It doesn't matter what direction the arrow on the graph is pointing if the way you got there is by potentially hurting people.
Quoting from http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/iud in the section about disadvantages:
> You may have:
- mild to moderate pain when the IUD is put in
- cramping or backache for a few days
- spotting between periods in the first 3–6 months
- irregular periods in the first 3–6 months — with Mirena or Skyla
- heavier periods and worse menstrual cramps — with ParaGard
> Serious problems with the IUD are rare. ... In rare situations, a woman could develop an infection when using the IUD. This happens if bacteria get into the uterus when the IUD is inserted.
Here's a Vox article about it: http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8092483/birth-control-iud
IUDs are classified as "pretty safe" for most users. They are also easily removed if undesired side effects are noted. They almost certainly are safer than pregnancy for most users. Individual users have contraindications that prevent IUD use or make IUD use riskier, that is why they are a prescription medical device and users are advised of the risks and their other options.
IUDs also have some benefits.
>I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and an increase in urine tract infections.
There are two types of IUDs, hormonal and copper. ANY hormonal contraception "messes" with periods in ways that aren't predictable. If side effects are not bearable you can simply get the IUD removed, it is easily reversible. Irregular bleeding is not harmful in any way but can be a huge nuance. Copper IUDs can cause increased bleeding but aren't hormonal. If UTIs or other complications are a problem then the IUD can be removed.
>It seems irresponsible to give a device like that out to any teenager that wants one.
It seems irresponsible to not offer teenagers a very effective contraceptive. All medical interventions have a risk of side effects. We would like the user to be aware of such risks and make an informed choice.
UIDs (in general) got a bad rap because of the Dalkon Shield in the 1970s. It had a design flaw that harmed a large number of users. Modern IUDs are much safer.
It's such a pronounced effect that doctors use certain types of IUDs to help stabilize certain conditions. It doesn't help everyone with this, but it helps enough people that it's worth trying.
Edit: s/15/10/ as per [1]
Is it OK for a large body of authority to support something that will harm you as long as they leave it to the individual's choice to use it or not? Where do we draw the line on this?
Update: for example, a paper on the psychological damage done by jailing people: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/haney.htm
You argue "isn't it a bit irresponsible for something as large/respected as an entire State to put their backing behind something with pretty well known, negative tradeoffs?"
The state supports many things with that have negative aspects. I listed a few obvious ones in my previous comments. In fact everything in life involves a tradeoff. One can study these things and develop some quantitative measure of the negative and positive effect.
Here are some studies on IUD complications: http://www.popline.org/node/490794 (youths) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010782406... (following birth) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673600... (UIT infection specifically) http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/718183_5 (general)
You can see that the complications are generally regarded as being quite minor or low probability. For many people this is a tradeoff worth making, given the near 100% success rate in prevent pregnancy.
Now this refers to IUDs. The Colorado program also provides hormonal birth control, via a long lasting implant. I'll let you do your own research on these.
In the US, the Federal Government has jurisdiction over drugs such as birth control.
Your argument suggests that negative side effects are harmful, and certain. In the teeny amount of research I've done, it doesn't appear that this is the case.
There is no such thing as tradeoff free medicine. Things we can ingest without unusual side effects have a special name in medicine: food.
IUDs are, on balance, considered a much safer form of birth control. They do not flood the user's bloodstream entirely with hormones (rather delivering it directly to the area of effect), and the treatment can be quickly discontinued in the case of the rare negative reaction.
In many cases, negative reactions to IUDs are indicators of other more severe reproductive organ issues like Endometriosis. For other reproductive issues, IUDs can actually be proscribed as a treatment.
The actual risk profile for IUDs is quite favorable. The actual risks of pregnancy are much larger than people like to talk about, and most women (even young women) take over a year to physically heal from their ordeal carrying and delivering a child and that's entirely ignoring the social and economic impacts of said pregnancy.
Most importantly, IUDs have fantastically high compliance rates because they are always on and most of their failure conditions are obvious (results in falling out). By contrast, the mechanical failure of a condom or diaphragm is often difficult to catch in the heat of the moment and human factors come into play with pill compliance.
Of course, knowingly or not, your actual cause here is to be Sargent Rubiquity of the Womb Police. I don't believe for an instant that any logic or compassion motivates your post.
The parent commenter is asking the risks of intrauterine birth control.
In the US, the FDA polices all medical drugs for safety and efficacy, regardless if they are for reproductive health or not.
The traveling health care fair came to my employer recently and I remember pretty much "everything" required a similar boilerplate consent form, even just pricking your finger for blood sugar screening.
For consistencies sake, 18 yrs sounds reasonable. If we're going to apply boilerplate almost everywhere, why not simply apply it everywhere?
There is no particular reason 18 is a good age. Eighteen and a day passes for all medical decisions but weirdly enough not to drink a simple beer, and some states have really weird legislation about exactly which vegetation is permitted to possess / smoke. Somewhere in the range of 13 to 22 for all of the above sounds about right.
In England we have Gillick and Fraser competence.
http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/child-protection-sy...
So 18 then. There are exceptions that allow less, but the 'no restrictions' is 18.
It's a tough choice to make, but I would say that your right to know is less important than a young woman's access to good contraception in the face of parental disapproval.