Women’s health care

In 1968, Pope Paul VI taught that a husband and wife, in full recognition of their own duties toward God, themselves, the family and society, should respect the fact that in the task of the transmission of life, they must conform their activity to the creative intention of God, expressed in the very nature of marriage and of its acts, and manifested by the constant teaching of the Church.1 This teaching precluded every action that renders procreation impossible, either as an end or a means, through the acts of contraception or sterilization.

Pope Pius XII taught that if there are serious motives to space out births, which are derived from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infertile periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending moral principles.2 Pope Paul VI said that responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.3

Pope Paul VI also asked scientists to study the woman’s natural cycle of fertility in order to find ways to make it easier for couples to abide by the Church’s prohibition on artificial birth control. In direct response to the Pope’s appeal, Dr. Thomas Hilgers, an obstetrician/gynecologist, decided to found the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction, on the day the Pope died in 1978. Over three decades of research he developed the Creighton Model System (CrMS) of Natural Procreative Technology (NaProTechnology). Dr. Hilgers has been appointed by Pope John Paul II to membership in The Pontifical Academy For Life.

This technology, a new science, is used in the provision of the Creighton Model FertilityCare System, which allows, for the first time, the opportunity to network family planning with reproductive and gynecologic health maintenance. It does this in harmony with nature. It respects “the language of the woman’s body” by having the woman—or married couple—keep a daily record of her fertility signs. The record provides objective monitoring and also irreplaceable information to the doctor about where exactly a woman is in her cycle, reveals the presence or absence of reproductive and gynecological abnormalities, and indicates what treatment is appropriate.

It also allows for precisely targeted hormone therapy. Often nowadays obstetricians do not encourage their patients to observe and chart their fertility signs and therefore cannot tell precisely when ovulation occurs and when to provide progesterone treatment for a patient with a fertility problem or a gynecological disorder. Progesterone administered before ovulation causes further problems for the patient.

The FertilityCare System has been extensively evaluated over the past 22 years through research first at St. Louis University and Creighton University Schools of Medicine, and recently at the Pope Paul Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction in Omaha, Nebraska.

The method and use effectiveness rates for avoiding pregnancy have been shown to be 99.5 and 96.8 at the twelfth month of use.4 These compare favourably to the pill, of which Planned Parenthood’s website states: “Of 100 women who use the Pill, only eight will become pregnant during the first year of typical use.”

Dr. Hilgers has studied the levels of estrogen and progesterone in the blood associated with all the known disorders of ovulation as demonstrated and classified by ultrasound assessment. This assessment provides the clinician with an objective means to evaluate, classify and diagnose disorders of human ovulation. Depending on the disorder found, the patient will experience absolute or relative infertility, or abnormal pregnancies.

Contemporary medicine has missed the fact that progesterone or estrogen can be used to manage women’s health problems and enhance fertility without causing harm to the embryo. In order to accomplish this, however, these hormones must be provided only after ovulation. One must, therefore, have a simple but reliable means of determining when a woman is in the post-ovulatory phase. This is determined by observation of cervical mucus that reaches a characteristic description on the Peak Day, the precise time when ovulation occurs.

Study of the mucus cycle has also led to improvement in the treatment of stress, and the correct use of progesterone treatment of pre-menstrual syndrome, postpartum depression, recurrent ovarian cysts, and polycystic ovarian disease. Currently, most physicians appear to be unaware of these scientific facts in regard to the pathophysiology of gynecologic disease. One wonders if this is due to commitment to an ideology that seeks to morally justify in vitro fertilization. Women should question their caregivers about this.

The FertilityCare is medically safe, respects the dignity of women and the integrity of marriage, and can be used either to achieve pregnancy or avoid it. It co-operates with, and does not suppress, the reproductive system and is morally acceptable. It is far more effective than the current professional approach to a woman’s concerns, which often offers inadequate diagnosis of the underlying causes of her condition, or suppresses or destroys the natural process of procreation (through contraception, sterilization, abortion, in vitro fertilization).

The system accurately monitors reproductive and gynecological health and can be used to assess chronic vaginal discharges, to perform targeted hormone evaluation and treatment, to identify ovarian cysts (and to treat them non-surgically), to evaluate the effects of stress and treat pre-menstrual syndrome, and also to evaluate, treat, or prevent reproductive abnormalities such as infertility, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth, and prematurity. Furthermore, it can be used to evaluate and treat unusual bleeding, decreasing the need for hysterectomy. This is the best system for establishing marital bonding.

Many infertile couples today resort to in vitro fertilization, but many do not realize how few of the children conceived in this way come to birth. In each reproductive cycle, six to eight in vitro embryos are conceived. At most, two are implanted. The rest are disposed of immediately or are frozen and ultimately die. Only 25% of conceived embryos are implanted. Of these, only one-fifth are born alive. This means that only 5% of in vitro embryos are born alive; and hence, 95% die before birth.

In vitro fertilized babies are subject to an increased incidence of low birth weight and premature birth that are associated with an increased rate of brain damage. They also have double the risk of a major birth defect.

It is two to three times more successful than in vitro fertilization at helping infertile couples to have children – at a fraction of the cost – and is morally acceptable. A scientific study was made of 95 infertile couples who had tried all available medical treatments including in vitro fertilization, without success, and then resorted to NaProTechnology. The success rate was 32.6%. There was also evidence to support the facts that artificial reproductive technologies, including in vitro fertilization, may adversely affect the couple’s fertility potential and that artificial reproductive technology is used without adequately investigating underlying pathophysiological causes.5

· It is 79% effective at helping women have a successful pregnancy after they have suffered repeated miscarriages.

· It can help women learn that they are at risk of miscarriage even before one has occurred.

· It is 95% effective in treating postpartum depression, which afflicts as many as one in five new mothers, often getting results in hours.

· It cuts the rate of premature births in half, thus helping reduce the incidence of birth defects. These include respiratory distress syndrome, brain damage, blindness, infection, chronic lung disease, and a heart disease (patent ductus arteriosis) that may require surgery.

· It effectively treats endometriosis, with a lower rate of recurrence than methods doctors currently use.

· It effectively treats women experiencing infertility with up to an 80% success rate.

· It accurately dates the beginning of pregnancy thus helping to avoid end-of-pregnancy complications.

· It more than halves the recurrence of chronic pelvic pain, and it reduces the hysterectomy rate by 75%.

· It is associated with higher levels of self-esteem, spiritual well-being, and sexual intimacy than is experienced by users of the birth control pill.

Currently used artificial reproductive technologies involve the use of artificial insemination. They also include in vitro fertilization in which very high doses of hormones are given to women to make them produce more ova, and may involve the use of women as egg donors and as providers of surrogate wombs. These procedures are morally unacceptable.

In contrast, NaProTechnology simply involves keeping a record of the menstrual cycle. Fertility is sometimes achieved by love-making on the fertile days. In other cases, records of the cycle help the physician to diagnose and treat the cause of the infertility, e.g., endometriosis, ovulation irregularities, stress, and anxiety. NaProTechnology is both morally good and medically effective.

For a full account of the FertilityCare System and of NaProTechnology, consult the textbook titled The Surgical and Medical Practice of NaProTechnology, by Thomas W. Hilgers, M D., Pope Paul VI Institute Press (Omaha, Nebraska). The NaProTechnology FertilityCare System is suitable to every woman throughout her entire reproductive life. In short, Dr. Hilger’s work is at the cutting edge of today’s obstetrics and gynecology. This program is available in Toronto at the Marguerite Bourgeoys Family Centre Fertility Care Programme, 688 Coxwell Ave. Toronto, Ontario. M4C 3B7. Phone 416 465 2868, email: fertilitycare@sympatico.ca, website: www.mbfc.ca .

4. Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D. and Joseph B. Stanford, M.D., M.S.P.H. “Creighton Model NaProTechnology for Avoiding Pregnancy: Use Effectiveness” (J Reprod Med, 1998; 43:495 – 502).

5. Thomas W. Hilgers, M.D., The Medical and Surgical Practice of NaProTechnology, Pope Paul VI Institute Press, Omaha, Nebraska, pp.653-666.

More anti-IVF/anti-God-created-child rhetoric. I see nothing addressing women like me who have *physical* abnormalities causing infertility, not just hormonal causes. I also see factually incorrect opinions about IVF cited, i.e. "At most, two are implanted. The rest are disposed of immediately or are frozen and ultimately die."

This NaPro business sounds very much like FAM (Fertility Awareness Method), which has been around for a long time. Many people who discover they have fertility problems are pointed in the direction of "Taking Charge of Your Fertility" by Toni Weschler to see if it will work for them.
http://www.ovusoft.com/library/tonimessage.asp

For some of them, it works. For others, it doesn't.

Since I am not a Catholic, I don't agree with these arguments you present. I *am* a devout Christian though, and I would like to see actual Biblical verses that say IVF is evil, not just the interpretations of men in your church.

Still waiting for the verses that say man is not intended to use God-given knowledge to help mankind, especially with that
"Go forth and multiply" order that came first.

The issue is that most IVF methods create "extra" embryos, of which many die. Most people don't realize that when they go in for IVF treatment.

That and the procedure is very risky for the embryo. They reason that extra children are made is that often those embryos don't implant.

As a Christian who believes that life begins at conception, I have problems with creating extra children that will probably die.

I would like to see actual Biblical verses that say IVF is evil

Why? You don't need revelation to tell you that something that's contrary to the natural law is wrong. God ordered marriage to the procreation of children, and he specifically ordered the marital act to the procreation of children. Children have a right to be conceived in the loving embrace of their parents, not -- to put it bluntly -- in a Petri dish after Dad commits what used to be called, in a more morally upright age, an "act of solitary vice" to fill a specimen tube.

The fact that there's always embryo wastage (a polite term for "killing innocent kids") makes it even more certain that IVF is wrong.

Since I am not a Catholic, I don't agree with these arguments you present. I *am* a devout Christian though, and I would like to see actual Biblical verses that say IVF is evil, not just the interpretations of men in your church.

One of the big problems with IVF is that one uses a morally illicit means to do it (i.e. masturbation). And far from being the selective teaching of one small group of Christians, can you find me church/denomination that teaches that masturbation is morally acceptable?

"God ordered marriage to the procreation of children, and he specifically ordered the marital act to the procreation of children."

UH-oh, I must be in REAL trouble, then. I married my husband 20 years ago, and we've been happily married all that time without ever having had any intention of having children. Apparently, the whole marriage is a sham.

There's lots of useful information at those sources. Even if a woman doesn't have fertility problems, she can learn a lot about her general health by charting menstrual cycles and other fertility-related observations.

from: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/84/story_8476_1.html
"Christian: Catholics
The Catholic Church views masturbation as "an intrinsically and gravely disordered action." Any sexual act outside of marriage not intended for procreation is considered inappropriate."

We were/are married at the time of the IVFs. It was for procreation. It was appropriate, even by the Catholic Church's definition, and it was NOT a sin, since the semen/sperm were NOT wasted ('onanism').

It was appropriate, even by the Catholic Church's definition, and it was NOT a sin, since the semen/sperm were NOT wasted ('onanism').

Mmm...I believe that the Church teaches that it would still be immoral because it divorces coition from procreation. The two must always go together.

As far as I know, you have to be...to put it delicately...on the goal line when the ball is snapped, or there's a foul.

The Church teaches that the morality of masturbation does not depend on acts performed either subsequent or prior. Thus, even if a couple is generally open to life and commits one act that is not, that would still be a sin.

BTW, I saw what was going on in the other thread, and though you and I are on opposite sides of this issue, I think some of the responses you've been getting haven't been very edifying and some have been downright insensitive. Frankly, even if destruction of embryos happens during IVF, that was probably not your intent, so I'm not clear why anyone should be beating you over the head with that.

And thanks for posting the picture of your daughter; she is absolutely lovely. And I pray God that you understand that discussing the morality of the means does not in any way shape matter or form detract from her preciousness in the eyes of God. God makes wondrous things out of evils that are infinitely worse...we only need look to the Cross for confirmation of that.

This institute, when collecting sperm for testing purposes, suggests engaging in a normal act of intercourse while wearing a condom with a pinhole in it.

So the sperm collection is not necessarily a problem.

Egg transfer from the ovary to the uterus may be necessary if there is a blockage of the fallopian tube.

Would it be bad to transfer an egg or two, if they couldn't get to the uterus on their own? Would it be bad to do an intrauterine insemination if there was a problem with the sperm swimming there? (Keeping in mind you could collect it during a normal marital act.)

Is there any necessity for involving a Petri dish at all, unless the technician actually injects a single sperm into the egg as is sometimes done?

There are infertile couples who cherish each embryo, consider them all to be conceived in love, and implant each one and give them all a chance. There are also those who treat them as means to an end - I corresponded with one woman who wrote, "I might go through a dozen each attempt and it doesn't affect me at all."

*************

Since you are not a Catholic, you are under no obligation to agree with the arguments or to abide by them. I am curious, however, as to why this subject seems to matter so much to someone who is not Catholic.

The pictures you posted of your daughter on another thread were lovely.

The pictures may well be "lovely", but they're also completely irrelevant to the discussion.

I have a young relative who was conceived consequent to an act of adultery; two others who were conceived during a time in which their mother was promiscuously fornicating. Lovely kids, all ... but their existence, and their loveliness (IMO), are utterly irrelevant to a discussion of the the moral status of sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Unfortunately, some folks are unable or unwilling to mentally separate their goals from the means to achieve them. In some folks' minds an allegedly good goal justifies any actions which may be used to achieve that goal. Christianity has always condemned this sort of thinking.

The pictures may well be "lovely", but they're also completely irrelevant to the discussion.

*************

I didn't use the pictures as an argument for IVF. I merely mentioned that I had seen the pictures, and her daughter is lovely.

She is.

Granted ...I was on that other thread. I'm merely pointing out that "Look! My daughter is cute!" or even "I did this! I'm offended that you would criticize it!" isn't an argument. It's a distraction. Unfortunately, that sort of thing is common in what passes for debate these days.

******************

I agree with you. I do have sympathy, however, for the love of a mother for her child. That aside, I guess I am still mystified about a non-Catholics objection to Catholic dogma. For those who are interested, here is a link regarding the Catholic position and thinking regarding this issue:INSTRUCTION ON RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE

Mmm...I believe that the Church teaches that it would still be immoral because it divorces coition from procreation. The two must always go together.

Isn't the very intent of NFP to "divorce coition from procreation"? How about a woman that has had a hysterectomy or is postmenopausal- all subsequent coition is "divorced" from procreation. Immoral?

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.