Talk:Menstrual disc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women's health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health

Medicine

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine

Proposal to delete redirect to menstrual cup

Hello all, full disclosure: I am the CEO and founder of The Flex Company, the sole maker of menstrual discs on the market. I recognize that I have a direct COI in relation to the menstrual disc article and so would like to propose changes to the wiki page only on this talk page from now on. I understand that the original menstrual disc article did not have enough 3rd-party, independent and verifiable sources. However, I would like to explain the difference between menstrual discs and cups and why they are entirely different, and why it is inaccurate and in fact dangerous to public health to redirect the menstrual disc page to the menstrual cup page.

There are currently two menstrual discs on the market: Softcup and Flex. Both Softcup and Flex are menstrual discs and not menstrual cups because they are 1) not reusable and must be disposed of within 12 hours, 2) because they sit in the vaginal fornix and not the vaginal canal, and 3) sexual intercourse can take place when inserted.^[1] This is in direct contradiction from statements made on the menstrual cup page:

About every 4–12 hours (depending on the amount of flow), the menstruating woman removes the menstrual cup from her vagina, empties the collected menstrual blood into a toilet or sink, washes the cup under running water and inserts it again. At the end of the monthly period, the cup can be sterilized, usually by boiling in water. [emphasis added]^[2]

Manufacturers have different recommendations for when to replace the cups, but in general they can be reused for five years or more. [emphasis added]^[3]

These bell-shaped silicone or rubber cups must be removed before penetrative vaginal sex. [emphasis added]^[4]

Technically speaking, menstrual discs are also not bell-shaped nor are they made of silicon or rubber.

Please look at this citation from an independent, published source for confirmation of the facts that I have stated about discs: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/jwh.2009.1929 I understand the confusion over cups vs discs, since the language used to describe Softcup by the FDA and the scientific community is "menstrual cup". This is because it takes years for the FDA to approve a new medical device category, and so Softcup and Flex both chose to categorize themselves as "menstrual cups" even though they are fundamentally different products. It is the same reason why contact lenses and eyeglasses are both categorized as "corrective lenses" by the FDA despite being completely different.

In this sense, redirecting the menstrual disc to the menstrual cup page seems analogous to redirecting the menstrual sponge to the menstrual cup page. Redirecting is not only providing false information about menstrual discs but also possibly causing bodily harm to individuals because they may attempt to use menstrual discs as menstrual cups.

With this logic, menstrual discs merit their own page. However, I recognize that at this time there are not enough independent sources that refer to menstrual discs as discs rather than cups. I also recognize that sources from my company are not independent sources.

Thus I would like to propose at least deleting the redirect to the menstrual cup page to prevent spreading false information. When independent sources are then created, I suggest that a page once again be put up for menstrual discs. I recognize that I should not create this page considering my COI, so I am reaching out to the community now asking for help on this. I am happy to provide those independent sources when the time comes.

Please respond with comments, suggestions, questions. I am absolutely new to Wiki and need help regarding best practices, COI, etc. Please let me know if I have made a mistake or violated any policies.

The ref you provided states "a New Vaginal Cup" which supports that it is perfectly reasonable to merge this content with menstrual cup. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the language is confusing. The source states exactly where Softcup is positioned, which is not the vaginal canal, but the vaginal fornix:

→"The Softcup (Instead, Inc., San Diego, CA) is an internally worn device with a pliable rim 70 mm in diameter and a thinwalled reservoir to collect and hold the menstrual fluid (Fig. 1C). It was designed to minimize bulk in order to facilitate insertion and removal. The compression strength of the rim (450 50 g) is less than that of most other vaginal cups, caps, and diaphragms, which allows the user to squeeze the rim into a cylindrical tampon shape to facilitate insertion. Once inserted, it opens to an oval shape, positioned between the posterior fornix and the notch behind the pubic bone, covering the cervix. Because the Softcup is aligned along the long axis of the vagina, intercourse can take place below the cup, avoiding contact with the rim and minimizing risk of displacement.""" [emphasis added] " ^[5]

If discs were placed in the vaginal canal and worked like "vaginal cups", then users would be unable to use them during vaginal intercourse. It is dangerous to simply lump all products that go into the vagina together. There should be a distinction made between menstrual products that go in the vaginal canal vs fornix. Either way, may I ask why the other contradictions (disposable vs reusable) with the menstrual cup page are not a concern? Thanks so much for your response. Lmschulte (talk) 21:18, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Both those are within the vagina. I will look at this topic further eventually. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:27, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RFC on proposal to delete redirect to menstrual cup

There is no consensus to delete the redirect of menstrual disc to menstrual cup.
Discussions about deleting redirects should happen at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, not Wikipedia:Requests for comment.
There is no prejudice against nominating this redirect for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Cunard (talk) 01:12, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The menstrual cup page states several facts which are not true of menstrual discs. Specifically, the menstrual cup page states that (the following are verbatim quotes as of the time of this posting):

A menstrual cup is a type of feminine hygiene product which is usually made of medical grade silicone, shaped like a bell and is flexible. [emphasis added]^[6]
Manufacturers have different recommendations for when to replace the cups, but in general they can be reused for five years or more. [emphasis added]^[7]
It is reusable and designed to last for up to 10 years. [emphasis added]^[8]
After about 4–12 hours of use (depending on the amount of flow), the cup is removed by reaching up to the stem of the cup in order to find the base. [emphasis added] ^[9]
Menstrual cups must be removed before penetrative vaginal sex. [emphasis added] ^[10]
This is not a quote, but the menstrual cup page uses this graphic to show that this is how a cup is inserted: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Menstrual_cup_inserted.png/220px-Menstrual_cup_inserted.png

This independent, 3rd-party source states the following about menstrual discs: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/jwh.2009.1929 The source calls Softcup, a menstrual disc brand, a "menstrual cup", which is the biggest point of confusion, but goes on to state the following facts (the following are verbatim quotes from the source):

The Softcup (Instead, Inc., San Diego, CA) is a simple single-size disposable over-thecounter (OTC) menstrual cup that compresses to tampon shape to facilitate insertion and can be worn during coitus. [emphasis added]
Because the Softcup is aligned along the long axis of the vagina, intercourse can take place below the cup, avoiding contact with the rim and minimizing risk of displacement. [emphasis added]
It is composed of a proprietary blend of soft biocompatible polymer compounds in conformance with the United States Pharmacopoeia XIX Class VI criteria for plastics [emphasis added]
Once inserted, it opens to an oval shape, positioned between the posterior fornix and the notch behind the pubic bone, covering the cervix. [emphasis added]
Removal is accomplished by hooking a finger over the rim behind the pubic bone. [emphasis added]

The last two facts about insertion and removal contradict the graphic shown on the menstrual cup page on insertion. The graphic in fact shows the menstrual cup sitting in the vaginal canal not the vaginal fornix -- it does not touch the pubic bone at all.

Page 3 of the above source also shows an image of a menstrual disc. The disc does not have a stem like menstrual cups.

Signed, Lmschulte (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC) COI: I am the CEO and founder of The Flex Company, the sole manufacturer of menstrual discs available on the market.

Votes

Oppose. As Doc James has pointed out, the only source cited for "menstrual disc" on this page describes the device in its title as "a New Vaginal Cup". It calls it "The Softcup", and never uses the word "disc" or "disk". Maproom (talk) 07:40, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Support...conditionally... I thought that the entry by Lmschulte was persuasive and the points seemed cogent. As long as the distinctions are presented clearly enough I don't see why it should not have its own article, with suitable links of course. At the same time, if it can be presented coherently, prominently, and adequately in the same article in appropriate context and still sufficiently compactly not to wind up with a rambling and unwieldy article, that would be OK by me as well. JonRichfield (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Content belongs at menstrual cup Same type of device. Terms are often used interchangeably. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
Keep the redirect- ~~Take it to AfD.Deletion discussions belongs there. Involved editors here should not be deleting anything. @Doc James: you can make a good case at AfD. I'd vote delete.~~ Read that wrong. I thought we were discussing deleting an article. Definitely KEEP the redirect. This is the same content as Menstrual cup. Just a different name. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Weak oppose While I don't fundamentally oppose the existence of separate articles, since it does seem there's a non-trivial difference between them, it also appears that they are two different designs of the same thing. The only source we have suggests that the disc is a sub-type of what's more generally referred to as a cup, so it's the latter name that takes priority. By all means make the distinction clear in the cup article, but there doesn't seem to be enough unique content, nor clear enough references that the disc is not a "a new vaginal cup" as our existing source claims, to justify a separate article at the present time. Anaxial (talk) 07:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

References

[1]
North, Barbara B.; Oldham, Michael J. (2011). "Preclinical, Clinical, and Over-the-Counter Postmarketing Experience with a New Vaginal Cup: Menstrual Collection". Journal of Women's Health. 20 (2): 303–311. doi:10.1089/jwh.2009.1929. PMC 3036176. PMID 21194348.
[2]
"Menstrual cup".
[3]
"Menstrual cup".
[4]
"Menstrual cup".
[5]
North, Barbara B.; Oldham, Michael J. (2011). "Preclinical, Clinical, and Over-the-Counter Postmarketing Experience with a New Vaginal Cup: Menstrual Collection". Journal of Women's Health. 20 (2): 303–311. doi:10.1089/jwh.2009.1929. PMC 3036176. PMID 21194348.
[6]
"Menstrual cup".
[7]
"Menstrual cup".
[8]
"Menstrual cup".
[9]
"Menstrual cup".
[10]
"Menstrual cup".

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.