed into these research/study groups.

They claim there findings are accurate and are the last word on a particular condition/ailment etc.

Six months...maybe a year later a new research report contra's the previous. Would it not be logical to use the funds provided for research/study groups to assist in defeating the problem rather than provide statistics?

10

Mercutio,

Falkirk 12/09/2007 09:21:24

To The Editor
Thank you for taking the McCann comment thread off, now please allow some comment on the Worlds End murder trial.

11

morris,

Edinburgh 12/09/2007 09:25:26

I think perhaps for "expert"we should read ,any group of people who probably dont know what they are talking about,but one is conspicuously less obviously incompetent (if thats possible) than the rest !

12

Geri,

UK 12/09/2007 09:58:47

Treat this article with extreme caution. The pill is a steroid based drug and as with other steroids it suppresses the immune system leaving you more vulnerable to cancer. To metabolise the artificial hormones it depletes women's bodies of vital nutrients such as B vitamins and zinc. Please read "The Bitter Pill: How Safe is the Perfect Contraceptive?" by Dr Ellen Grant (a Scot may I add) for more information. Let's not forget the cancer industry is a very profitable business and prevention is not profitable.

13

Theodore,

Scotland 12/09/2007 10:06:54

12.

That was very informative, thanks for the information.

14

Geri,

UK 12/09/2007 10:39:19

Hi Theodore, glad you found my post informative. Here is a link to an article outlining the nutrient depletions caused by the pill. If women were aware of these side effects I am sure a lot less would be taking this drug. Natural Family Planning is effective and safe. Read Taking Charge of Your Fertility by Toni Weschler. I took the pill myself and would never go back due to the damage it caused to my health.

http://www.pfli.org/pill_drug_nutrient_depletions_duplant...

15

G,

dundy 12/09/2007 11:39:36

I take more credence from work carried out by scientists in the oublic domain using data collected over many years than the views expoused by often politically motivated groups using selected pieces of research data
Anybody can select ten pieces of data and present a argument that breathing air causes cancer - give the scientists their due - at least they admit that their work is indicative or supports the theory that....

16

Charles Linskaill,

On the go on the mobile 12/09/2007 13:23:00

#16#,17, that IS exactly my point and I am glad you told us a womans view, its about time woman weren't treated as medical experiments, its been going on far-to-long

17

Pickleskin 25,

12/09/2007 14:25:22

I have to worry about young 15 and 16 year old girls (or even younger) who probably don't have that much information about contraception and are put on tablets like the pill, sometimes forceably by their parents, and just continue to use the method for years as it is all they are used to.

Eight years later when they reach their early twenties and have the mind to either stop the pill to start a family, or consider other methods of contraception, the damage has already been done.

18

Schizobeck,

SWEET HOME ALABAMA, USA 12/09/2007 15:04:09

Doesn't this paint a pretty picture? They've been saying for years that contraceptive pills do increase the risk of cancer. The ONLY THING CONTRACEPTIVE PILLS REDUCE THE CHANCE OF IS CONTRACEPTION. Act accordingly.

They've also said for years that smoking causes lung cancer YET FULLY 20% OF THE PEOPLE WHO GET LUNG CANCER NEVER SMOKED. Quitting smoking or not starting does not help those people at all. Heck, if they didn't smoke because they were afraid they'd get cancer and they really wanted to smoke that's just too bad for them isn't it?

There are millions of people who HAVEN'T SEEN A CONTRACEPTION PILL OR A CIGARETTE, BUT YOU KNOW IT'S POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO GET CANCER.

IT'S ALL MUMBO JUMBO TO SELL SOMETHING, SUPPLY AND DEMAND.

SCIENCE AND HEALTH RESEARCH NEED TO GO BACK TO SQUARE ONE AND START FROM SCRATCH.

THE CRAP THEY PUT OUT IN THE MEDIA DOESN'T EVEN QUALIFY FOR RETARDED. In fact, giving their jobs to mentally challenged and brain damaged patients might actually yield something significant.

19

Eve,

Scotland 12/09/2007 17:20:24

Is BREASTFEEDING not supose to be good for the mother's health. i.e. lowers chance of the mother having breast cancer latter on in life.

20

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/09/2007 18:13:45

#21. Eve, Breastfeeding is very good for Both Baby and Mummy and helps prevent Breast Cancer, so you are correct!
Got a wee story on this one, and its VERY interesing and TRUE, but gotta make my DYW something to eat first! ;-) so I will tell you later, on this thread!

21

Dave From Barra,

Western Isles 12/09/2007 18:55:15

Hmmm, quite confused now. Actually, I'm not, it's scientists trying to make work for themselves and keep themselves in food and clothes.

Scientists should NOT be thinking about their next meal ticket in order to discover/create the next biggest thing. Where have we gone wrong?

22

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/09/2007 21:23:47

The Drug that killed !000s of Women!
The Drug that was 'dished-out' like smarties!
The Drug they told women, was safe!
The Drug that was 'more-or-less' forced upon women!
The Drug that 'no-one' talks about!
The Drug that 'no-one is held to account on!

I could go on but I wont, any guesses?.......NO?
OK this one is related to the Pill, but was used as a 'fashion-fad' by Doctors in the 1960s/70s and given to Women that had just given Birth, to stop lactation, basically it was a high-dose Oestrogen.
Even when the Women said, NO I don't want that, the Hospitals staff would say, 'Don't-be-Stupid'
'Just-take-it-my-dear' 'its-safe'
Aye 'Right-Then'!
In the 1960s/70s it was not 'fashionable' to Breast feed, so this was the Medical Association's answer give 'stupid-Women' this Hormone, 'it-wont-harm-them' and if it does, at least we've tested it!
Yes very clever BMA..............NOT!
3years later, the Women developed aggressive 'Breast-Cancer', their child would have NO mummy.
This Hormone killed many its name was called 'STILBOESTROL'
As far as I know, no-one has ever claimed against the Drug Companies on this one and was well, 'covered-up' and you wonder, why we doubt?

23

Ginster's Pastie,

12/09/2007 21:36:11

Actually stilboestrol caused rare vaginal cancers in the female children of mothers who used it while pregnant (in approximately 0.1% of users).

It also reduced these childrens fertility and appeared to make them more susceptible to some autoimmune conditions such as lupus.

It was first used in the 1930s in an attempt to reduce the incidence of miscarriage (which it didn't do as far as I know) and to suppress lactation.

Its link to breast cancer in those who actually used it isn't particularly clear, but it's not used by women any more due to the risk of damage to unborn foetuses.

Interestingly enough, it IS still used for some men with prostate cancer as it suppresses the androgen (testosterone) hormonal drive for prostate cancers.

24

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/09/2007 21:55:01

#25. Ginster's Pastie, Spot-on! but it was used as I said as above, they Killed my mother with this one and one of my ex wife's friends in the same way as described.

25

Dr Finlay,

Tannochbrae 12/09/2007 23:19:38

Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the usual mixture of half understood facts and muddled conclusions from both the reporters and some posters.

The trial showed that some cancers were suppressed (endometrial and ovarian) while others were increased (cervical, breast). Overall, the balance was favourable until about 8 years therapy when the negative effects outweighed the positives hence the warning about long duration.

However, this whole situation is about population based risk - the individual risk is dependant upon many other factors such as family history, smoking status, and general health and therefore every woman needs an individual discussion with her doctor. There are no dogmatic rights and wrongs with drugs like these - only complex facts and continually shifting understanding of the drugs.

Linskaill's black and white view of this issue (he seems to have such a view on every possible topic in the news!) is unhelpful and simplistic and is certainly no basis upon which to advise on women's health.

26

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/09/2007 23:33:29

#27. Dr Finlay, Begg to Differ!, My FACTS are what goes on in our life's and WHAT happens, its not out of some text Book, or 'so-called' scientific findings, is the TRUTH so hard to acknowledge?
Or am I to close to home for comfort?

27

Dr Finlay,

Tannochbrae 12/09/2007 23:46:30

#28 You may think that you have a "factual" understanding of this subject but the "fact" is that no-one does! There is no "truth" here - the evidence is very complex, contradictory, and ever changing. Many women have benefitted enormously from these drugs, many have been harmed, some have been killed by them.

Patients and doctors have to live with such uncertainties and, when our best advice turns out to be wrong, we all have to live with the consequences.

Sorry to have to break the news to you but the world is a difficult place with few absolute facts - most of us manage to live with it!

28

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/09/2007 23:50:20

In other words, you give a woman 'high-doses' of Oestrogen (like in the 60s) and you say that's OK?
You Know like I Know, that is a lie!
Why not admit it?
I say it as it IS! and don't 'burry-my-head-in-the-sand'
'STILBOESTROL' fact or fiction? you know the truth, why hide it?
And Women's health, I DO know about, maybe even more than you!

29

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 12/09/2007 23:54:45

#29. Dr Finlay, the FACT IS! when a Woman tells you she was ok before she had the Drug, and now her breasts feel and ARE different and have lumps now, IS A FACT! why diss it?
Oestrogen, causes cancer! END-OFF!

30

Dr Finlay,

Tannochbrae 13/09/2007 00:03:40

#30 The scales have fallen from my eyes - your arguments are as lucid and unchallengable as Aristotles, your conclusions are beyond all rational debate. I see now that all I have ever known is based upon mere folly and whimsy. How can I ever have deluded myself into thinking that I had an open, enquiring, and balanced mind? What a cruel, twisted parody of the truth - I am unworthy.

I shall seek out some hemlock and put an end to myself without further debate - farewell, O Great One!

31

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 13/09/2007 00:11:21

At the end of the day, a Dead Woman, lying in the undertakers (maybe your loved one) and the Death Certificate, says cause of Death in this 33year old was from Breast Cancer, what is more Factual than that?

32

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 13/09/2007 00:31:44

#32. Dr Finlay, Not at-all!! debate is good, I am giving you a response from your first comment, I don't Know every answer and don't pretend to do so, your the qualified one, not me, but I have followed this topic for over 30years now, from my early teens, I think my comments do have some value, on the experience's I have been through.
But Id rather you call it 'check-mate' if you want, I don't mind correction and I am willing to listen, but all comments I post, have many elements of truth!
I DONT PRETEND Anything, just say it as it IS!
'check-mate', 'stale-mate' its good to have points of view, I'm sure we will argue again!
That's what I call Healthy!

33

molu kikes,

basel 13/09/2007 12:59:17

the steroid content level is the barrier to the systemic flw of mastasess cell through and beneath the bomd door structure .,,,,,,,,, in both pill used by gynaecologist have high level of steroids rate with play the inflammatory process .,,.,.,.,and others devices like sheath and rest like are just preventive measure but surety are idiopathic ,............

34

MichScot,

USA 13/09/2007 13:05:39

#24
Interesting. My mom took this because it was used also for fertility. When her doctor read more about it, he stopped prescribing it. My sister had cervical cancer as a result of it, as did many others.

35

MichScot,

USA 13/09/2007 13:09:56

And that sister was married fir twelve years before she conceived,


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.