Talk:Menstrual extraction

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This[edit]

This clause is a little unclear to me 'modified the equipment used for manual vacuum aspiration at medical clinics for safe use by non-professionals.'

Should it read 'to make it safe for use by non-professionals'?Mumblio 03:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

modified equipment[edit]

...it should probably just say "modified for use." nothing they did to modify it made it safer or less safe, or easier or harder for nonpros...the only real change was that they used a collection jar because they thought it felt better that way, and they let the woman having the ME hold the suction controls...so i guess they modified it for use by users? :-) Cindery 03:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence: "By making it possible for more than one person to operate the device, the skill level of the operators was greatly reduced." sounds odd to me. How can a modification of equipment like this directly affect the "skill level" of the operators? Besides, if the skill level was reduced (sounds negative. Maybe possible if the equipment was made more difficult to use?), why modify the equipment? I might be missing something due to English being a second language for me, so I thought I'd post here, so that somebody else can look into it. Thanks! Peapeam (talk) 02:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

result of request for feedback[edit]

request for feedback on new article

Hi,

I wrote a new article called menstrual extraction, about a self-help technique developed by women before Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. Any advice/criticisms about how to improve it would be very welcome. (is it long enough? NPOV enough? Is it missing anything?)

Thanks, Cindery 03:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


  • Good article. I've made some suggestions on the Discussion page. XKMasada 09:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)



  • Some quick comments:
  • You should explain what it is in the lead - comparing it to another technique doesn't really help. At the moment it is necessary to read half the article before it is defined.
  • Try to use one style of citation - there is a Harvard style reference in the midst of the footnotes - and either remove the spaces between the punctuation and citations or include it consistantly
  • The discovery of the yoghurt is presented as being used by the police as evidence of a criminal act - this needs explaining since possession of yoghurt is not a crime. What justification did the police use to present this as evidence? Without that explanation the article becomes POV.
  • Although you mention other countries in the last paragraph the article is very US-centric. If you have little information about other countries you should still endeavour to make it clear when you are talking about the US. For example Wade v Roe didn't make abortion legal in other countries, so don't present it as a blanket statement.
  • Although pictures are normally requested to increase an article's appeal, I think you can give that a miss. Yomanganitalk 14:09, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Which Chalker is being cited?[edit]

Article notes: "They toured the country introducing menstrual extraction to other women's groups, and the practice became quite popular – an estimated 20,000 procedures were performed (Chalker)." But there is one Chalker in the references (Chalker and Downer, A Woman's Book of Choices) and another Chalker in the footnotes (The Whats, Whys, and Hows of Menstrual Extraction). "(Chalker)" should be replaced with a footnote specifying which reference is being cited. XKMasada 09:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some suggestions[edit]

  • Some additions should be made explaining the safety of the procedure.
  • Excuse me, I'm a guy, and don't really understand this so well, but is menstrual extraction the same as menstrual regulation? Maybe the article could make this a bit clearer.
  • A "See also" section of wikipedia links might also be useful.

-- XKMasada 09:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menstrual extraction = MVA?[edit]

The article notes that menstrual extraction differs slightly in technical configuration from MVA. The MVA article notes that menstrual extraction is simply another name for MVA. It can't be both. Maybe a citation or a rewording could help clear it up, on both this article and the MVA article. XKMasada 16:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


More Specific[edit]

Can this article be more specific? It's a bit vague which makes it somewhat confusing and very irritating. It's seems like it's been written (or edited) t be painfully neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wickedxjade (talk • contribs) 11:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Complications[edit]

I believe it is important that the complications section explain why ME is not a good form of contraceptive (because everything else in the article makes it seem like it should be). In citing Stringer75 it's important to note that the study was done in a hospital setting considering that ME is often done in the home by amateurs. Unacceptable pain and sepsis are significant complications. Vagary 07:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Content removed and clarfication needed[edit]

I removed some off topic content. What does the "abortion pill" have to do with ME? The content also makes the claim that ME and MVA are the exact same thing, when the intro says just the opposite. We need sources on either side. We can't cite studies that only talk about MVA here, if we haven't established that ME and MVA are the same thing. And if they are the same thing, then this article need to be merged with vacuum aspiration. So can we get these issues sorted out. Are ME and MVA the same thing? Does this article need to exist?-Andrew c [talk] 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, this article does not need to exist.
  • This WP:OR article by Cindery is primarily about "menstrual extraction" abortion as modified and practiced by unlicensed feminist practitioners in the United States before Roe v. Wade.
  • The abortion method used is manual vacuum aspiration (suction termination) which is also used by licensed practitioners for first trimester abortions; a few medical articles and book chapters refer to manual vacuum aspiration (suction termination) as "menstrual extraction".
  • In some countries where legal access to "abortion" by licensed practitioners is not readily available, "menstrual regulation" abortion, usually by manual vacuum aspiration (suction termination), is available, sometimes (as in Bangladesh) in government family planning clinics by licensed practitioners, and sometimes in illegal settings by unlicensed practitioners.
  • This article is a mishmash that mixes up manual vacuum aspiration (suction termination) abortion at various gestational ages in the first trimester by trained and licensed physicians, "menstrual extraction" abortion by unlicensed radical feminists, and "menstrual regulation" abortion by trained or untrained practioners in countries where legal abortion is not readily available, and irresponsibly and misleadingly implies that safety and efficacy is the same in these very different settings.
  • RCOG (September 2004). The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion : Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 7 London: RCOG Press ISBN 1-904752-06-3
    • Chapter 2. Summary of recommendations
      • 2.4 Abortion procedures
        • Surgical methods
          • 28. Conventional suction termination should be avoided at gestations below 7 weeks.
          • 29. Early surgical abortion using a rigorous protocol (which includes magnification of aspirated material and indications for serum βhCG follow-up) may be used at gestations below 7 weeks, although data suggest that the failure rate is higher than for medical abortion.
          • 30. Conventional suction termination is an appropriate method at gestations of 7–15 weeks, although, in some settings, the skills and experience of practitioners may make medical abortion more appropriate at gestations above 12 weeks.
          • 34. For first-trimester suction termination, either electric or manual aspiration devices may be used, as both are effective and acceptable to women and clinicians. Operating times are shorter with electric aspiration.
        • Medical Methods
          • 39. Medical abortion using mifepristone plus prostaglandin is the most effective method of abortion at gestations of less than 7 weeks.
          • 40. Medical abortion using mifepristone plus prostaglandin continues to be an appropriate method for women in the 7–9 week gestation band.
    • Chapter 7. Abortion procedures
      • Figure 7.1 Summary of abortion methods appropriate for use in UK abortion services for women presenting in different gestation bands
      • 7.1 Surgical methods of abortion
        • Surgical abortion in very early pregnancy
          • Recommendation 28. Conventional suction termination should be avoided at gestations below 7 weeks.
          • Recommendation 29. Early surgical abortion using a rigorous protocol (which includes magnification of aspirated material and indications for serum βhCG follow-up) may be used at gestations below 7 weeks, although data suggest that the failure rate is higher than for medical abortion.
        • Suction termination
          • Recommendation 30. Conventional suction termination is an appropriate method at gestations of 7–15 weeks, although, in some settings, the skills and experience of practitioners may make medical abortion more appropriate at gestations above 12 weeks.
        • Electric or manual aspiration
          • Recommendation 34. For first-trimester suction termination, either electric or manual aspiration devices may be used, as both are effective and acceptable to women and clinicians. Operating times are shorter with electric aspiration.
      • 7.2 Medical methods of abortion
        • Early medical abortion (gestations up to 9 weeks)
          • Recommendation 39. Medical abortion using mifepristone plus prostaglandin is the most effective method of abortion at gestations of less than 7 weeks.
          • Recommendation 40. Medical abortion using mifepristone plus prostaglandin continues to be an appropriate method for women in the 7–9 week gestation band.
69.208.171.123 03:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're just wrong. ME and MVA are similar but fundamentally different. Vagary 05:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What specifically is "just wrong"?
How are ME and MVA "similar but fundamentally different"?
69.208.171.123 19:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sports[edit]

In the 80s I remember hearing about ME as a way for athletes to "skip" their period to keep it from interfering with whatever sport they were involved in. I'm going to have it before I edit the article but was wondering if anyone else has knowledge about it's use in sports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stubborn Myth (talk • contribs) 04:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Big edits[edit]

I removed a large unsourced chunk that was POV on pushing a difference between MVA and ME. I think this clears up a lot of the complaints about this article.

I also rewrote the lede.

Happy to hear feedback!

Triacylglyceride (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Working on re-write[edit]

See re-write on temp page hereWoodsy lesfem (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Menstrual extraction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Menstrual_extraction&oldid=1214077103"