A contraceptive pill that can beat cancer (RU 486)

A NEW generation of contraceptive medication that guards against breast cancer as well as pregnancy could be available within five years, scientists predicted yesterday. Patient trials of a drug that is used in higher doses to cause abortions have shown it to be an effective contraceptive with few side-effects, and animal and cell models have even suggested that it can protect against breast tumours.

Women taking the new Pill, which contains no female hormones, would have no periods and would thus be unlikely to suffer from pre-menstrual syndrome (PMS). The contraceptive is also thought to carry a lower risk of blood clots than existing varieties.

If the early results are confirmed by larger studies, the research, led by the University of Edinburgh, would provide millions of women with a safe, reliable way of controlling fertility. While the Pill is the most effective form of contraception, many are put off by side-effects from the female hormones on which it is based.

About 3.5 million British women — approximately a third of those of reproductive age — take the Pill, more than 90 per cent of whom are on the combined form that contains oestrogen and progesterone, the two female hormones. The rest take the mini-Pill, which contains progesterone only. Its popularity has largely recovered from the 1995 scare that prompted hundreds of thousands to give up oral contraception after “third-generation” Pills that contain different kinds of progesterone were linked to a higher risk of thrombosis.

The combined Pill protects against ovarian and endometrial tumours, but its oestrogen content is thought to contribute to a slightly increased risk of breast cancer. While the mini-Pill does not have this drawback, it is less effective and has other side-effects such as heavy bleeding. The new Pill works on a completely different principle, using a chemical called mifepristone to block the action of progesterone, which the body needs to ovulate and support a pregnancy.

As it contains no oestrogen it should not promote breast cancer, and by inhibiting progesterone it is thought that it may even reduce the risk. It is also unlikely to cause other hormonal side-effects, and has the added benefit of stopping periods, which should prevent PMS.

Mifepristone, also known as RU486, is licensed for use in abortions, though it is used at doses 100 times lower for contraception. David Baird, Professor of Reproductive Endocrinology at the University of Edinburgh, said that this could be the biggest obstacle to bringing it to the market, as anti- abortion activists have vociferously objected to it.

“If it was decided just on scientific grounds, and the pharmaceutical industry did not respond to all sorts of irrational factors, it could be developed within five years,” he said. “As it is, I would expect it to be within five to ten years.”

Mifepristone works by binding to progesterone receptors, so that the body cannot respond to the hormone. If given in high doses when a woman is pregnant, it causes miscarriage, but smaller doses can prevent ovulation and conception. Two trials, each involving about 90 women in Scotland, South Africa, China and Nigeria, have now shown that it is well tolerated with few side-effects, and is at least as effective as conventional Pills.

The effect on breast cancer is predicted because some kinds of breast tumour appear to be sensitive to progesterone, so blocking its action should inhibit their growth. “Certain breast cancer studies suggest that progesterone can promote cancer as well as oestrogen,” Professor Baird said. “There are also some preliminary clinical data on women with advanced breast cancer which suggests that this could be helpful.”

Anna Glasier, Professor of Sexual and Reproductive Health at the University of Edinburgh, said: “If we can come up with a Pill that reduces the risk of breast cancer, we will all be taking it, whether or not we need contraception.”

The Pill was introduced in Britain in 1961 for married women only. It is now used by 3.5 million women in Britain and 85 million worldwide

More than 90 per cent of British users take the combined pill. This works by manipulating hormone levels to prevent ovulation. The mini-pill thickens cervical mucus to prevent sperm from reaching the womb

Oestrogen in the combined pill is thought to account for a slightly higher incidence of breast cancer. Five users in every 100 get breast cancer, compared to four in 100 non-users

Another rare complication is deep-vein thrombosis, at about three deaths per million users. Side-effects are bloating, breast tenderness and, for the mini-pill, excessive bleeding

Artificial Birth Control and Abortion– 2 sides of the same coin?

Artificial Birth Control weakens marriage and the family, it contributes to the increase in divorce, and it has inevitably lead to abortion.

Artificial contraception was condemned as a sinful act by every major Christian denomination in the world, Protestant and Catholic, until 1930. Pope Paul VI in his 1968 Encyclical Letter, Humanae Vitae reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s continued position against Artificial Birth Control because it is in direct opposition to the fundamental purposes of marriage and family. The very word contraception means against conception—against new life.

Paul VI warned that the widespread use of contraception would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality." The rates of abortion (about one of every four pregnancies in the US), divorce (approximately 50 percent of all marriages), family breakdown, wife and child abuse, venereal disease, and out of wedlock births have all massively increased since the mid-1960s.

When birth control fails many people will inevitably turn to abortion. The contraceptive mentality of the culture has become increasingly dependent upon the “back-up” of abortion to the extent that the value of human life is becoming increasingly cheap. In vitro fertilization, cloning, genetic manipulation and embryo experimentation--which turn human life into a mere commodity--are all descendants of contraceptive technology.

Birth Control and NFP: What's the Difference? (by Fr. Frank Pavone) http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html (excerpts)

[Natural Family Planning] NFP does not refer to the so-called "calendar rhythm method", which was based on calendar calculations of a "normal" cycle. NFP, instead, is based on direct observations of various signs that occur in a woman's body which tell her when ovulation occurs. These observations are relatively easy to make, take only a few minutes, and work even for irregular cycles. NFP is internationally known and practical and has an extremely high effectiveness.

NFP does not separate sex from responsibility.

NFP is not just a "method" based on physiology. Rather, NFP is based on virtue. It is based on sexual self-control, which is necessary for a healthy marriage.

NFP puts the responsibility for family planning squarely on the shoulders of both partners, because it requires communication and cooperation.

NFP is not just a means of avoiding pregnancy, as artificial contraception is. Rather, it can also be used to achieve pregnancy since it pinpoints ovulation. It is a wholly positive approach to the sexual life of the spouses. It is clean, inexpensive, morally acceptable, and reliable.

As with anything good, NFP can be misused, if a couple has the wrong motives. Married couples are called by God to cooperate generously in bringing forth and educating new life. For a couple to decide that "we don't want children at this time", there need to be serious, objective reasons (health, finances, etc.). If the reasons are not objective but selfish, then the couple cannot justify the avoidance of pregnancy just because they are using NFP to do it. In this case they are not practicing "family planning", but "family avoidance"!

The Pill can cause abortion: Contraceptive drugs (including "the pill") act in three major ways: 1st, they prevent the release of the egg from the ovaries; 2nd, they thicken the mucus in the reproductive tract, making it more difficult for the sperm to reach the egg; and 3rd, should the egg manage to be released and fertilized, thus forming a new human being, they cause the wall of the uterus to prevent implantation, thus causing the new child to be aborted.

Dr. Ronald Chez, a scientist at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), publicly stated that the new Pills of today, with their lower estrogen dose, allow ovulation up to 50% of the time! It is estimated that Chemical "Contraceptives" cause between 7 to 12 million early abortions each year in America (Source: Study of Abortion Deaths Ad Hoc Commission 1995). Most women using the Pill (and other "birth control" methods) do not know they can become pregnant and have early abortions.

To find out more about the Pill and other chemical contraceptives that cause early abortions, go to:
"Birth Control Abortions". http://www.prolife.com/BIRTHCNT.html

Church teaching on birth control

Catechism of the Catholic Church 2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality. These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, "every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible" is intrinsically evil:

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality. http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm#2370

2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art6.htm#2399

Internet Resources:

Humanae Vitae: On the Regulation of Births, Pope Paul VI, 1968 http://www.usccb.org/prolife/tdocs/humanaevitae.htm

Natural Family Planning (NFP) http://www.ccli.org/

Pope Preaches Inviolability of Human Life and Sanctity of the Family to Europe, Africa
http://www.priestsforlife.org/magisterium/81-01-15popeabortion.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!