To be so annoyed with bloody paternalistic NHS

And the legal responsibility fo rensuring a foetus is safe is on the woman carrying that foetus. And it's her decision on whether or not she wants to put the effort in to keep that foetus safe or not, or even keep that foetus.

Doctors should tell us risks, but we are perfectly capabel fo deciding how to manage those risks. And the health of a fictional, unwanted and extremely unlikely to ever happen foetus certainly does NOT trump the health of a woman who is actually alive and real in this world today.

Nope.

It's because it is the legal responsibility of everyone male or female to not drive if they have legal or illegal drugs in their system.

https://www.gov.uk/drug-driving-law

The legal responsibilities of driving while taking medications that impair their driving are on the driver, not the GP.

Well, yes it was taking every measure per the guidelines. You said you were prescribed something and were taking it, you provided the evidence of the prescription and the GP has to go on that.

And it covers them in terms of litigation because no GP is able to prove someone is taking something they're prescribed short of extensive and expensive blood tests which even then may not prove or disprove due to individual metabolism.

What other measures do you think they should take? Ask you to send a video of taking it every day?

If you want to lie to your GP to get what you want, that's on you because if the worst happened, the GP is covered in terms of you trying to litigate because they followed the pregnancy prevention programme.

You and others on this thread also seem to think abortion is risk-free and it isn't. So all the 'I'd have an abortion so there'd be no risk of a child with birth defects' are missing the point that abortion carries risk of infection, PID, uterine damage, even sepsis so if a GP prescribed without all the safeguards in place to protect you and them, there could be a terrible outcome from an abortion for both the individual and the GP.

This thread is mind blowing.

Of course it's paternalistic.

Funny - they give men who drive lorries for a living high dose painkillers becuase... wait for it.... they expect those men to listen to and understand the risks of operating machinery while on these painkillers, and to a) put things in place to manage those risks and b) accept responsibility if they don't.

But the moment there's a potential foetus in the picture... no no, women can' tbe trusted.

If you tell me that my meds might be bad for any potential foetus I might find myself pregnant with, then my choices are to a) not get pregnant b) If I am pregnant abort the foetus or c) carry to term and accept the risks accordingly.

Probably. But it’s not really “taking every measure” if all I had to was present a prescription I then didn’t take.

I got told no non hormonal prescription was available. End of. This was a few years ago, maybe it’s better now. If there was some flexibility offered in the first place, I wouldn’t have lied.

My recent encounters with GPs have been telling them what type of skin condition I have from Googling it because they didn’t recognise it, pointing out alternative (edit: as in similar available prescriptions, not natural remedies) medication with no side effects that was just as successful, and also diagnosing my dad’s wrongly diagnosed arthritis. Again, from Google.

I’ve also lived in other countries with socialised healthcare and it was no different, ironically. I don’t think it’s a UK issue specifically. I know they work hard, I know they’re just like the rest of us. But when it comes to my health, I find increasingly more and more that they slap on the first convenient label and send me on my way until I come back and we repeat the process.

Main point: if my choices were not a) take medication and be on the pill and suffer from being on the pill or b) not take medication, suffer and then not be on the pill, I wouldn’t have lied. No alternatives were offered. If they had provided a third option rather than expecting a standard measure to accommodate everyone, then that wouldn’t have happened.

And I’m sure this happens to men. I’m sure they are also victims of standardised systems which are supposed to fit all men. However, pretending that the healthcare system doesn’t have misogyny in it, especially when it involves contraception, is ridiculous. Even healthcare professionals admit this now. It’s important to recognise, because that’s how we fix it.

To add: the way I view it is that it’s a very lazy, bureaucratic measure to tick a box. Absolutely no flexibility for the individual woman, and a gesture that whilst I understand the aims of (preventing conception of genetically mutated foetuses), ends up harming women and is most likely decided under a significant amount of paternalism. I’m not against the aims or the harm it seeks to counteract, more that the overarching purpose is so strong, it disregards woman who are suffering here and now.

On top of that, these measures often feel like a half hearted, “oh look, we’re doing something.” My autonomy and status as a grown adult woman who is capable of using condoms properly is thrown out the window, yet if I show them a prescription for the pill, I can access the same medication without even any education on the pill, or them even asking me I actually take it. That’s what’s annoying.

There’s no flexibility, very little regard given for autonomy, and on top of that, it felt more standardised theatre to prove they did it.

Are there really that many woman going around who want to conceive genetically mutated foetuses? Is this risk substantial larger than the amount of women who don’t realise what mitigates the pills efficacy? I know several women who have gotten pregnant on the pill and genuinely had no idea that throwing up within the first few hours of taking it could impact it.

I’m going on a bit now, but to sum it up, of course I have no issue with the harm they’re trying to prevent. But is the inflexibility.

Maybe other doctor’s are not as bad. But mine was. And that medication ended up changing my life, and I wouldn’t have taken it if I had to take the pill as well, because multiple forms of contraception that were hormonal ruined my life in other ways. I ended up lying about taking the pill as it was the easiest option, but that shouldn’t have to happen in the first place.

And you've just proven why GPs have reason to suspect people lie to them so have to take every measure to ensure they're adhering to the prescription guidelines.

It's not GPs being paternalistic or misogynistic or not trusting women in particular, it's knowing that people lie. Particularly to get what they want.

Is it Topimirate or sodium valproate?

If it's Topimirate, in some health authorities a GP can't start the medication for men or women unless this has been requested by a neurologist or specialist migraine clinic.

I had the same issue and ending up getting the pill prescribed and not taking it. I’m a grown woman who has suffered terribly on the pill. I won’t take hormonal contraception again. It’s ridiculous to expect me to take medication that actively harms me in order to take other life changing medication. I’ve tried multiple pills and each one has been awful. I know I’m just particularly unlucky, but it didn’t change the fact I was told that the non hormonal coil was unavailable. So I lied, and past asking to see my prescription, they didn’t ask.

If I had gotten pregnant, I would have gotten an abortion. I also took monthly pregnancy tests and used condoms with good practice. If pregnancy had occurred, I would have gotten an early term abortion. To me, that would be far less distressing than a) having continuing health issues from not being able to access medication or b) taking the pill which seems to cause havoc for me (whether it be the mini pill, IUD, patch, whatever.)

It also seems pointless to insist on being on the pill when I know so many woman who have gotten pregnant on it from taking it haphazardly and don’t even realise that XYZ destroys its efficiency.

I suppose it's because if you become pregnant then there would be two people involved (your unborn child). The NHS would have a responsibility to the baby as well.

You could consider a Mirena IUS.
Prevents pregnancy, safe in migraines and also licenced for use in menopause.

Because of this:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68215937

It's also used as an anti convulsant and a mood stabiliser.

I'm a mental health nurse,and a couple of years back recently saw a female patient, in her 50s, not in a relationship and wasn't planning to have a child if she was. She had used it successfully as a mood stabiliser for years, but was now prevented from doing so because the minute risk she may get pregnant.

I don't understand how they've only recently made the link between sodium valporate and birth defects. It's been around for decades, but it's only been the last 5-10 years they've stopped prescribing it to women of child bearing age.

GPs are within their rights to not prescribe medication with inherent serious risks if the patient does not meet the criteria for prescription.

The OP does not meet the criteria.

It puts the GP at risk of litigation plus personal trauma if the worse were to happen.

I don't see why any women over 40 - if family complete - would not expect her husband to get a vasectomy. My husband did exactly that (after his first and last child) as he was fully aware of the pill's side effects.

And what about the damage done to women who aren't allowed to take them, or who have to take contraception they don't want or need in order to access medication? As before, I think women and their decisions about their own bodies should be prioritised over theoretical unborn babies.

No - in your 40s (I have been told) you are no longer allowed the contraceptive pill due to hormones and risks

Of course women are allowed the Pill in their 40s. I was on it until about a year ago and I'm 49 - and it was my decision to stop it, not my doctor's. No GP or gynaecologist has ever questioned me being on the Pill, ever.

My sister was on it until she was 52.

It is outrageous, woman are not human incubators and you are the person with rights not some hypothetical ubb. If you can, I would just take the prescription for the mini pill and lie that you are actually taking it.

This.
It's not because of the risk of litigation. It's because the health of a unborn hypothetical child is put over the mother.
What if that women gets a blood clot due to the enforced contraception. She could sue. What if that epileptic young girl who hadn't even had a sexual experience refuses contraception and dies from a seizure because she wasn't then offered that drug. Her family could sue. Also hormone based contraception can reduce the efficiency of some epilepsy drugs. The NHS doesn't care about the litigation.

I'd understand it more if OP was using any other form of contraception, but her husband has had a vasectomy. So unless she is unfaithful there is an absolute miniscule chance - almost zero - of her getting pregnant. The GP needs to document risks have been explained to her re pregnancy and give her the meds.

I think the difference is that with HRT it increases the risk of breast cancer but the BC could have happened anyway, you can’t say with certainty it was the HRT. Whereas with these other medications they’ll cause a type of birth defect that can only be attributed to them.

https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/culture/a38411874/woman-spina-bifida-negligent-pregnancy-advice/ and a reminder of this case where someone with spina bifilar sued their mother’s GP (successfully) for negligent advice regarding folic acid.

As I said upthread, it’s not beyond the wit of man to put in place a process whereby it can be documented that the patient has had the risks explained to them and can then sign to legally affirm that they understand them and accept responsibility if a pregnancy occurs.

Perhaps you’re not aware of how difficult it actually is to sue the medical profession in this country for negligent prescribing and win. It’s something that we’ve taken legal advice on and the long and short of it is that if other doctors would have prescribed similarly, then your case won’t go anywhere. Even if it would be harmful in each case and even if there was already research/red card info in the public domain that should have told the prescriber there could be an issue. It’s all stacked against the patient.

And yes, I can complain at how the rules have changed, because they discriminate against women and leave them to suffer simply because of their sex, whereas men are able to access effective treatment. That is unacceptable.

Try & see if you can get into well woman clinic that might help they may be able to sign post you to further help. I started to get ocular migraines at the beginning of menopause I was started in low dose noratryptaline which stopped them, in hindsight it could have been caused by raised bp or autoimmune disease that I have, also deafness. Medication has worked for me.

OP has already said she cant carry to term so would have to abort anyway. So she's not going to be having a baby.

Haven’t read the whole thread but in case helpful OP - I had great success with beta blockers for persistent migraines and tension headaches. I took a low dose daily for around 4 months, maybe worth asking about as an alternative.