British Medical Journal: Natural Family Planning= Effective Birth Control Supported by Cathol Chrch

British Medical Journal/ Loyola University ^ | R.E.J. Ryder

[Brian Kopp DPM]

There is a lot of disinformation on many threads on Free Republic on the issue of birth control and NFP, and the effectiveness of NFP. This article and this list is made available here as a starting point to clear up some of those misconceptions.

NFP vs. Contraception"

THE CHRISTIAN VIEW OF SEX: A TIME FOR APOLOGETICS, NOT APOLOGIES

What is an Abortifacient?

Catholic Church Teaching on Abortifacients

What is Contraception?

Prayer of Acceptance

Confronting the Contraceptive Culture, by Fr. Jim Whalen (an article)

A Comprehensive Pro-Life Checkmate Strategy (for adults and youth)

The Connection between Contraception & Abortion, by Janet Smith (an article)

Side Effects of Birth Control Pills

The Consequences of Contraception, by Fr. Paul Burchat (an article)

The 21st Century Belongs to Natural Family Planning, by Fr. Joseph Hattie (an article)

Church Teaching on Contraception, by Dr. Donal DeMarco (an article)

Summary of the Recommendations of the Natural Family Planning Summit Meeting Sponsored by the Pontifical Council for the Family (Rome, Dec. 9-11, 1992)

Benefits of Natural Family Planning, Pope Paul VI

Affirmation of the Value of Natural Regulation of Fertility by the Natural Family Planning Summit Meeting, Rome, Dec. 9-11, 1992)

Protestants and Birth Control

Abortion & Breast Cancer FAQ

Overview: Breast Cancer and the Pill

Overpopulation

'If It Works, Don't Fix It: What Every Man Should Know Before Having A Vasectomy'

Be Good to Yourself - Don't Use Depo-Provera
Birth Control Pills and Young Women
Breast Cancer's Link to Abortion & the Pill
Contraceptive Imperialism versus Gospel of Life
Contraceptives and Informed Consent
My Advice To The Newlywed
Our Unexpected Date with the Culture of Death

[Brian Kopp DPM]

*

[Brian Kopp DPM]

And please don't forget...

[A Ruckus of Dogs]

without side effects

The best part of it.

What would also help the third world with birth control is to stop getting married at age 15.

[patent]

Rebump.

[Polycarp]

These folks below must not have read the article in this old thread:

Women May Ovulate More Than Once a Month, Study Says

Tue Jul 8, 2003

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - No wonder the rhythm method does not work so well for birth control -- scientists in Canada said on Tuesday they had found women sometimes ovulate several times a single month.



Their finding, if verified, would overturn the traditional wisdom that women produce an egg cell once a month. It would also help explain why "natural" methods of birth control, based on the idea that ovulation can be predicted, often fail.


"We are literally going to have to re-write medical textbooks," said Dr. Roger Pierson, director of the Reproductive Biology Research Unit at the University of Saskatchewan, who led the study.


"It's exactly why the rhythm method doesn't work."


Scientists have long known that humans have unique cycles of ovulation. Many animals come into heat -- a time when all the males around know through smells and visual signals that a female is ovulating and ready to conceive.


Not so with humans, who have "concealed" ovulation.


Standard medical science says a woman has a cycle running roughly 28 days in which an egg ripens, is released by the follicle, drops into the fallopian tube, and then is either fertilized or shed during menstruation.


Writing in the journal Fertility and Sterility, Pierson and colleagues found this did not always happen.


"We weren't expecting this. We really weren't," Pierson said in a telephone interview.


DAILY ULTRASOUND SCANS


In the study, Pierson, veterinarian Gregg Adams and graduate student Angela Baerwald did daily, high-resolution ultrasound scans on 63 women for a month, which allowed them to see the follicles very clearly.


"We had 63 women with normal menstrual cycles. Of those 63, only 50 had normal ovarian cycles," Pierson said.


Thirteen of the women ovulated multiple times, in various different ways. And of the other 50, 40 percent had up to three waves of activity by the follicles, any one of which could result in the production of an egg.


The women's hormone levels did not match this activity, Pierson said. "Hopefully this will help women explain how they got pregnant when they really didn't want to be pregnant, and it certainly will help us design better fertility therapies."


Apparently, measuring hormones in the blood is not enough to predict what a woman's reproductive system is up to.


"The hormones do what they are going to do and the ovaries just follow their merry path," Pierson said.


"We always thought that menstrual cycles and ovarian cycles were one and the same. It turns out they are just like two political parties -- sometimes they go along hand in hand for the good of the country and sometimes they go along their separate ways."





Pierson's team plans longer-term studies to see if the women's patterns are consistent from month to month.

"We don't know what's causing it -- we don't know if it is the weather or exposure to men or grapefruit juice or what," Pierson said.

The findings, which were first seen in cattle and horses, help explain some things that have puzzled obstetricians, Pierson said.

"It really explains how we get fraternal twins with different conception days," Pierson said. "Clinically, we see this all the time. We see women come in with twins and when we do an ultrasound we see one is at one 10 weeks development and another at seven."

[narses]

Is there validity to the "new" data? Given that NFP (partial abstinence) is approved only in cases of necessity, and often then medical necessity, should the pius couple practice total abstinence when face with lifethreatening OB-GYN issues?

[Aquinasfan]

Given that NFP (partial abstinence) is approved only in cases of necessity, and often then medical necessity, should the pius couple practice total abstinence when face with lifethreatening OB-GYN issues?

Good question. I would think so. It's certainly a big cross to bear.

You also have a good point about NFP being used out of medical or other grave necessity. The pope on many occassions has warned against adopting a "contraceptive mentality."

[Maximilian]

Ping to Post #6.

This is very interesting new data. I have long been skeptical of the "success" claims made by promoters of NFP. My experience and my observation of acquaintances and NFP forums like EWTN and the Couple to Couple League indicate that the "success" rate is much, much lower than what they are claiming. This study confirms what I have suspected, the ovulation cycle is more complex than how it has been represented.

I put the word "success" in quotes because I do not consider it a success when a couple avoids having children. "Generously accepting children from God -- in whatever number He chooses to send them," is the truly Catholic approach. This scientific data merely confirms for me the frustration -- both natural and supernatural -- which accompanies the attempt to control God's providence.

[ThomasMore]

"Generously accepting children from God -- in whatever number He chooses to send them," is the truly Catholic approach.

So you agree with the "providentialists" and see as "inferior" those using NFP?

[al_c]

the "success" rate is much, much lower than what they are claiming.

When practiced properly, the success rate is exactly as they claim. The problem is ... folks "cheat" or do not learn NFP as it is supposed to be taught. That is why they fail.

[Maximilian]

So you agree with the "providentialists" and see as "inferior" those using NFP?

I agree with Pope Pius XII. In his famous "Allocution to the Italian Midwives" he warned that any use of periodic continence which was not justified by grave reasons was "a sin against the very nature of married life."

Then in his "Address to Large Families" he encouraged Catholic families to accept children from God "in whatever number He chooses to send them."

If agreeing with Pope Pius XII makes me a "providentialist," then fine, that sounds like a pretty complimentary term. And as for those using NFP being "inferior," their consciences can tell them if they are really justified by sufficiently grave reasons. But Pope Pius XII had no problem denying any equality between large families and those reduced by family size limitation:

Large families are the most splendid flower-beds in the garden of the Church; happiness flowers in them and sanctity ripens in favorable soil. Every family group, even the smallest, was meant by God to be an oasis of spiritual peace. But there is a tremendous difference: where the number of children is not much more than one, that serene intimacy that gives value to life has a touch of melancholy or of pallor about it; it does not last as long, it may be more uncertain, it is often clouded by secret fears and remorse. It is very different from the serenity of spirit to be found in parents who are surrounded by a rich abundance of young lives. The joy that comes from the plentiful blessings of God breaks out in a thousand different ways and there is no fear that it will end.

[el_chupacabra]

NFP Bump!

[Maximilian]

When practiced properly, the success rate is exactly as they claim. The problem is ... folks "cheat" or do not learn NFP as it is supposed to be taught. That is why they fail.

Did you read today's article about multiple ovulations during a single month? It looks like there could be more reasons why they "fail" than just "cheating."

[Polycarp]

I would be careful accepting conclusions regarding the efficacy of NFP coming from any researcher embracing the contraceptive mentality. The facts raised in this British Medical Journal article, and my own observations as a doctor and an NFP instructor for 10 years trumps the pathetic comments of these researchers regarding the "Rhythm method."

So you agree with the "providentialists" and see as "inferior" those using NFP?

Using NFP is licit only for those clearly defined periods of time whereby a couple has grave reason for having recourse to NFP. Providentialism is NEVER illicit, because recourse to NFP is never demanded. Heroic virtue may eliminate any need of NFP, substituting heroic abandonment to Divine Providence. But heroic virtue is never demanded; only morally licit behavior is demanded. In certain cases where grave reasons for recourse to NFP exist, its use is no more nor less "moral" or licit than providentialism.

Any blanket condemnation of NFP is just as wrong as any blanket approval of NFP for any reason whatsoever.

We teach there are 4 main reasons for having recourse to NFP.

1--Physical/ mental health---a pregnancy could kill you or so physically impair you as to prevent your fulfillment of your duties in your state in life---NOT because of a widening wasteline or drooping skin! Or psychological health, i.e., mom would literally have a nervous breakdown if she became pregnant---not because she "just couldn't stand being home with the little kids all day without the personal fulfillment of her professional job..."

2--Financial constraints---your child will starve if you have another. Wanting a bigger house or designer SUV just does not cut it!

3--work on the mission fields by one or both spouses that would proclude having children temporarily

4--active persecution or war---i.e., you or your child likely to die by coercive abortion, in concentration camp, in acts of war, etc.

Clearly we say these reasons must be SERIOUS, not trivial. Only the couple and their confessor can truly decide what truly constitutes grave reason.

[Maximilian]

Using NFP is licit only for those clearly defined periods of time whereby a couple has grave reason for having recourse to NFP. Providentialism is NEVER illicit, because recourse to NFP is never demanded. Heroic virtue may eliminate any need of NFP, substituting heroic abandonment to Divine Providence. But heroic virtue is never demanded; only morally licit behavior is demanded.

This, and the rest of your post, was very well stated.

[al_c]

Did you read today's article about multiple ovulations during a single month? It looks like there could be more reasons why they "fail" than just "cheating."

Yes, I did ... it's old news. And if the couple is following all the NFP rules (this situation is covered by the instructors and in the book, if i remember correctly), they'd be able to catch the double ovulation.

[Polycarp]

Is there validity to the "new" data?

A word of caution to those who are putting too much credence into this "report":

One Reuters report on one researcher's conclusions does not validify the "new" data by any means whatsoever.

This article is just as much a hit piece against NFP as it is a "science report" on the conclusions based on this study.

I'm not buying ANY of it till I see the medical journal report itself and subsequent peer reviewed studies that verify this one.

[Maximilian]

Yes, I did ... it's old news.

You may know more about it than I do, but according to this article, the researchers were pretty shocked, and they said that "textbooks would need to be rewritten." This doesn't sound like "old news" to me.

I would like to see a study in which 100 fertile couples start January 1st using NFP. Then count how many are pregnant by December 31st. I would bet the percentage would be quite high. And thank God for that! The one thing that I actually like about NFP is that it doesn't work, thus allowing more babies to be born into the world.

[Maximilian]

This article is just as much a hit piece against NFP as it is a "science report" on the conclusions based on this study.

True, the reporting is biased. But the facts of the original study (which had nothing to do with the rhythmn method) seem pretty straightforward. The data about fraternal twins with different conception dates was fascinating.