Women on the pill live longer. So touts a March 12, 2010 Reuters news story out of London, England reporting on a study published March 11 in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). A misleading headline if ever there was one.

The study followed 46, 000 women for up to 40 years, to see if the mortality risk among women sho have used oral contraceptives differs from that of never users. What the study actually found, according to the public release issued by BMJ on March 12 is this: “Women in the UK who have ever used oral contraceptives are less likely to die from any cause, including all cancers and heart disease, compared with never users.”

The study also found a slightly higher risk (of death, I presume) in women under 45 years old who are current or recent users of the pill.  As such, the authors assert:

Many women, especially those who used the first generation of oral contaceptives many years ago, are likely to be reassured by our results.  However, our findings might not reflect the experience of women using oral contraceptives today, if currently available preparations have a different risk than earlier products.

I’m 56 years old. I didn’t take the pill in the UK. But I did take it in Canada in the early to late seventies, back when it was much stronger than it is today. And back when it was NOT common for women to start the pill at 15 and take it for a decade or longer.  Am I reassured by these findings? Sort of. Although years of hard-fought-for healthy, ovulatory menstruation, subsequent to my year long post-pill amenorrhea, are more likely responsible for my good health than having  been an “ever user” of oral contraceptives. And more likely to protect me from heart disease and cancer than whatever benefits I may have derived from my on again, off again pill-taking history.

As for women under 45, it’s not just the “currently available preparations” I’d be concerned about. And there are tons of them: multiple variations of standard pills, continuous use pills like Seasonale and Lybrel, and cycle-stopping contraceptives like Depo-Provera and the Mirena IUD. The other concern is that the contraceptive use of young women today is much different than it was in my youth. They start using oral and other hormonal contraception at younger ages, before their reproductive systems have fully matured and their fertility (regular, ovulatory menstrual cycles) is well established. And they tend to take it for longer. The verdict on the long-term effects of this kind of contraceptive use is yet to be determined.

I’m not going to debate the merits or faults of this study or the unanswered questions it raises. The question I really want to ask is “What’s the point?”

The cynic in me believes that this study, and misleading headlines like Women on the pill live longer, will be used to compel women of all ages to ‘shut up already’ about their growing concerns with hormonal contraception. It will be dragged out as “scientific evidence” that taking the pill saves lives, as is implied in this article published by the Daily Mail:

The contraceptive Pill can extend your life and may even save 1,500 lives a year, a study has suggested.

Women who have taken the Pill at any stage in their life are less likely to die from any cause – including heart disease and all types of cancer – than those who have never taken the oral contraceptive.

But wait, here’s the next paragraph:

However, the positive effects may only be enjoyed by women who have taken older-style pills rather than those on newer drugs.  Continue reading...