Can birth control (nuva ring in this case) cause a false 'pregnant' reading?
I'm googling, but you lovely people have this vast store of knowledge I figured I'd put to use
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 2:24am
To the best of my knowledge, no. My doctor tried to get me to go on Nuvaring and that wasn't in the (rather impressively long) list of possible side effects he had to talk about. Though I suppose he could've skipped a couple.
There are about a gazillion other possible reasons for false positives, though. I'd suggest take two more; if they all agree, you're pregnant. If any of them don't match, get a blood test.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 9:31am
And I would get a blood test, anyway. If you are pregnant, it's important to know quickly so you can stop using the ring, and take whatever other health measures you would plan to take (if you actually want the baby). Good luck!
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 2:31am
... with a false 'pregnant' reading? Those pee-on pregnancy tests are pretty good these days when used half-way correctly. AFAIK, they test for a hormone that is not usually found in BC, so shouldn't be influenced by it.
Other than that, hormonal BC can simulate some hormonal aspect of pregnancy or other, so depending on your own hormonal balance, physiological signs normally associated with pregnancy might be a possibility.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 2:51am
And the only things that can affect a preg. test are fertility drugs, which I am definitely -not- on. Marri you said there's a lot of things that can cause a 'false positive', can I ask what? Cuz everything I'm reading says there aren't.
So having now gotten a positive pg test, I have a quandry...I have a nuva ring in. Wondering if taking it out will result in a period, flushing away the kid...but I have to take it out eventually anyway...-confused rambling follows.-
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 3:03am
False positives are generally issues with the test itself; you let it sit too long, you used an expired one, etc (Yay reading the back of your pregnancy test while you wait for it to finish!). Also, supposedly mornings are the best times to take pregnancy tests (something about higher concentrations of hormones) but I couldn't vouch for that one with the same "my pregnancy test told me so" sort of authority.
Assuming pregnancy tests are an authority on false positives, but... well, I hope they are?
Taking it out might be a cheaper way of testing for pregnancy than buying more tests? Up to you, I guess. I was in your situation last month and I did *not* want to wait, but you're probably more patient than I am (it's not hard)
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 3:07am
tell me if I'm reading this right..
You got a positive pregnancy result last month and took out/took off/quit your birth control?
ETA: it is morning for me and the test was brand new and I did it right.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 3:49am
... and do another test, with another brand than what you used the first time. If they both agree, as Marri said, you probably are pregnant. Which means it's ob/gyn time ASAP, and, yes, time to take the Nuvaring out.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 3:54am
okay, will do that. Hard to be patient with stuff like this!
Crossing my fingers for -not pregnant-
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:20pm
I had a flase positive once. I later thought it was because I didn't have enough fluid in me to give a non concentrated sample.
I don't really know. But it could still be a mistake.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 10:51am
Hmm.. I'm pretty sure your fluid levels weren't the reason you had a false positive. Why do I say that? Simply because hCG is only produced by a human placenta, and you don't grow a placenta unless you're pregnant. It isn't like there's normally hCG in your system to cause a false positive if you got dehydrated and your urine was therefore more concentrated.
(Okay, wikipedia tells me there's some obscure medical conditions that can cause hCG production, but I think you'd know about that already if you had one).
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 6:33am
If you are actually pregnant, you should stop your birth control, even though they say that it shouldn't hurt the impending little one if you leave it in for a little while (Mayo Clinic and some other sites). As far as I know, I don't believe it would cause a period, I'd guess because your natural hormones would take over and they would all be chatting about baby.
This all assumes that that one test is right, which it might not be. Good luck on the not pregnant part. (hug)
Cheez-It (not verified)
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 6:57am
Why do people always insist on polling the internet for serious, time-sensitive information, especially regarding health? It boggles my mind. Instead of googling and worrying and asking random strangers on the internet, how about seeking the guidance of someone who is qualified to provide guidance? Instead of wondering about taking the ring out, why don't you ask the person who wrote the prescription for it?
I don't know where you are geographically, but if for whatever reason your gyno is not nearby or you don't have one, go find a Planned Parenthood. Those people are great, unbiased, supportive and objective. The costs are usually reasonable too.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 7:31am
thanks for that information.
I did google.
And I called a nurse, who knew um...next to nothing.
And I made an appt. for a blood test.
I dislike planned parenthood and they're rather unnecessary for my situation anyway, not that there are any on this side of the ocean.
Thanks for your advice though.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 8:29am
but there's really no reason not to like Planned Parenthood unless you're rabidly anti-choice. Individual centers may not be great, or there might be employees who aren't the brightest crayons in the box, but that plagues all institutions. Planned Parenthood is one of the most reliable providers of health care for women of all stages in life, and I'd never go to anyone else for most of my routine gynecological needs.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 9:43am
-takes a deep breath and lets it out-
I'm going to guess most of the people on this forum lean to the left, but I do not, but thanks for calling people who don't want to murder unborn babies 'anti-choice'.
There aren't any PP's on this side of the ocean that I know of, and why would I go when I get -free- care from the army? Granted things are slightly more difficult and you almost never get the same doctor twice (though I could if I cared), they take care of me just fine.
-ETA- sorry if that came across harsh, but I'm trying hard to reign in what I call 'raging bitch mode' that I've been in all month and that's a hot button topic for me anyway, both pp and abortion in general. Also, what Tigger said about P P is the largest reason I dislike them; abortion is not presented as AN option, generally it is presented as THE option.
ending rant now before I get out of hand!
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:42am
but Pro-Life isn't a valid term. I totally respect your right to disagree with me, and I have nothing against your motivations behind them, either. But I'm not "anti-life" because I believe in a woman's right to control her body.
Nah, you're not too harsh. If you'd like to hear about what PP is really working towards now, it's more fully elaborated in my response to Tigger right below.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:53am
pro-choice isn't a valid term. I'm not anti-choice. You make your choices BEFORE a baby is conceived.
I am fully aware that abortion has a crap-ton of grey areas and there is not neat, pat solution to a bad situation. There -ARE- times I'd support an abortion, but dey be few and far between.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:25am
::bites back the flame war instinct:: I'm tabling for Students for Choice today and don't really need to be opening a second front on this one, but I feel like I should chime in on this one. In general Planned Parenthood isn't about abortion; I've been active in this cause for years and at three universities, and none of the Planned Parenthood locations that I've worked with has even offered abortions. Back at Purdue if you wanted one you had to go to a location more than an hour away. The current Planned Parenthood legislative campaign, at least here, is only about comprehensive sex education, getting rid of this Abstinence only crap and telling people that things like condoms and birth control actually work. This is actually the organization who gives us all the free condoms that we hand out on campus, and who provides professionals from health care to talk at our events about safe and responsible sex.
If there are locations out there that are presenting abortion as THE option, that's horrible; it's a major decision to make, and alternatives should be presented first. From what I've seen and what I've heard in working with people from Planned Parenthood though, this is not the attitude of the whole organization.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:52am
to say this and then drop the issue, because I never really meant to start it in the first place.
First off, I never said I hate P P or that I think they're all totally evil. IN MY EXPERIENCE they present abortion as the best/only option. Yes they do good things, such as giving out birth control and plan B (which is the best 'morning after' pill I have EVER heard of.) I'm not ever going to get an attitude of the 'whole organization' because the organization is HUGE and there are TONS of people working in it. But, seeing what I have of them, I have to say I dislike them and won't be going to them. I have no need to.
So. I'm trying not to make this a flame war, I'm sorry what I said made YOU suppress a flame war urge.
I've completely lost the thread of what I was trying to say, hopefully I got enough in there?
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 9:37am
I'm pro-choice but totally against Planned Parenthood. Why? Because both times (two separate centers) I've gone there I was unmarried, and the VERY FIRST thing they did was tell me about abortion and how it was "good for someone in my situation". I've a few problems with abortion, but usually only along the lines of teenagers and stupid adults using it as birth control. I'd far rather go to a regular ob/gyn for my routine needs and tests than someone in a clinic that I can't establish a rapport with.
That's just me, though.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:41am
is such a good reason. That's a pretty negative experience; was it the same center both times? If not, that's kind of sucky, and I'm sorry. The one I go to has always been really good about talking about ALL options, not just the extreme ones. I just love PP because, while they might not be the choice you'd make if you've got other options, they provide SO many services to women who don't have access to or can't afford anything else, especially the international branches. And PP isn't about abortions; the big push right now is Put Prevention First. All about not making unwanted babies in the first place. I
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:15am
their focus a little bit.
PPF sounds good in theory, but do they still consider abortion a valid option in that? If it's about not making unwanted babies in the first place, then it seems it would be. "Oops! you're pregnant and you don't want it? Well, we can't have any more unwanted babies in the world - there are too many already! So we'll just abort this one and it will all be ok." Totally not acceptable to me.
Pro-life, pro-choice, anti-life...all just labels. I am pro-choice, but I am also pro-life and anti-stupidity. I believe that if you were stupid enough to have sex without protection and you didn't want a baby, you should have to go through the pregnancy and delivery and then give it up for adoption if you still don't want it. "You do the crime, you pay the price" type of deal. You know that sex leads to babies (for the majority of the population) so take care if you don't want them. Now...if you were on the pill/ring/whatever and got pregnant anyways...well, I'm still not comfortable with abortion, but I'm less against it in that situation. You WERE preventing and your body was seriously determined anyways. Of course, then there is always the pregnancies that come about as the product of a rape/incest situation. Here is where I'm actually "ok" with abortion as an option. I can see how you wouldn't want to carry the reminder for 9 month, or put your body through the hell that pregnancy can be on it. I think I would hate the child inside of me under those circumstances, and it's hard for me to believe I could hate being pregnant. You also bond with the child that you carry, to a certain extent, and I don't think I'd want to bond with the child I was carrying by the strange man who caught me in an alleyway. I also think it's ok when someone's life is in danger.
This is all just me, though. I have different experiences than some. Being an infertile makes me furious when people see abortion as a form of birth control, but being a reasonable adult makes me able to accept that sometimes abortion is necessary. It's a personal choice, but it doesn't mean I have to be perfectly accepting of it. I suppose, for me, it all depends on your reasoning behind the actions. I used to be very black & white on the topic, but am not so much anymore.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:34am
I totally agree with you. Abortion isn't birth control. It's not good for society or for the woman. I'm not going to KEEP you from getting an abortion if you got drunk and got knocked up, but I don't support you in the way that I support people who actively try to protect themselves, or rape victims.
Also, EC (emergency contraception, Plan B,) is pretty much the best thing for if you DO make a stupid mistake like having unprotected sex; it's relatively effective for up to five days after you have sex, and the pills keep for four years, so you can just buy a pack "just in case," and if you never need it, great; if you do, you avoid the terrible decision you might have to make. It's not an abortion, it prevents implantation almost the same way that the pill does.
I think that Planned Parenthood sometimes comes across as "pro-abortion," which is very much not the case. I think that the message is often not conveyed in the way that people in charge want it to be, but PP wants you to understand the repercussions of having an unwanted child. They do offer prenatal services, and can set you up with adoption agencies at well. Not to mention subsidized birth control, IUDs, sterilization procedures, STD testing, regular gynecological services... I could go on.
Whether you can stand abortion or not, PP offers some VERY necessary services that a lot of women can't get any other way.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:40am
I've done EC/Plan B the few times I went there. I...actually think that's a far better idea. It essentially prevents implantation, right? Without implantation, you have nothing resembling a pregnancy...and thus no "killing" of an embryo. IUD's prevent implantation and I'm not against THOSE either. Anything that prevents implantation, and thus unwanted pregnancies, is fine in my book as long as it's still safe for everyone involved.
PP does tend to come across as pro-abortion, which really does cause hackles to raise and strongly worded things to come about. My husband and I are on opposite sides when it comes to the company itself - he's more on your side. I prefer to take things on a case by case basis these days, see the reasoning behind why you do what you do, before I make a decision. I have knee-jerk reactions, which I'm getting better at controlling, that I often have to apologize for after I stop and rant and think it through.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 12:30pm
It's funny... my planned parenthood doesn't even do abortions. They send you downtown for that.
And even though I chose *not* to have an abortion, I am so, so glad that I had a choice in the matter.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 12:34pm
to an extent. It's just the stupid ones that need to be beaten!
I don't think ours does them in office either, but they probably have something setup with another clinic. It's not something I have researched to find out, as it doesn't apply to me, but I haven't heard of the PP's here getting picketed.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:50pm
Sorry, gotta say this In pharmacy school and all, have lots of lectures on this.
While plan B *might* be effective after 72 hours, it is imperative that you take it within 72 hours of having unprotected sex. That is the only way it is most likely to work. Waiting any longer really decreases the chance it will prevent implantation.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 7:30am
I have the breakdown of percentage of effectiveness for each day after intercourse somewhere, but totally; your chances are shittier and shittier the longer you wait. In the best case scenario, you should take it IMMEDIATELY, heh. This is why it's good to buy it in advance: a lot of pharmacies are closed/have limited hours on weekends when people seem to be most likely to have unprotected sex.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 7:40pm
The only issue with buying it in advance, if you're male, is that pharmacists are often reluctant to sell it to men - at least the pharmacists I've worked with. There are cases of men buying it, raping a woman, and then giving it to her so she won't get pregnant, or men buying it and selling it to underage girls, and the pharmacists I work with would rather give it to the woman herself and make sure she knows how to use it (also that she's not underage. Under 18 in the states requires a prescription).
That and it's really not something you want to be using *often* . . . we occasionally get people who seem to use it like regular birth control, which is far from safe.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 8:27pm
This sounds like a great way for them to get their asses sued off. I know if I went to buy a new pack as part of being a responsible guy, and they turned me down I'd be on my phone finding a lawyer while I was still standing there, and I don't even like lawyers The job of a pharmacist is not to determine if someone does or does not get medicine; that's the roll of the doctor or the FDA. This is just one of the things that pisses me off so much about the pharmacists who refuse to dispense contraceptives based on religious views. 1) They don't have a right to determine if someone gets a medicine, what's next, not dispensing painkillers because they think someone has a problem? Not dispensing antibiotics because they worry about creating super bugs? 2) If they can't or won't do their jobs, they should lose them. Period. If I'd refused to do my job based on ideological grounds I'd have gotten fired, and at least my grounds would have been based on the fact that I didn't want to help the government waste billions. 3) The next religious nut who decides to force one of their beliefs on me is going to get one of mine forced on them. It will be far more unpleasant for them.
anyway, /rant this is just one of those topics (or related to one of those topics), that really pisses me off.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 7:46am
First of all, the medication is not *for* a man, so I doubt you'd have any grounds in a lawsuit. If the woman came in to get it, she would, as long as she was 18 or older. And this is one or two pharmacists I've worked with, not every pharmacist out there. Frankly, if you explained to *me* why you wanted it, I'd probably sell it to you. Second, the negative scenarios I mentioned have happened - so these people have grounds in refusing to sell it to a man.
I'm going to respond to this with another rant because I am so sick of this attitude. It is not the pharmacist's job to count pills and hand them to you. That is what a tech does. I'm not going to school for six years (most people take eight) so I can count pills. Pharmacists are the drug experts - it is our job to catch doctor errors and to make sure that you're not getting duplicate or dangerous therapies. If we don't catch an error, we're the ones who are liable. And that's only in ambulatory care, say, Walmart. Hospital pharmacists often just get a diagnosis from the doctor and take it from there. Doctors consult us for the right therapies, we go on rounds with med students, etc. We're *DOCTORS* of pharmacy. No, we're not going to diagnose. That's not what we're trained for. We ARE trained to look at a diagnosis, or a patient with multiple meds and a new issue, or one caused by medications, and fix it.
Also, you have autonomy as a patient. But we have autonomy too, which is why we have the right to refuse to dispense something on moral grounds. It doesn't happen as often as you think, and we're required to provide the patient with the location of a place they *can* fill it (I've only ever worked with one pharmacist, who had an issue with Plan B - his solution was to have an intern or another pharmacist actually give it to the woman, and there was *always* someone else there who could). The case where the pharmacist ripped up the woman's prescription is absolutely unacceptable and he's disgracing the profession.
And yeah, frankly, it's part of our job to know when and when not to dispense controlled substances and/or antibiotics. The antibiotics part applies more in the clinical settings as, obviously, a community pharmacist won't have seen the lab results, or know what the infection is. With the controlled substances, people doctor shop and bring in multiple prescriptions for the same thing (be it methadone, whatever). It's our job to catch and stop that, when we can.
Don't tell me what my job is because you've heard of a few isolated incidents that were totally inappropriate.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 10:40am
The medication isn't legally restricted to just women. If there's no evidence other than the fact that he's a man, and he's requesting Plan B, you'd still give it to him, right? Just clarifying.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 1:07pm
This is one of those tricky situations. It really depends on the pharmacist and the general area. I live in an area that unfortunately has its fair share of sex offenders (I honestly don't know if putting those maps online was a good or a bad thing), and the pharmacist I worked with who doesn't sell it to men refuses on the grounds that it's not something medically necessary for him to have. If a prescription or procedure isn't medically necessary, there usually aren't grounds for a lawsuit, especially if said pharmacist or what have you gives the person a location where they can get it.
Like I said, when I'm a pharmacist and someone approaches me and says he wants it in terms of having it on hand just in case, I would probably sell it to him. But that's me, not every pharmacist out there. If a teenage guy says he needs it for his girlfriend because the condom broke last night or whatever, I would need to see her (and his, to actually sell it) ID to make sure they weren't underage - because that's illegal without a prescription.
It really would be a case by case thing.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 12:26pm
If I were a kid, I'd probably go into pharm. My own adventures in it have been fascinating. When I got out of the hospital in '06, the pharmacist wasn't going to give Sir my meds; she said if he gave me that high a dose of one of my drugs, he'd kill me. There was a great to-do with doctors called and calls unreturned (as Sir stood there, tapping his toes, and me barely alive back home); finally Sir said, look, this is all that's kept her alive thus far. She's been on a higher dose than this for a week at the hospital. Please, I gotta get home to her. Luckily the dr called and said, yes, this is really what we mean, and she released the drugs.
But frankly, I'm glad to have a pharm that would take that firm a stand. I'm on a lot of weird shit, and someone has to really watch for interactions. I've also had a lot of experience with clinical pharms, which I didn't even know existed until I got sick. I see them once a month, and if I were a pharm, that'd be the job.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 12:55pm
Yeah, it's a good thing they're training doctors, pharmacists, nurses and etc to really work together now, making medicine collaborative instead of the doctor standing alone at the top. I've got a few friends in medical school now, and they all say that they're really getting used to depending on pharmacists to come up with whatever medication in tricky situations - which is what we're trained to do :D.
And good on both the doctor and pharmacist in that situation, because sometimes mistakes *are* made in situations and patients pay for it - but sometimes they're not. I obviously don't know the particulars of what medication or dose you were on, but I know someone who broke his neck and he's been on insanely high amounts of narcotics to be able to function, a level that would probably kill someone else. It's all definitely a case by case basis.
Clinical is where I want to end up :D. I like working small, family-owned retail well enough, but I feel like I'm doing a lot more for people when I can really see how much better the medicine makes them. I don't want to be an MD, I want to be a PharmD :D.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 9:20pm
OK, I think I need to counter-rant a bit here. If medication is legally restricted, I get that. If prescription medication is being abused, then by all means, call the police. If neither of those conditions are met, then you have a job and an obligation to society. Men over the age of 18 can purchase Plan B; read the FDA's FAQ for further information here.
If a pharmacist's job isn't to count pills and hand them to you, then they shouldn't even be involved with a non-prescription drug like Plan B once proof of age has been presented. I'm of the opinion that health care workers should keep the good of the patient as the highest priority. You just explained to us how important it is that an emergency contraceptive be administered quickly, and MsGamgee pointed out that oh shucks, you might not be open when you need to be.
If you're a *DOCTOR* then follow the Hipocratic Oath. Keep the good of your patient as the highest priority. Make medicine available when it is needed. If I want someone else's moral opinion I'll go to a church or other place of worship.
OK, so you told me somewhere else I can buy it. I can almost accept that. If you tell me to go to place B, and they don't want to sell it to me either, can they tell me to go to place C, or even back to you? Not acceptable, not when something is time critical. Either have someone else at the location who can dispense it without delaying, inconveniencing or harming the customer, or don't join the business.
I'm not telling you what your job is. I'm telling you what it should be. Professions that deal with the public welfare have special responsibilities. For example, only certified professional engineers can sign most drawings and plans that deal with public safety. Neither engineers nor pharmacists have any business playing philosopher while conducting their duties. If there's something they can't handle, they should quit that job.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 9:32pm
Oh, yeah. That's what V said.
Especially when the point of nonprescription drugs is that they should be generally available, absent some compelling reason (not "I think you're a rapist," but "hey, that turns into meth,") it should be (bloody well) generally available. Or you should face civil liability for withholding it, religious objections be damned.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 10:36pm
Where did you get that I approve of forcing moral opinions on patients? I personally have no moral issues with giving out birth control or Plan B to women - frankly, I'd rather prevent the need for abortion; it saves everyone much money and time and stress (and there are just so many female health issues that require BC - I've got one of 'em, and I'd be pissed if some religious nut told me I couldn't have it. I'd probably go bleed all over his pharmacy >/).
But I'm not a pharmacist yet, I'm an intern, so I have to do what the pharmacist I'm working with requires, and when one man comes in on a weekly basis to buy EC, there's a health issue. That's a specific reason the particular pharmacist didn't like dispensing EC to men, she didn't have any religious issues with it. Her other issue was that if she didn't physically counsel the patient receiving the medication on the proper use, she would be liable and her license could be at risk if something went wrong that could have been prevented with proper counseling. She's not willing to risk her license for that.
We don't take the Hippocratic Oath, that's for MDs - we have our own oath, though, and part of it relates to autonomy. Patients have autonomy (ie, you can choose whether or not to get the prescription), but so do pharmacists. Yeah, it's a fine line and sometimes people cross it.
I'm not trying to apologize for the asshats that refuse to sell contraceptives at all from some moral high ground (like that pharmacy on the east coast that refuses to sell any form, that's freaking ridiculous). I was giving situations where pharmacists I've worked with have not wanted to sell it to men. The pharmacist is also required to counsel said patient on the medication, so we *do* need to be involved. I'd rather have someone trained in pharmacy tell me how to use EC than have a technician do it. Legally, at least in this state, only pharmacists or interns can counsel. Also, with EC, the first pill needs to be taken within 72 hours - there will be a pharmacy open at some point during three days after the unprotected sex.
Another big part of the oath is on the general ethics (the doing what's in the best interest of the patient) - and it's very important that pharmacists don't put their own morals above the ethics of the profession. This is why I disagree with pharmacists who refuse to sell Plan B at all - but like I said, the only one I've ever personally encountered was never working alone and thus patients who needed it always had access. Sorry if there was any confusion between this one with the one who doesn't like selling it to men - these are two different people.
Also, TheBoy - sudafed *still* is generally available - you just have to get it from behind the counter, from a pharmacist. Much like Plan B.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 10:40pm
Idunno that either V or I are suggesting that YOU personally support forcing your morals on others--but it did sound like you were defending the Pharms who do.
I know some places restrict the -amount- of sudafed a customer can buy. Similarly, I can understand keeping a man from purchasing 25 plan B doses, or from buying it every week.
However, any pharmacist who would refuse to sell plan B to me, if I were to walk in (25/M/no wedding ring) to their place for the first time? I'd take serious issue.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 11:04pm
Sorry for the misunderstanding then, it just sounded to me like part of his point was "don't push your morals on patients". I got a little peeved, because moral pushing is one of my biggest issues with my classmates - I live in a *very* concentrated LDS area and most of the men in my class think I'm worth less than they are because I'm a) not mormon b) a woman and c) not interested in having children. We had a series of scenarios that involved dispensing BC to a woman who had dropped her pack in the toilet when she didn't have any refills, and they all said they'd just tell her to not have sex. The professors smacked that out of them, but it was pretty horrifying to hear.
And as far as I know, restricting the amount of sudafed is federal mandate, which is why you have to sign for it and show ID. Which really sucks for all of the sick people, because most people wanting it aren't going to use it for meth and that phenylephrine crap they put over the counter doesn't work at all. It's kind of scary though, when the police come in and need to see the logs we have on how much people are getting.
With selling Plan B to men, I really think it'd be on a case by case thing, when I've got my license. I don't have the risk of having it removed as of yet, so I can't definitely say what I would do in all situations. Luckily, I'll be working in hospitals or INR clinics and won't even have to be involved in dispensing it :P.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 11:39pm
I guess it's about time for me to chime back in. I have no problem with pharmacists doing their jobs as you've said, and I have friends who are licensed pharmacists. I really hope someone will stop me if taking medicine A with medicine B while having weird condition X will cause me to puke up my heart My venom is reserved for those who try to stop someone from buying something that they're legally entitled to (be it over the counter or with a valid prescription) for something other than a valid medically/scientifically sound reason. I'll freely admit that this includes pharmacists who refuse to fill birth control prescriptions, because if there isn't someone else in the pharmacy to fill it this inconveniences the customer, which leads to lack of business for the store, and the pharmacist shouldn't have legal protection from being fired when they cost the store business. Also, there have been cases of the religious nuts not even giving the prescription sheet back, which if this happened to a girlfriend of mine in my presence would result in me calling the cops to report theft.
I'll admit this is one of those issues that really gets to me, so if I come across as exceptionally angry and intolerant on this issue I'm sorry, but if someone is going to try to force an irrational religious view on me and I have a legal way to strike back I'll do everything I can to string them up by their delicate anatomy.
On a lighter note, a friend of mine had a rather interesting run in at one point due to buying things that were considered ingredients for making meth. He had a head cold, so he bought sudafed, the oven needed to be cleaned so he got oven cleaner, and he'd just bought a mauser, still in the original cosmoline and apparently nothing strips cosmoline like ammonia, so he bought a bottle of that. An officer stopped him in the parking lot before he could even get to his car and said "hello, so what are you up to today?" My friend answered with an obvious cold "oh, just stripping the cosmoline off my mauser". The officer just said something along the lines of "oh, good day then", and my friend didn't even put together what had happened until after he got home.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 11:49pm
It sounded to me in your first comment that you were going along the lines of "just count and give me the pills" which is something I've heard a surprising amount of times and strive to correct whenever it comes up :P.
And yes, that pharmacist who took the prescription away, ripped it up, and started lecturing the mother and her daughter on morals was completely and totally in the wrong. No question. He superseded the ethics of the profession with his own morals, which is unacceptable. It is never right for a pharmacist to give morality lectures. Had he respectfully told them that he couldn't fill it and directed them to another pharmacy that could and would, then he would have been within his rights as a pharmacist. I don't agree with the practice myself, but it's part of the rights of pharmacists (and doctors, for that matter).
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 11:58pm
My argument sometimes get a little muddled when something really bugs me, so not all of my examples may have been on the point of what I wanted to express. The additional point from my last post though was also that a pharmacist shouldn't have job security if he/she refuses to fill a prescription on solely moral grounds. How much of a pharmacy's business is based on birth control? How much other business would they lose if they wouldn't dispense birth control since it's more convenient for a woman to have all her prescriptions at the place where she gets her birth control? I have a real problem with the laws that prohibit firing a pharmacist when they refuse to dispense a prescription on "moral" grounds.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 11:09pm
Shade wrote: Where did you get that I approve of forcing moral opinions on patients?
If any one customer comes in on a weekly basis to buy EC, that is a health issue if they're being taken by the same patient. Certainly you could inquire--that might not be the case. But this is the first time I've seen this hypothetical situation, and it's one man. Yet in your next sentence you use it as a reason not to sell to "men" plural. Certainly there are individual cases male or female where you might not make a sale, but I think most of us were trying to talk more generally.
Shade wrote: Her other issue was that if she didn't physically counsel the patient receiving the medication on the proper use, she would be liable and her license could be at risk if something went wrong that could have been prevented with proper counseling.
If the percentage of the time it is effective after 1 hour is different than the percentage of time it is effective after 72 hours, are you willing to pay the difference? E.g. if it drops from 80% effective to 60%, will you pay 20% of the child care costs of any child born after taking your delayed Plan B? Because you will have caused some number of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies by this decision.
You seem to talk in terms of patients (and thus prescriptions)--I talk in terms of customers. I would not think it illegal or immoral to buy over-the-counter medication for someone else. I have bought Sudafed over the counter, and I have some at work. If I give one to a co-worker, I believe the liability falls on me. Do your counseling guidelines apply for over-the-counter medication? If not, why are you applying them to Plan B?
We really have two issues here: Is is legal to refuse to sell to men based strictly on their gender, and is it moral. Given the legal loopholes currently out there, I think it's probably legal, but inconsistent with FDA direction and also inconsistent with my views on morality and public service.
ETA: Reading the most recent posts--OK, if you personally don't support refusing medication on moral grounds, we can work with that. It sometimes seemed that you would mix up a moral right, a legal right, a specific case, and a general stance in the span of about two sentences.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 11:27pm
With the autonomy thing, I don't necessarily think it's right that a pharmacist can refuse to dispense medications because he/she thinks it's amoral. I should have elaborated on that more - the autonomy section also covers why we're allowed to not fill based on legal or health-related reasons.
Right, I was using that example as why that particular pharmacist doesn't like dispensing Plan B to men. She may be basing that on an isolated incident, but when I'm working with her I have to follow her direction, and that's the reason she's given me for why she dislikes dispensing it to men. As I've said, I would do it on a case by case basis. I haven't seen all of the scenarios, I'm just a first year pharmacy student, so I can't definitively say how I would dispense it. I can say, though, that we are supposed to make sure it's been within the required time limit before we sell it - otherwise it won't do any good for the woman, and she'd need to get a prescription for something like methotrexate or mifepristone.
I'm not trained to think of people as customers, I'm trained to think of them as patients. And yes, if a patient asked a pharmacist for "what's a good cold medicine" or what have you, and we directed them to something that then interacted with their medications, we are liable. It's our job to give them something that will not interact with any existing medications. The best examples I can think of at the moment are giving sudafed to a person with high blood pressure, or recommending tylenol to a patient who is already on near maximum daily dose - if they are then injured by that, it would have been my fault and I would be liable for it. The counseling guidelines do apply to over the counter medications if we're asked for a recommendation, and for behind the counter (like sudafed and plan B), we're supposed to make sure there isn't a health risk.
That last bit is tricky for strictly over the counters though - if a patient just selects, say, Nyquil without asking for a recommendation and purchases it, we're not liable for any harm that might come to them from medication interaction because we didn't recommend it.
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 3:26pm
You're assuming that Plan B isn't considered an aborficant. It prevents a fertilized egg from implanting. Little different than RU 486 or a combination of other medications wouldn't cause a miscarriage.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 12:32pm
That was a classy response to someone less than polite.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 12:36pm
who come in, spew all over someone, and then leave. For pete's sake, at least put a name in even if you don't register! Have the guts to own the vitriol that you spout! *grumble*
Edit: OOO! OOO! i'm a P!
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:05am
Don't feed the trolls.
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:34am
don't feed the trolls - it makes them too fat to leave!
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 9:33am
False positives do happen, although not usually as a result of the birth control itself. Marri gave you a lot of good information - I'll try to expound upon it if I can.
Mornings ARE the best time, because the HcG (the hormone that the baby produces, and the one that pregnancy tests look for) is more concentrated in the urine at that time. It's been sitting 8+ hours. That being said, it really should be the first pee of the morning that you take it with, for that very reason.
As for taking the Nuva Ring out and "flushing away the kid" - probably not going to happen. I'm not familiar with the Ring itself, but stopping birth control pills if you get pregnant while on them does not automatically result in a miscarriage. It's like the whole "should I go on a roller coaster while pregnant? I could jar the baby loose!" quandry. It's safe. The "bean" burrows in pretty well in the lining of the uterus. Miscarriages usually happen due to blunt force trauma, chromosonal/hormonal issues, or simply from being not viable. It's not often something WE do that causes them.
As for the test itself, go to http://www.peeonastick.com and check the sensitivity levels that it measures and how reliable it is. Different brands test different levels (anywhere from 20-100 before showing a positive) and some are notorious for giving false positives or evap lines. An evap line is one that disappears after a few minutes, or is really really faint.
When you go in for your blood test, ask them for a quantitative beta. A quantitative is one that will give you an actual number (your HcG level was 25 or something), where as qualitative is yes/no. Quantitative gives you a starting point - if you start having trouble, they can check the levels again and see if you are doubling like you should. (Yes, this is where all the scary information in my head comes out. I have a hard time thinking of only the positive.)
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 9:38am
peeonastick is actually where I went when I was googling for information. And yep, I'm aware of the first pee of the day, which is why I took the test first thing in the morning. ^_^
I will ask for quantitative beta. That's something I wasn't aware of and I thank you for that.
Also thank you for relieving my ring worry. -Every- time I took off a patch for more than 12 hours I got a period, thus the concern, but if it's already wedged and the hormones have changed and all that, it's NOT so much a concern.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:21am
It has to do with how the patch messes with hormones. I had a friend who had the same problem - within 12 hours of taking off the patch, she'd get her period. Hers kept falling off (wouldn't stick to her skin) so she got ALL messed up! Still ended up pregnant, though.
This might be more info than you want, but it also might help explain things. Pardon me if the info seems really basic (WARNING: avert your eyes if you don't want to know about cycles):
Cycle Day (CD) 1 is the first day of actual red flow. Somewhere between 12-16 days in, you'll ovulate. The eggs stick around for about 24 hours, give or take a few depending on quality. If fertilization occurred, then 7-10 days after ovulation the embryo will begin to implant itself in the uterus lining. Provided that your lining is thick enough and the embryo is viable, the cycle won't show up. If it wasn't/isn't, then around 13-14 days after the actual ovulation date, you'll get your period.
That time fluctuation is why tests can be unreliable and why I said "quantitative". If you ovulated on day 16, and normally have a 13 day luteal phase, you implanted on day 10, and tested when you were two days late...that poor embryo has only had 5 days to produce enough HcG to be measurable! This is where "false negatives" come in to play as well. It's not that it was a false negative, it's that the embryo just hadn't had enough time! On the contrary, if you have a "gold standard" cycle *snerk* (ovulated on day 12, implanted on day 7, normally have a 14 day LP) and tested when you were two days late...you are more likely to get a positive only because it's been 9 days versus 5. It's all about how long implantation takes and how long your LP is and how late you are before you test. The quantitative beta says "anything over 5 is considered pregnant" - which is a HELL of a lot faster than a stupid pee stick that doesn't measure until your levels are 25-50-100.
Here is a chart that gives you a little better idea of what I mean: http://www.americanpregnancy.org/duringpregnancy/hcglevels.html
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:34am
iz complicated! Can we like...combine you and and me (for fertility) and come up with two someones that are normal? cuz I get pregnant standing downwind of a horny guy. (or so it seems.)
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:21am
For most people, having sex = baby. End story. You hear about the "miracles of life" or "miracles of pregnancy" and most people have no freaking clue. A 100% normal, average, healthy couple has a 20% chance of conceiving every month. That's assuming the stars and planets are all lined up, and the timing is right. Getting pregnant really IS a miracle, when you take all the factors into account. People like my best friend, whose cycles are all fucked up, who has so many things physically going against her, who shouldn't have an easy time getting pregnant, did it twice. On accident. The second one was by having sex ONCE during her cycle. Talk about miracles! And then you have someone like me, with perfect cycles and less physical factors against her, who looks perfect on paper...who can't get pregnant no matter what. Pregnancy and babies are absolutely miraculous, and the general populace has no idea. All they see are the teenagers and crack whores that get pregnant on a whim. :jawdrop:
Best friend and I have decided that I need half her fertility and boobs, and she needs half of my butt, and together we'd be perfect!!
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:23pm
I've got a physiology textbook that says near 60% of fertilizations don't implant or are miscarried before the cycle is missed. It really is miraculous!
And makes me wonder how we managed to get to 6 billion+ people . . . lots of sex, I suppose
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 9:15am
I don't know if 40% is a miracle. I think the process and how it works and happens (and feels!) might be miraculous (and really awesome!), but those aren't miraculous odds.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 5:58pm
Yeah, that's really true.
I'm just learning about the billions of tiny things that can go wrong and I'm kind of amazed at how many people *don't* have those things happen, haha.
Taking an endocrinology class will really make you paranoid about ever having children (not that I ever want kids).
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 8:18am
What if i told you that 1 in 6 couples in the United States alone are classified as infertile? That 1 in 6 couples will require medical intervention in order to have a chance at having a child? You then tag that 40% success rate onto those people, and it really IS a miracle. I have friends who have done 7 rounds of IVF, at $12K a pop, and still haven't had any luck.
Of course, then you women like octomom who really set back the world view on infertility and rights and how we're all just basically baby-crazed freaks anyhow. *grumble* I could rant for hours about that woman and her doctor.
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 8:28am
Just folks who, knowing that fertility treatments can lead to multiples, pursue them after already having six kids. The octomom gets none of my sympathy. People who actually want to have kids, and (b) need medical treatment to do so...different ballgame. I just can't understand why six is insufficient for anybody.
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 8:54am
the IF blogosphere is in an absolute uproar. She had no trouble conceiving when she had only one embryo transplanted - why on EARTH would her doc have transferred all 8 that he harvested?! It was irresponsible of him and damn dangerous to her health, not to mention the health of the babies. I understand why docs transfer more than one, because one isn't always viable, but 8? when she had a history of not having problems? ARGH!
I'm glad that at least one person doesn't play generalities. Unfortunately, IFers have a hard time fighting back against media, which only promotes sensationalist stories that portray us as baby-obsessed freaks. Tell someone you're going through treatments and they'll be convinced you're going to end up with at LEAST twins, if not more. Treatments are monitored very, very closely. Chances are that you won't end up with multiples unless you're willing to have them. Docs are NORMALLY very careful about that kind of thing - octomom's was just irresponsible.
Don't get me wrong - she gets none of my sympathy and a lot of my scorn and wrath.
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 10:02am
Totally with you on octomom (LOVE that name.) Not only because of the 8 kids, but because she has no way to PAY for those 8 kids. She has a boyfriend willing to marry her but she wants to do it on her own.
Thanks for driving our nation further into debt, chicky.
*Just to make things clear, I have nothing against welfare for people temporarily out of a job and trying hard to get another one. It's the people who are perfectly content to live out of the government's pocket, through no effort of their own, that bother me.
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 10:53am
I agree with you that the doc was irresponsible and she is a baby obsessed freak, but: she only had 6 embryos transplanted. Two split off into identicals. Six embryos are still too many, but the circumstances that led to octuplets were a little unusual.
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:36am
that she was a baby-obsessed freak. I said she makes the REST of those going through treatments look like one. She fed right into the media view.
And six IS way too many, when you have had no problem getting pregnant in the past by having only one transferred. Had he only transferred one, and it had been that one that split, she'd have had twins...and this never would have hit the news.
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 11:48am
six kids isn't good enough for a TV show anymore? }:)
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 12:27pm
Even with the one that split, she'd have had 8...and then toss in the whole "not married, no income" thing and it would have made a GREAT story (see sarcasm here).
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:30pm
My sister was flat out told she couldn't get pregnant, so she and her husband hatched a plan where they would adopt two and he would stay home with them, then they'd wait a handful of years, adopt two more, and she'd stay home with them. That worked right up until baby three, which she had while he was staying home with the first two
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 8:04am
PLEASE tell me you aren't one of those who suggests to people who are trying to conceive that they should start adoption proceedings so that they'll get pregnant....
I have two cousins with "surprise" children. I say surprise, because Cousin #1 (who is my age) was told that, due to medical issues, it would be very difficult for her to get pregnant. She has two boys. Cousin #2 (who is a few years younger, and sister to cousin #1) was told that it would be impossible for her to have children - she has a beautiful daughter. Doctors who tell women they "can't get pregnant under any circumstances" need to be shot. Miracles happen, more often than we realize.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 8:22am
Not in earnest, no. But that does seem to happen with surprising frequency, and I'd sure love to see a medical study or two about the influence of adoption on fertility in humans previously deemed infertile (or nearly so).
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 10:49am
I'm definitely not the type to suggest that (even if for whatever weird reason someone asked my advice on that subject); I'm a little more scientific than that. My point was more that pregnancy tends to happen, no matter how bad the odds.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:58am
I'll IM you.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:59am
Yikes, I went through this same thought process a year minus two weeks ago. The only difference was that I didn't have the "maybe it's because of birth control" excuse. Thankfully my family and boyfriend have been really supportive of my choices and been there for me through the whole process.
I was on the ring for a while - and will probably go back on as soon as it has a generic out. It shouldn't be causing false positives, as several people above mentioned. Unfortunately no birth control is 100% effective, even used properly. Taking it out shouldn't hurt anything - birth control just tricks your body into thinking it's pregnant, so the real thing is just a continuation of a process already in the making.
If it is a real positive: *HUG!* You'll be ok. Just make your own decision that's right for your beliefs and situation. Try and find someone - a trusted friend, family member, or your partner - that you can talk to without having them judge you. Make sure your someone will be available to come with you to appointments. I'm fairly sure we have people who chose all different walks on this board, so if you want to hear the pros and cons from hindsight, I'd certainly be happy to contribute.
Either way: Love, support and prayers headed your way. Imo, just set it aside and don't worry for a day if you can. There'll be time to worry (or not) once you have a definite answer.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:29am
If I am it's not mega drama, it's just...another baby. I'm sure by the time nine months go by I'll be prepared to deal with three under the age of four, just right now that thought is mildly terrifying. That and my spouse is not likely to be there for delivery, which makes me sad and makes the whole thing just really bad timing.
But anyway, emotionally I'm fairly rock-like, so I'll deal with it. I'm almost thankful for the major bitchitude I've got goin' cuz it makes me more assertive in what I want during the upcoming overseas move (yay. Did I mention bad timing?
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 1:29pm
Good to hear that it's just one more to add to the brood if you are. I guess I projected my situation onto yours a little. Mine was actually pretty terrifying (despite Plan B, a year out from finishing college, with pro-life boyfriend of about 10 months, a religious family where my mom's the 'church lady') so I kinda think worst-case circumstances.
Three under four? Yikes, you weren't kidding when you said you get pregnant standing down-wind of a horny guy. Well, good luck to you both (all four/five, really.)
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 1:34pm
with my first? I was 18, unmarried, and had no clue plan B (or any other morning after pill) EXISTED. And? My hubby and I got married after ohhhh 3 months?
Bit of a rough start, that was.
ETA: point of that was, I've been there and understand that panic.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:48am
I am convinced of it after my two.
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 3:51pm
Technically what happened was that I went off the pill first; four days of sugar pills, yada yada yada. My body is REALLY anal about me taking the pill; if I'm even an hour late taking it, for one day, I'll usually get my period. So two days in with no period freaked me out enough to get a test. Fortunately my school has this awesome place called the Sexual Health Peer Resource Center, which sells you pregnancy tests for $2 (provided you read a sheet with instructions and suggestions for "if you are" and "if you aren't"). Test came back negative, my period started a couple days later.
Was going to respond to Cheez-it, but the urge to start swearing and hurling insults was too overpowering >.>
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:26pm
Nuve Ring didn't work? *shudders* Don't tell me these things. :O
(GreenGlass will be ok)
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:36pm
These things all have some small chance of failure, even if used correctly. This is the reason that on the exceedingly rare occasion that I'm with a girl who doesn't share my belief that a kid would be horrible at this point (which I think has happened once), that multiple forms of birth control are involved. I also keep a pack of Plan B in the drug cabinet, since I figure if a condom breaks or what have you it would be reassuring to have it right there. Of course the fact that Planned Parenthood was giving it away for free didn't hurt
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 10:41pm
Wow, thank you for being a responsible guy.
I know that's kinda weird to say, but it's nice to see that there are guys out there with enough sense, courtesy and responsibility to realize that it's not just the girl's job to take care of birth control and to do something about it.
(You're right about it being free not hurting, but still, the fact that you thought about it and have it... That counts for a ton in my book.)
Tue, 02/17/2009 - 11:02pm
Hey, I spent all day out on campus telling people they could walk a couple of blocks and get it for free right after it was removed from prescription only status, damned straight I was going to go get some of my own. Besides, at this point I don't think I want kids period, must less now, so I'm going to do everything I can to make sure this horrific possible scenario doesn't occur (hence the reason I've never slept with a girl without finding out her views on the subject). I figure if I suddenly get the urge to pass on my genes there will always be sperm banks more than happy to have someone with my IQ and education donate, and at least then there's a legal battle involved before I get saddled with a kid I didn't plan on.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 9:39am
It's confirmed by the medical clinic.
greenglass, no, I put the ring in on the 7th even though I had no period. I'd been off birth control for a month and before that had 3 periods in 5 weeks, so figured a missed period wasn't a big deal.
I -did- do a test before I put it in. =\ Feeling dumb anyway.
....yay pregnant? Due date is approximately oct. 15th. Hubby doesn't get outta school until early November.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 10:27am
and good luck!
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 11:44am
Congratulations. It will be both harder and easier than you're thinking right now, but you know that. My thoughts and prayers are with you.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 2:37pm
Good luck to you guys! Stack up on sleep - you'll need it.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 2:44pm
I hope everything goes smoothly; keep us posted.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 12:02pm
Congratulations..! I hope you don't mind hearing this from a complete stranger, but I hope all is well with you, and I wish you lots of peace and happiness!
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 1:55pm
babies = love.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 2:03pm
you've got it backwards! love = babies!
What are they teaching kids in sex-ed these days anyway?
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 2:07pm
I'm going to start calling you TheGirl. ::runs away::
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 2:09pm
My girl mightn't appreciate that...
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 8:18pm
Well, she wouldn't be TheGirl to us. She would be TheBoy's Girl
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 2:18pm
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 8:13pm
It's official. If I have to refer to kawaiikune by name, I'll have to call her TheGirl }:) Not that you're a couple or anything, it just...fits.
Wed, 02/18/2009 - 8:48pm
Can we put in a majority vote to have K's name changed?
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 1:43pm
I likes it. Turns out I could even change my login if I wanted to, but it looks like TheBoy's Girl might object Still, if you guys like it, I don't object to the nickname.
It only gets complicated if I ever hit on the TheBoy's Girl. And what if TheBoy's Girl and TheGirl's Boy meet? Polygamy would be even worse...if TheGirl's Girl and TheGirl's Girl's Boy could come along, we'd all be in trouble.
Does TheBoy's Girl ever read this forum?
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 1:49pm
plz no makey my brain hurt, it's got enough going through it as it is.
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 1:52pm
Absolutely brilliant, this whole section of possible nom de plume changes... And yet another instance of thread hijackery...
Fri, 02/20/2009 - 8:09pm
The Thread Pirates strike again! MWAHAHAHAHAH!
Sat, 02/21/2009 - 3:21pm
Not yet...we're expanding some horizons, but I'm a little shy about certain classes of folks finding about what sort of smut I read.
Thu, 02/19/2009 - 12:07am
Congratulations! I hope everything goes well.
More information about text formats