As of 2003, 18 out of 21 retrospective studies show that women who take oral contraceptives prior to their first-term birth incur an increased risk in developing breast cancer as noted in the bar graph below.
Posted on 05/10/2010 12:12:13 PM PDT by Gamecock
WASHINGTON — Fifty years after the birth control pill went on the US market, millions of women around the world are still under orders from the Roman Catholic hierarchy to eschew its use.
But all indications are that women stopped listening long ago.
"Catholics use the pill the same way everyone else does... Priests don't even preach against it any more," said Jon O'Brien, president of Catholics for Choice.
"There is no evidence that the teachings of the church influence Catholics in their decisions about the kind of contraception they actually use," said Frances Kissling.
The lead author of a 2004 report on Catholics' attitudes on sexual behavior, Kissling said fewer than five percent of Catholics in the United States use birth control methods allowed by the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at google.com ...
(Note: The quotes of the early church fathers can be researched in their entirety, courtesy of Calvin College.)
191 AD - Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor of Children
"Because of its divine institution for the propagation of man, the seed is not to be vainly ejaculated, nor is it to be damaged, nor is it to be wasted." (2:10:91:2) "To have coitus other than to procreate children is to do injury to nature" (2:10:95:3).
307 AD - Lactantius - Divine Institutes
"[Some] complain of the scantiness of their means, and allege that they have not enough for bringing up more children, as though, in truth, their means were in [their] power . . . .or God did not daily make the rich poor and the poor rich. Wherefore, if any one on any account of poverty shall be unable to bring up children, it is better to abstain from relations with his wife" (6:20)
"God gave us eyes not to see and desire pleasure, but to see acts to be performed for the needs of life; so too, the genital ['generating'] part of the body, as the name itself teaches, has been received by us for no other purpose than the generation of offspring" (6:23:18).
325 AD - Council of Nicaea I - Canon 1
"[I]f anyone in sound health has castrated [sterilized] himself, it behooves that such a one, if enrolled among the clergy, should cease [from his ministry], and that from henceforth no such person should be promoted. But, as it is evident that this is said of those who willfully do the thing and presume to castrate themselves, so if any have been made eunuchs by barbarians, or by their masters, and should otherwise be found worthy, such men this canon admits to the clergy"
375 AD - Epiphanius of Salamis - Medicine Chest Against Heresies
"They [certain Egyptian heretics] exercise genital acts, yet prevent the conceiving of children. Not in order to produce offspring, but to satisfy lust, are they eager for corruption" (26:5:2 ).
391 AD - John Chrysostom - Homilies on Matthew
"[I]n truth, all men know that they who are under the power of this disease [the sin of covetousness] are wearied even of their father's old age [wishing him to die so they can inherit]; and that which is sweet, and universally desirable, the having of children, they esteem grievous and unwelcome. Many at least with this view have even paid money to be childless, and have mutilated nature, not only killing the newborn, but even acting to prevent their beginning to live [sterilization]" (28:5).
393 AD - Jerome - Against Jovinian
"But I wonder why he [the heretic Jovinianus] set Judah and Tamar before us for an example, unless perchance even harlots give him pleasure; or Onan, who was slain because he grudged his brother seed. Does he imagine that we approve of any sexual intercourse except for the procreation of children?" (1:19).
419 AD - Augustine - Marriage and Concupiscence
"I am supposing, then, although are not lying [with your wife] for the sake of procreating offspring, you are not for the sake of lust obstructing their procreation by an evil prayer or an evil deed. Those who do this, although they are called husband and wife, are not; nor do they retain any reality of marriage, but with a respectable name cover a shame. Sometimes this lustful cruelty, or cruel lust, comes to this, that they even procure poisons of sterility [oral contraceptives] . . . Assuredly if both husband and wife are like this, they are not married, and if they were like this from the beginning they come together not joined in matrimony but in seduction. If both are not like this, I dare to say that either the wife is in a fashion the harlot of her husband or he is an adulterer with his own wife" (1:15:17).
522 AD - Caesarius of Arles - Sermons
"Who is he who cannot warn that no woman may take a potion [an oral contraceptive] so that she is unable to conceive or condemns in herself the nature which God willed to be fecund? As often as she could have conceived or given birth, of that many homicides she will be held guilty, and, unless she undergoes suitable penance, she will be damned by eternal death in hell. If a women does not wish to have children, let her enter into a religious agreement with her husband; for chastity is the sole sterility of a Christian woman" (1:12).
Martin Luther (1483 to 1546) -
"Onan must have been a malicious and incorrigible scoundrel. This is a most disgraceful sin. It is far more atrocious than incest or adultery. We call it unchastity, yes, a Sodomitic sin. For Onan goes into her; that is, he lies with her and copulates, and when it comes to the point of insemination, spills the semen, lest the woman conceive. Surely at such a time the order of nature established by God in procreation should be followed."
John Calvin (1509 to 1564) -
Deliberately avoiding the intercourse, so that the seed drops on the ground, is double horrible. For this means that one quenches the hope of his family, and kills the son, which could be expected, before he is born. This wickedness is now as severely as is possible condemned by the Spirit, through Moses, that Onan, as it were, through a violent and untimely birth, tore away the seed of his brother out the womb, and as cruel as shamefully has thrown on the earth. Moreover he thus has, as much as was in his power, tried to destroy a part of the human race.
John Wesley (1703 to 1791) -
"Onan, though he consented to marry the widow, yet to the great abuse of his own body, of the wife he had married and the memory of his brother that was gone, refused to raise up seed unto the brother. Those sins that dishonour the body are very displeasing to God, and the evidence of vile affections. Observe, the thing which he did displeased the Lord - And it is to be feared, thousands, especially single persons, by this very thing, still displease the Lord, and destroy their own souls.
(Examining sermons and commentaries, Charles Provan identified over a hundred Protestant leaders (Lutheran, Calvinist, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Evangelical, Nonconformist, Baptist, Puritan, Pilgrim) living before the twentieth century condemning non- procreative sex. Did he find the opposing argument was also represented? Mr. Provan stated, "We will go one better, and state that we have found not one orthodox [protestant]theologian to defend Birth Control before the 1900's. NOT ONE! On the other hand, we have found that many highly regarded Protestant theologians were enthusiastically opposed to it." )
1930 AD - Pope Pius XI - Casti Conubii (On Christian Marriage)
"Any use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin."
1965 AD - Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World - Gaudium et Spes, Vatican II
Relying on these principles, sons of the Church may not undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law. (51)
1968 AD - Pope Paul VI - Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life)
Equally to be excluded, as the teaching authority of the Church has frequently declared, is direct sterilization, whether perpetual or temporary, whether of the man or of the woman. Similarly excluded is every action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, propose, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible. To justify conjugal acts made intentionally infecund, one cannot invoke as valid reasons the lesser evil, or the fact that such acts would constitute a whole together with the fecund acts already performed or to follow later, and hence would share in one and the same moral goodness. In truth, if it is sometimes licit to tolerate a lesser evil in order to avoid a greater evil to promote a greater good, it is not licit, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil so that good may follow therefrom; that is to make into the object of a positive act of the will something which is intrinsically disorder, and hence unworthy of the human person, even when the intention is to safeguard or promote individual, family or social well-being. Consequently it is an error to think that a conjugal act which is deliberately made infecund and so is intrinsically dishonest could be made honest and right by the ensemble of a fecund conjugal life. (14)
1993 AD - Catechism of the Catholic Church
"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)." (2399)
Ms. Kissling needs to run in my circle. It would be eye opening for her.
You should see the Roman Catholics coming into my practice asking for the pill.
Q-A: What is an oral contraceptive pill?
An oral contraceptive pill is usually a combination of a synthetic estrogen and progestin (ie, the two major types of female hormones) which women take for 21 days out of a 28-day cycle. These hormones work by suppressing, but not eliminating ovulation, thickening cervical mucus, and by changing the lining of the uterus.
Q-B: Is there any evidence that OCP (oral contraceptive pill) use causes breast cancer in animals?
Yes. Concerns were raised in 1972 when it was noted that an oral contraceptive pill containing the artificial hormones mestranol and norethynodrel appeared to cause a case of metastatic breast cancer in a group of six female rhesus monkeys [1]. This was especially worrisome because rhesus monkeys rarely develop breast cancer. Until that time, only three cases of breast cancer in rhesus monkeys were reported. Although some argued that this was simply a “chance finding,” concern grew further when it was noted that both beagles and rodents developed breast cancer when exposed to the hormones contained in today’s OCPs [sources: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6].
Q-C: How might OCP use cause breast cancer in humans?
In 1989, Anderson et al [7] published a classic paper regarding the influence of OCP use on the rate of breast cell division. They found that nulliparous women (ie, women who have not had children) who took OCPs had a significantly higher rate of breast cell division than nulliparous women who did not take them. This was especially important because it is known that in general, cells that divide more rapidly are more vulnerable to carcinogens (ie, cancer producing agents) and thus more likely to become cancerous.
Q-D: Does OCP use cause an early abortion and if so, could this also be playing a role in the increased risk of breast cancer?
Both pro-life and pro-abortion groups openly admit that OCP use causes early abortions, with the latter doing so publicly in testimony before the Supreme Court in 1989 [8]. Induced abortion before a woman’s first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) has been noted to increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer by 50% [9]. Could an abortion (defined to be the death of the zygote, embryo or fetus after conception has occurred) within the first week after conception have a deleterious effect as concerns breast cancer? The hormonal physiology of early pregnancy is difficult to measure but Stewart et al [10] and Norman et al [11] have shown that estradiol and progesterone levels (ie, the female hormones) start to rise above baseline levels within 4 days of conception, thus prior to implantation and before hCG levels begin to rise. An early abortion would cause a sudden fall in the levels of these hormones. Could this early “hormonal blow” be playing a role? To this author’s knowledge, no one has asked or studied this question.
Q-E: Can you give a brief history of the studies that showed a link between OCP use prior to a first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) and the increased risk of breast cancer?
In 1981, Pike et al [12] found that women who took OCPs for 4 years before their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) had at least a 2.25-fold (125%) increased risk of developing breast cancer before the age of 32. This startled the research world and led to additional studies, including a very large American trial called the CASH study (ie, Cancer And Steroid Hormone study). In 1993, the CASH study showed that women who took OCPs prior to their FFTP and were under 44 years of age had a 40% increased risk of breast cancer, which reached statistical significance in the 35 to 44 year-old age group [13].
Later in England, Chilvers et al [14] published the results of another large study called the United Kingdom National Study. She showed that young women under the age of 36 who had used oral contraceptives for at least 4 years before their FFTP had at least a 44% increased risk in breast cancer. The last large study was performed in 1995 by Brinton et al [15]. It showed a 42% increased risk for women who used OCPs for more than 6 months prior to their FFTP.
Q-F: If the major studies showed the risks that have been mentioned, then why do doctors and pharmacists fail to inform their patients of those risks?
That is a good question. Major journals and major medical associations (eg, the AMA [American Medical Association], the ACOG [American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists], and the AAP [American Academy of Pediatrics]) have failed to stress or properly note this risk. Part of the problem is that because the OCP/breast cancer debate is complicated, most people have to rely on what “the experts” tell them.
A good example of this occurred recently in the Oxford study reported in a condensed version in The Lancet [16] and in complete form in Contraception [17]. This study was and remains the largest meta-analysis (ie, a synthesis of all the major studies done in a particular field, concluding in an overall risk for the pooled studies) regarding the studies of OCPs and breast cancer. Researchers from around the world studied and combined the data from 54 studies, involving 25 countries and 53,297 women who had breast cancer. It concluded that: “Women who are currently using combined oral contraceptives or have used them in the past 10 years are at a slightly increased risk of having breast cancer diagnosed, although the additional cancers tend to be localized to the breast. There is no evidence of an increase in the risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after cessation of use. . .” Unfortunately, this study is known more for what it did say, than what it did not say! There were several major weaknesses of the study.
Q-G: What are the weaknesses of the Oxford study and what implications do they have?
The main weakness was the failure to report any evidence of what the pooled risk of oral contraceptive use before a first term pregnancy was in women less than 45 years old. Another major weakness is that the Oxford study pooled data from studies which looked at women with breast cancer from the early and mid 1970s [17, p.5S].
A woman’s breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic influence (ie, cancer producing influence) before she has her first child because the breast undergoes a maturing process throughout a woman’s first pregnancy. By failing to measure the effect of OCP use before a premenopausal woman’s first full-term pregnancy (FFTP), the Oxford study failed to give data on the one group of women who are most likely to get breast cancer from oral contraceptives, namely, those women who used them before their FFTP (eg, many teenagers and women in their 20s).
The second weakness is that the Oxford study used data from older studies which took some of their data from the mid and early 1970s. This does not leave a long enough latent period. A latent period is the time between exposure to a suspected risk factor (eg, early OCP use) and the cancer which it increases (eg, breast cancer). Often the latent period between a risk factor and a cancer is 15 to 20 years or more (eg, cigarettes and lung cancer). Although women in the U.S. began taking OCPs in the 1960s, they only began taking them for longer periods of time at younger ages in the 1970s. Thus, only studies which include data from the 1980s and 1990s or beyond would allow a long enough latent period to pick up the influence of early OCP use.
Q-H: Why is it important to study women who are under the age of 45?
Women who are under the age of 45 are more likely to have used OCPs prior to having a child than woman over the age of 45. For example a 55-year old woman who had breast cancer in 1990 would have been very unlikely to have taken the OCP for a significant period of time prior to giving birth because OCPs were just coming to the U.S. in the early 1960s when the cited woman would have been in her late 20s.
Q-I: What do the four largest studies, which take the bulk of their data after 1980, state regarding women who used OCPs prior to their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP)?
Table 3A: RISK OF BREAST CANCER TO WOMEN WITH OCP USE PRIOR TO their FFTP
AUTHOR YEARS STUDIED SIZE OF STUDY FINDINGS
Wingo [13] 12/80-82 2089 less than age 45 40% increase; ages 20-44
Rosenberg [18] 1977-1992 1427 less than age 45 88% increase*
White [19] 1983-1990 747 less than age 45 50% increase: use 5 years of menarche
Brinton [15] 5/90-12/92 1648 less than age 45 42% increased risk*
*Computed from data from study, increase reflects the odds ratio.
The four largest retrospective studies** of parous women under the age of 45 all show at least a 40% increased risk for women who took OCPs prior to their FFTP or within 5 years of menarche. Two studies (Rosenberg and Brinton) did not list a formal risk but it was calculated from the data in their paper.
**An example of a retrospective study is one in which women with breast cancer would be interviewed and asked questions about their risk factors such as family history, OCP use, induced abortion, etc.
Q-J: Has anyone done a meta-analysis of retrospective studies that examined the question of risk to women under the age of 45 who had taken OCPs prior to their FFTP?
Yes. Two different researchers have addressed this question. Thomas et al, in 1991, found that women who took OCPs for extended periods of time prior to their FFTP had a 44% increased risk [RR=1.44 (1.23-1.69)] [20]. A more refined meta-analysis in 1990 by Romieu et al restricted her analysis to those studies done after 1980. The study showed that women under the age of 45 who had taken OCPs for 4 or more years prior to their FFTP had a 72% increased incidence [RR=1.72 (1.36-2.19)] of breast cancer [21].
Q-K: Can you comment on why a recent large study published by researchers at Harvard claimed to show no increased risk of developing breast cancer in women who had taken OCPs for 5 years or more prior to their FFTP?
In 1997, a group of researchers at Harvard Medical School led by Dr. Hankinson published a study in Cancer Causes and Control [22]. It based its conclusions on data taken from the Nurses’ Health Study and claimed to show that women who took oral contraceptive pills for 5 years or more prior to their FFTP had no increased risk of developing breast cancer compared to women who never took OCPs [RR=0.57 (0.24-1.31)]. The study’s conclusions appear to have been based on a flawed analysis.
Q-L: Can you describe the problems with the study?
Yes. The researchers compared women with breast cancer who took OCPs for 5 years or more prior to their FFTP [let’s refer to these women as Group A] to women with breast cancer who never took OCPs [Group B].
It is known that women took OCPs for longer periods of time and earlier in their reproductive lives in the 1980s and 1990s than in the 1960s and 1970s as was clearly noted in the Oxford study [17, p.9S; Tables 14, 15]. So any group of women who had taken OCPs for 5 years or more prior to their FFTP (ie, Group A) would have been more likely to have done so while in their late teens and 20s in the 1980s or 1990s, whereas women in Group B (who never took OCPs) would be more likely to contain a distribution of women who would have been in their late teens and 20s in either the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s or 1990s. But this strongly supports the contention that women in Group A would have a lower average age and a shorter follow-up time than the women in Group B, which would of course invalidate the study’s conclusions.
It is frightening to note that the Harvard team presented no data on either the average age of women in the noted groups or their respective lengths of follow-up time. The research team instead chose to follow the noted groups in “person-years” as their measure of follow-up time. This is the length of a follow-up period derived from the number of women followed, multiplied by the average number of years they were followed. For example, if group A had 100 women who were followed for 10 years, the total amount of follow-up time would be 100 x 10 = 1,000 person-years. But if group A had 250 women who were followed for 4 years it would also have 1,000 person-years of follow-up. This is totally inadequate because the measure of “person-years” gives no data on the length of follow-up time in actual years and without this information the study must remain suspect because it was noted that women in group A most likely had both a younger average age and were followed for a shorter period of time than the women in group B.
Q-M: Is there any way that the public will ever have access to the necessary data that was not presented in the Harvard study?
I am not sure. This author tried in vain to obtain the answers to three basic questions over a 6 month period of time from three different researchers involved in the Harvard study via e-mail, phone calls and certified mail. It is ironic that one cannot access data from these researchers especially because their study obtained its data from the Nurses’ Health Study, a study which was funded by citizen tax dollars through a grant via the NCI (National Cancer Institute). The essential questions that need to be answered are presented at the end of this chapter. If the Harvard team had answered these questions the average age and follow-up time period for both Group A and Group B’s women could have been easily calculated. Until the noted researchers at Harvard make their data available for all to see, the study’s conclusions must remain suspect.
Q-N: Have any other recent studies had methodological problems?
Yes, a large prospective study conducted in England by Beral et al [23] claimed that a “cohort” (ie, the group being examined in a prospective study) of 23,000 women who took the OCP had no greater risk of developing breast cancer than 23,000 women who did not take it. The main problem with the study is that women entered it from 1968 to 1969. But many of these women were taking OCPs after they had a FFTP because as we noted earlier, women took OCPs for shorter periods of time and later in their reproductive lives in the 1960s and 1970s than in the 1980s and 1990s [17]. The study’s claim that OCP use had no long-term risk of increasing breast cancer cannot be applied to the subset of women who took (or currently take) OCPs for longer periods of time prior to their FFTP.
Q-O: Can you give an overall statement regarding early OCP use and breast cancer?
Yes. If a woman takes the oral contraceptive pill before her FFTP, she suffers a 40% increased risk of developing breast cancer compared to women who do not take OCPs. If she takes OCPs for 4 years or more prior to her FFTP, she may have an even higher risk, as noted by Dr. Romieu earlier.
Q-P: Are any other groups of women at high risk?
Yes. Women who take OCPs for long periods of time (ie, 4 years or more) [14,24,25], are at increased risk for developing breast cancer. Other women at risk are those who use them after the age of 25 [26,27,28] and nulliparous women who use them for a long time (ie, 4 or more years) [14,29]. All three categories of women seem to be at increased risk, with individual studies ranging from 40% to over 200% increased risk. Women who took OCPs for longer time periods and started using them at an early age appear to be at an even greater risk. For example, the Brinton study [15] is significant in that it allowed a longer latent period to pass and found a 210% increased risk of developing breast cancer in young women (ie, under the age of 35) who took OCPs for more than 10 years, if they began taking them before the age of 18 [RR=3.1 (1.4-6.7)].
Q-Q: The studies you cited involved women who were less than 45 years old from data taken after 1980. What will happen to the risk of developing breast cancer for these women as they grow older?
No one knows. It would be wise to learn from history. In the late 1940s an artificial female hormone named DES (Diethylstilbestrol) was given to women to prevent miscarriages. For more than 25 years researchers maintained that DES use did not increase the risk of breast cancer in women who took it. Finally, in the 1980s, it was discovered that DES use increased breast cancer risk by about 35% — especially in older women [30]. A similar phenomenon may be occurring with OCPs. The truth is, no one knows how dangerous OCP use will be for women as they grow older.
Q-R: It has been noted that OCPs reduce the rate of uterine and ovarian cancer. Is this true?
Yes, it is true. However it must be noted that OCPs also increase the risk of cervical and liver cancer [31, 32, 33]. For example the largest study to date, performed by the World Health Organization, examined over 2,300 women and found that use of OCPs before the age of 25 increased the risk of invasive cervical cancer by 45% [34]. In addition, more women get breast cancer in the U.S. than all of the other alluded to cancers combined, making this the most dangerous risk in Western countries. Oral contraceptives may be particularly risky in Asian and African countries where cervical and liver cancer are prevalent [34, 35, 36].
Q-S: Often women who have painful menstrual cycles are placed on OCPs. Are there medical alternatives with less risks than OCPs?
Menstrual cramps can be controlled by less harmful drugs than OCPs. For example, taking 1,000 mg of Calcium and 399 mg of Magnesium around the time of a woman’s onset of menstrual bleeding appears to help with menstrual cramps and migraine headaches. In addition, taking high dose anti-inflammatory agents (eg, ibuprofen) after one’s menstrual flow has started (and under a doctor’s care) will often give relief. Also, the Journal of Adolescent Medicine published a case report of a young lady who experienced a 90% reduction in her cramping symptoms when taking Nicardipine after her menstrual cramps had begun [37]. Nicardipine is a type of calcium channel blocker that is used for treating hypertension.
Q-T: What about the risk of “low dose” progestin containing contraceptives such as “the minipill,” or long-acting progestins such as Norplant or Depo-Provera?
Skegg et al [38] pooled the data from the World Health Organization (WHO) and New Zealand studies, the two largest studies that looked at women who took Depo-Provera (active ingredient is DMPA: depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate) for long periods of time. He found that women who had taken DMPA for between 2 and 3 years before the age of 25 had a 310% statistically significant risk of getting breast cancer [RR=4.1 (1.6-10.90)] whereas women who had taken DMPA for more than 3 years prior to the age of 25 had at least a 190% increased risk, that was also significant [RR=2.9 (1.2-7.1)]. The risks for long-term Norplant use in young women could be just as high as for Depo-Provera users, although widespread tests have not been done because Norplant was developed later than Depo-Provera. In regard to the progestin containing “minipill,” the Oxford study noted an overall increased risk of 19% (ie, RR=1.19 [0.89-1.49]) in women who had taken minipills for 4 or more years, but they said nothing about extended use in young women, especially women who took them prior to their FFTP [17, p.98S]. The latter group of women might be at an especially increased risk.
Q-U: How do the natural means of regulating birth compare to the artificial means?
Several well-designed trials by the World Health Organization have shown that Natural Family Planning (NFP) (ie, methods for determining when a woman is most fertile or infertile, based on qualitative observations of cervical mucus and, for some NFP methods, measuring basal body temperature) has had an effectiveness rate when used correctly that is better than OCPs, that is, less than a 3% rate of pregnancies per year. These trials have been done in both modern and less advanced countries and have shown low annual pregnancy rates: the United Kingdom — 2.7% [39], Germany — 2.3% [40], Belgium — 1.7% [41], and India — 2.0% [42]. One of the largest trials (of 19,843 women performed by the World Health Organization in India) showed the failure rate to be 0.2 pregnancies per 100 women yearly — a rate that is significantly better than almost all artificial methods of contraception [43]. (For more information regarding NFP see end of bibliography).
Q-V: How can the above noted information be verified?
Go to the nearest medical library — nearly every hospital has one — and ask the librarian to help look up the medical references of interest.
Q-W: What are the three questions never answered by the Harvard study?
The researchers at Harvard have never answered the following simple questions:
1) How many women were there in the group who were under the age of 45 and who used OCPs for 5 years or more prior to their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) (see page 69, Table 3 of your paper [ie, the women who were followed for 9,741 person-years]). What was the mean age for the women in this group?
2) How many women were there in the group who were under the age of 45 and never used OCPs? (see Table 2 page 68, these women were followed for 176,306 person-years). What was their mean age?
3) How many women were in the group who were under the age of 45 and had used OCPs for 10 years or more of total duration? (see Table 2, p. 68, the group that had 21,760 person-years of follow-up)
References:
11. Kirschstein RL, et al. Infiltrating duct carcinoma of the mammary gland of a Rhesus monkey after administration of an oral contraceptive: a preliminary report. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1972; 48: 551-553.
12. Geil, et al. FDA studies of estrogen, progestogens, and estrogen/ progesterone combinations in the dog and monkey. J Toxicol Environ Health. 3: 1979.
13. Shubik P. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer: laboratory evidence. In: Interpretation of Negative Epidemiological Evidence for Carcinogenicity. IARC Sci Pub. 1985; 65; 33.
14. Kahn RH, et al. Effect of long-term treatment with Norethynodrel on A/J and C3H/HeJ mice. Endocrinology. 1969; 84: 661.
15. Weisburger JH, et al. Reduction in Carcinogen Induced Breast Cancer in rats by an anti-fertility drug. Life Sci. 1968; 7: 259.
16. Welsch CW, et al. 17B-Oestradiol and enovid mammary tumorigenesis in C3H/HeJ female mice. Br J Cancer. 1977; 35: 322.
17. Anderson TJ, Battersby S, et al. Oral contraceptive use influences resting breast proliferation. Hum Pathol. 1989; 20: 1139-1144.
18. Alderson Reporting Company. Transcripts of oral arguments before court on abortion case. New York Times. April 27, 1989; B12.
19. Brind J, Chinchilli M, et al. Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis. J Epidemiol Community Health. 10/ 1996; 50: 481-496.
10. Stewart DR, Overstreet JW, et al. Enhanced ovarian steroid secretion before implantation in early human pregnancy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1993; 76: 1470-1476.
11. Norman RJ et al. Inhibin and relaxin concentration in early singleton, multiple, and failing pregnancy: relationship to gonadotropin and steroid profiles. Fertility and Sterility. 1993; 59: 130-137.
12. Pike MC, Henderson BE, et al. Oral contraceptive use and early abortion as risk factors for breast cancer in young women. Br J Cancer. 1981; 43: 72-76.
13. Wingo PA, Lee NC, et al. Age-specific differences in the relationship between oral contraceptives use and breast cancer. Cancer (supplement). 1993; 71: 1506-1517.
14. Chilvers C, McPherson K, et al. Oral contraceptive use and breast cancer risk in young women (UK National Case-Control Study Group). The Lancet. May 6, 1989: 973-982.
15. Brinton LA, Daling JR, et al. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer risk among younger women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 6/7/1995; 87: 827-35.
16. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53,297 women with breast cancer and 100,239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies. The Lancet. 1996; 347: 1713-1727.
17. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: further results. Contraception. 1996; 34: S1-S106.
18. Rosenberg L, Palmer JR, et al. A case-control study of the risk of breast cancer in relation to oral contraceptive use. Am J Epidemiol. 1992; 136: 1437-44.
19. White E, Malone K, Weiss N, Daling J. Breast cancer among young U.S. women in relation to oral contraceptive use. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1994; 86: 505-514.
20. Thomas DB. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer: review of the epidemiologic literature. Contraception. 1991; 43: 597-643.
21. Romieu I, Berlin J, et al. Oral contraceptives and breast cancer. Review and meta-Analysis. Cancer. 1990; 66: 2253-2263.
22. Hankinson SE, et al. A prospective study of oral contraceptive use and risk of breast cancer (Nurses Health Study, United States). Cancer Causes and Control. 1997; 8: 65-72.
23. Beral V, et al. Mortality associated with oral contraceptive use: 25 year follow up of cohort of 46,000 women from Royal College of General Practitioners’ oral contraception study. Br Med J. 318. 1/1999: 96-99.
24. Rookus MA, Leeuwen FE. Oral contraceptives and risk of breast cancer in women ages 20-54 years. The Lancet. 1994; 344: 844-851.
25. Weinstein A, Mahoney M, et al. Breast cancer risk and oral contraceptive use: results from a large case-control study. Epidemiology. 1991; 2: 353-358.
26. Palmer J, Rosenberg L, et al. Oral contraceptives use and breast cancer risk among African-American women. Cancer Causes and Control. 1995; 6: 321-331.
27. Thomas DB, Noonan EA. Breast cancer and combined oral contraceptives: results from a multinational study [The WHO collaborative study of Neoplasia and steroid contraceptives]. Br J Cancer. 1990; 61: 110-119.
28. Wang Q, Ross R, et al. A case-control study of breast cancer in Tianjin, China. Cancer Epidemiology. 1992; 1: 435-439.
29. Miller D, Rosenberg L, et al Breast cancer before age 45 and oral contraceptive use: new findings. Am J Epidemiol. 1989; 129: 269-279.
30. Colton T, Greenberg ER, et al. Breast cancer in mothers prescribed diethylstilbestrol in pregnancy. JAMA. 1993; 269: 2096-3000.
31. Thomas DB, et al. Oral contraceptives and invasive adenocarcinomas and adenosquamos carcinomas of the uterine cervix. Am J Epidemiol. 1996; 144: 281-289.
32. Ebeling K, et al. Use of oral contraceptives and risk of invasive cervical cancer in previously screened women. Int J Cancer. 1987; 39: 427-430.
33. Kenya PR. Oral contraceptive use and liver tumours: a review. East African Medical Journal. 1990. 67:146-153.
34. Thomas DB, et al. Invasive squamos-cell cervical carcinoma and combined oral contraceptives: Results from a multinational study. Int J Cancer. 1993; 53: 228-236.
35. Parkin, et al. Estimates of the worldwide frequency of sixteen major cancers in1980. Int J Cancer. 1988; 41: 184-197.
36. Fauci AS, et al. Harrison’s: Principles of Internal Medicine. 14th ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 1998.
37. Earl DT, et al. Calcium channel blockers and dysmenorrhea. Journal of Adolescent Medicine. 1992; 13: 107-108.
38. Skegg DCG, Noonan EA, et al. Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate and breast cancer (A pooled analysis of the World Health Organization and New Zealand studies). 1995; JAMA: 799-804.
39. Clubb EM, et al. A pilot study on teaching NFP in general practice: current knowledge and new strategies for the 1990s. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University; 1990: 130-132.
40. Frank-Hermann P, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of the symptothermal method of NFP in Germany. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 165: 2045-2052.
41. De Leizaola MA. De premiere d’une etude prospecive d’efficacite du planning famillial naturel realisee en Belgique francophone. J Gyncol Obstet Biol Rev. 1994; 23: 359-364.
42. DorairajK. The modification mucus method in India. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1991; 165: 2066-2067.
43. Ryder RE. “Natural Family Planning”: effective birth control supported by the Catholic Church. Br Med J. 1993; 307: 723-726.
And I'm sure you just giggle when writing out the script.
I’ve never met a Catholic girl that wasn’t on the pill...
That said, I don’t see anything wrong with it.
Posted on Monday, December 10, 2001 10:49:06 PM by Dr. Brian Kopp
British Medical Journal, Sept 18, 1993 v307 n6906 p723(4)
"Natural family planning":
Effective Birth Control Supported by the Catholic Church
R.E.J. Ryder.
Abstract:
Natural family planning, when used by motivated couples, is a safe and cost-effective means of birth control. Natural family planning, which involves teaching women to recognize signs of ovulation and to avoid intercourse on fertile days, is the only method of birth control approved by the Catholic Church. A total of 869 women of diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds participated in a study conducted by the World Health Organization. Regardless of literacy and culture, 93% of the women were able to recognize the changes in their cervical mucus associated with ovulation. Other studies have emphasized the importance of good initial teaching and the motivation of the woman practicing the method. A failure rate of 0.2 pregnancies per 100 women was found in a study of 19,843 women in India.
[Full Text: COPYRIGHT 1993 British Medical Association]
During 20-22 September Manchester is to host the 1993 follow up to last year's "earth summit" in Rio de Janeiro. At that summit the threat posed by world overpopulation received considerable attention. Catholicism was perceived as opposed to birth control and therefore as a particular threat. This was based on the notion that the only method of birth control approved by the church--natural family planning--is unreliable, unacceptable, and ineffective.
In the 20 years since E L Billings and colleagues first described the cervical mucus symptoms associated with ovulation natural family planning has incorporated these symptoms and advanced considerably. Ultrasonography shows that the symptoms identify ovulation precisely. According to the World Health Organisation, 93% of women everywhere can identify the symptoms, which distinguish adequately between the fertile and infertile phases of the menstrual cycle. Most pregnancies during trials of natural family planning occur after intercourse at times recognised by couples as fertile. Thus pregnancy rates have depended on the motivation of couples. Increasingly studies show that rates equivalent to those with other contraceptive methods are readily achieved in the developed and developing worlds. Indeed, a study of 19 843 poor women in India had a pregnancy rate approaching zero. Natural family planning is cheap, effective, without side effects, and may be particularly acceptable to and efficacious among people in areas of poverty.
The 1993 follow up to last year's "earth summit" in Rio de Janeiro is to take place in Manchester during 20-22 September and is entitled "Partnerships for change." The Rio earth summit focused considerable attention on the expanding population of the world as an important issue in relation to resources, environment, and poverty. In the media the "opposition of the Catholic Church to birth control" was discussed (BBC Radio 4, Today Programme, 18 May 1992) and considered to be an important factor with the many millions of Catholics in the world, particularly the Third World, such as Brazil. In the medical press the "Pope's continuing opposition to birth control" was condemned[1] and powerful Vatican opposition was considered likely to wreck hope of useful progress at the earth summit with regard to global overpopulation as a most urgent ecological hazard.[2]
The widespread beliefs that the Catholic Church is opposed to birth control,[1] that the urgent provision of artificial contraception within the Third World is the only answer to overpopulation, and that the Catholic Church is opposed to this[2] all stem from the perception that the so called "natural methods of family planning," which are approved by the Catholic Church, are unreliable, unacceptable, and ineffective. Historically, this perception is based on the unreliability of the rhythm method of contraception ("Roman roulette"), which attempts to identify the fertile phase of the woman's cycle by calendar calculations. Is this perception as accurate today as it may have been in the past?
The ovum has a life span of not more than 24 hours and is fertilisable for only part of that time.[3] The life span of the sperm may be measured in hours under adverse conditions. Under optimum conditions, however, sperms may remain viable for four or five days, and a life span of up to seven days has been postulated.[3] Thus a woman is potentially fertile for no more than six to eight days of her cycle, probably less in most cases. To what extent can these potentially fertile days be accurately identified and avoided by most women as a method of birth control?
Cyclical changes in cervical mucus secretion
In 1972 Billings et al reported the characteristic changes in cervical mucus secretion which occur during the menstrual cycle.[4] After menstruation there are a variable number of "dry" days with little or no mucus secretion and a feeling of dryness in the vaginal area. Then, as ovulation approaches under the influence of increasing oestrogen concentrations[3 5] the dry feeling ends and there is increasing secretion of cervical mucus, which at the time of ovulation becomes an abundant discharge of substance like the raw white of an egg. After ovulation the first secretion of progesterone abruptly reverses the effect of oestrogen on cervical mucus and causes it to become thick and rubbery, forming a plug in the cervix.[3 5] The fertile-type, "raw egg white" cervical mucus is of low viscosity and high threadability (spinnbarkeit) with glycoprotein fibrils in a micelle-like structure which aids sperm migration. It contains sugars and trace elements necessary for sperm survival, capacitation, and transport and it can maintain the sperm capable of fertilisation for several days.[3 5 6] By contrast, the thick, white, non-stretchy mucus which occurs at other times in the cycle is impenetrable by sperm and hostile to its survival.
Other symptoms have been described in association with ovulation, in particular periovulatory pain and the progesterone induced postovulatory rise in basal body temperature. Hormonal studies have confirmed the close relation of the various symptoms with ovulation,[4 7] and more recently ovarian ultrasonography has suggested that the day of most abundant secretion of fertile-type egg white mucus identifies the day of ovulation as precisely as does the luteinising hormone peak (see figure).[8] Other symptoms associated with the cyclical changes in oestrogen and progesterone concentrations include changes in the cervix, breast tissue, skin, hair, libido, and moods.[3 5]
Pregnancy and contraception
Reported pregnancy rates (pregnancies per 100 woman years; Pearl index) in well motivated couples using the condom, diaphragm, intrauterine device, and progestogen only and combined oestrogen-progestogen oral contraception are 3.6, 1.9, 1.4, 1.2, and 0.18 respectively.[9] Much higher rates have been recorded, particularly among less motivated couples--for example, pregnancy rates of 21 and 22 in condom users[10] and 23 in diaphragm users.[10] Pregnancy rates of 23 and 28 have also been reported in users of oral contraceptives in the developing world.[11] As shown in Oxford, even the contraceptive pill may fail if the woman forgets to take it, runs out of tablets, or has diarrhoea and vomiting or other illness.[12]
Early trials of birth control based on symptom observation[13-17] yielded pregnancy rates of 6.0[17] to 25.4.[13] Most conceptions occurred because of intercourse on days designated by the family planning method as fertile. Controversy therefore ensued[18-21] between those who thought that all pregnancies occurring in trials should be considered as failures of the particular method[19 21] and those who thought that the method could not be blamed if couples had intercourse during a phase which they knew to be fertile.[18 20] It was also possible that initial scepticism about natural family planning methods led to a casual approach by couples.[13]
WHO study
Given a natural pregnancy rate--that is, the Pearl index without any birth control--estimated as 80,[22] the cheapness of natural family planning, and the acceptability of natural family planning to many cultures and religions, the World Health Organisation undertook an international study.[23-27] A total of 869 women of proved fertility and widely varying cultural, educational, and economic backgrounds were studied in five centres (Auckland, Bangalore, Dublin, Manila, and San Miguel, El Salvador). Regardless of culture and education, 93% of the women recorded an interpretable ovulatory mucus pattern. Of the El Salvador women, 48.1% were illiterate and yet recognised the mucus symptoms.[23]
Detailed analysis in the WHO study confirmed the potential effectiveness of mucus symptom observation as a means of family planning. The probability of conception from intercourse outside the period of fertility defined by cervical mucus observation was 0.004 (see table).[25] Intercourse on days designated as fertile by cervical mucus observation resulted in conception with increasing frequency the nearer to ovulation that intercourse occurred, intercourse on the peak day of cervical mucus secretion resulting in a probability of conception of 0.667 (table).[25] Thus it is clear that women of all cultures and educational backgrounds can learn to recognise when they ovulate and when they are potentially fertile and that if intercourse is avoided on potentially fertile days pregnancies will not occur.
[TABULAR DATA OMITTED]
Increased confidence in natural contraception
After the early studies,[13-17] increased confidence in and experience with natural family planning methods tended to lead to progressively lower overall pregnancy rates. The rates, however, remain variable, depending on the standard of teaching and the motivation to avoid pregnancy.[24 28-39] A study in Chile confirmed the importance of good initial natural family planning teaching, experienced teachers achieving a pregnancy rate of 4.7, inexperienced teachers achieving a rate of 16.8.[28] Studies have underlined the importance of motivation, one international study finding a pregnancy rate of 4.13 in couples wishing to limit their families but a rate of 14.56 in couples wishing only to space their families.[29] Studies suggest that methods combining several indicators of ovulation yield lower pregnancy rates.[3] The cost issue has been addressed, studies from Liberia and Zambia showing pregnancy rates of 4.3 and 8.9 and user costs of $40 and $30 respectively.[35] A study of natural family planning in general practice in the United Kingdom also found it to be by far the cheapest method.[39]
The largest natural family planning study combined effective teaching with high motivation and showed that natural family planning can be extremely effective in the Third World.[33] The study was of 19 843 predominantly poor women in Calcutta, 52% Hindu, 27% Muslim, and 21% Christian. Because of poverty motivation was high both among the users and among the well trained teachers of natural family planning. The failure rate was similar to that with the combined contraceptive pill--0.2 pregnancy/100 women users yearly.[33] The result suggests that poverty as the motivation can greatly improve the effectiveness of natural family planning. A similar result, however, was achieved in Germany in a study with a pregnancy rate of 0.8.[34]
An Italian study found an overall pregnancy rate of 3.6, all the pregnancies occurring in couples wishing to space but not limit their families. The pregnancy rate was zero in couples who wanted no more children.[30] With other German studies finding pregnancy rates of 1.8[31] and 2.3,[36] a study in general practice in the United Kingdom finding a rate of 2.7,[39] and a study among 3003 illiterate and semiliterate women in India yielding a pregnancy rate of 2.04[37] the accumulating data confirm that natural family planning can be as effective as any method of family planning.
Implications for the Third World
In the WHO study most couples in the three developing countries who practised natural family planning were satisfied with the frequency of intercourse, whereas in the two developed countries one third of subjects and half of their partners who practised the method would have preferred more frequent intercourse.[27] It might be argued that natural family planning being cheap, effective, without side effects, and potentially particularly effective and acceptable in areas of poverty may be the family planning method of choice for the Third World. The case for and against this may be argued and debated, but whatever the standpoint there is no doubt that it would be more efficient for the ongoing world debate on overpopulation, resources, environment, poverty, and health to be conducted against a background of truth rather than fallacy. It is therefore important that the misconception that Catholicism is synonymous with ineffective birth control[1 2] is laid to rest.
Understanding the simple facts about the signs of fertility confers considerable power to couples to control their fertility, for achieving as well as preventing conception. The widespread dissemination of these simple facts would be useful everywhere but might be of particular value in the Third World.
Notes
[1] Godlee F. Going backwards in Rio. BMJ 1992;304:1525.
[2] Poole J. Time for the Vatican to bend. Lancet 1992;339:1340-1.
[3] Flynn AM. Natural methods of contraception. Maternal and Child Health 1991;16:148-53.
[4] Billings EL, Billings JJ, Brown JB, Burger HG. Symptoms and hormonal changes accompanying ovulation. Lancet 1972;i:282-4.
[5] France JT. The detection of ovulation for fertility and infertility. In: Bonnar J, ed. Recent advances in obstetrics and gynaecology. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1982:215-39.
[6] Bromwich PD. Problems with sperm/cervical mucus interaction. Part 1: pathophysiology. British Journal of Sexual Medicine 1985;12:124-5.
[7] Flynn AM, Lynch SS. Cervical mucus and identification of the fertile phase of the menstrual cycle. Br J Obstet Gynaecol 1976;83:656-9.
[8] Depares J, Ryder REJ, Walker SM, Scanlon MF, Norman CM. Ovarian ultrasonography highlights precison of symptoms of ovulation as markers of ovulation. BMJ 1986;292:1562.
[9] Vessey M, Lawless M, Yeates D. Efficacy of different contraceptive methods. Lancet 1982;i:841-2.
[10] Mills A. Barrier contraception. Clin Obstet Gynecol 1984;11:641-60.
[11] Laing JE. Natural family planning in the Philippines. Stud Fam Plann 1984;15:49-55.
[12] Duncan G, Harper C, Ashwell E, Mant D, Buchan H, Jones L. Termination of pregnancy: lessons for prevention. British Journal of Family Planning 1990;15:112-7.
[13] Weissman MC, Foliaki L, Billings EL, Billings JJ. A trial of the ovulation method of family planning in Tonga. Lancet 1972;ii:813-6.
[14] Ball M. A prospective field trial of the ovulation method of avoiding conception. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1976;6:63-6.
[15] Marshall J. A field trial of the basal body temperature method of regulating births. Lancet 1968;ii:8-10.
[16] Marshall J. Cervical-mucus and basal body temperature method of regulating births. Lancet 1976;ii:282-3.
[17] Parenteau-Carreau S, Lanctot CA, Rice FJ. Etude internationale Fairfield sur l'efficacite de la methode sympto-thermique de regulation des naissances. Resultats Canadiens compares aux resultats globaux. La Vie Medicale au Canada Francais 1976;4:145-53.
[18] Billings JJ. Natural family planning. Lancet 1976;ii:579.
[19] Marshall J. Natural family planning. Lancet 1976;ii:685.
[20] Billings JJ. Natural family planning. Lancet 1976;ii:969.
[21] Marshall J. Natural family planning. Lancet 1976;ii:1085.
[22] Reid KM. Choice of method. In: Loudon N, ed. Handbook of family planning. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone, 1985:25-39.
[23] World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. I. The teaching phase. Fertil Steril 1981;36:152-8.
[24] World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. II. The effectiveness phase. Fertil Steril 1981;36:591-8.
[25] World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. III. Characteristics of the menstrual cycle and of the fertile phase. Fertil Steril 1983;40:773-8.
[26] World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. IV. The outcome of pregnancy. Fertil Steril 1984;41:593-8.
[27] World Health Organisation. A prospective multicentre trial of the ovulation method of natural family planning. V. Psychosexual aspects. Fertil Steril 1987;47:765-72.
[28] Perez A, Zabala A, Larrain A, Widmer S, Nunez M, Baranda B, et al. The clinical efficiency of the ovulation method (Billings). Rev Chil Obstet Ginecol 1983;48:97-102.
[29] Rice RJ, Lanctot CA, Garcia-Devesa C. Effectiveness of the symptothermal method of natural family planning: an international study. Int J Fertil 1981;26:222-30.
[30] Barbato M, Bertolotti G. Natural methods for fertility control: a prospective study. Int J Fertil 1988;33(suppl):48-51.
[31] Frank-Hermann P, Bremme M, Rosmus t, Kunkel W. Use-effectiveness of a symptothermal method in Germany. In: Schaitouits H, ed. Proceedings of 4th European congress IFFLP/FIDAF Vienna, Austria. Vienna: Institut fur Ehe und Familie, 1987:27-45.
[32] Bonnar J. Natural family planning including breast feeding. In: Mishell DR, ed. Advances in fertility research. New York: Raven Press, 1982:1-18.
[33] Ghosh AK, Saha S, Chattergee G. Symptothermia vis a vis fertility control. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of India 1982;32:443-7.
[34] Roetzer J. Symptothermal methods of natural family planning. International Review of Natural Family Planning 1981;5:200-2.
[35] Kambic RT, Gray RH, Lanctot CA, Martin MC, Wesley R, Cremins R. Evaluation of natural family planning programs in Liberia and Zambia. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:2078.
[36] Frank-Herrmann P, Freundl G, Burr S, Bremme M, Doring GK, Godehardt EAJ, et al. Effectiveness and acceptability of the symptothermal method of natural family planning in Germany. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:2052-4.
[37] Dorairaj K. The modified mucus method in India. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1991;165:2066-7.
[38] Kelly J. Audit of health services in Gurage. J Trop Pediatr 1992;38:206-7.
[39] Clubb EM, Pyper CM, Knight J. A pilot study on teaching natural family planning in general practice. In: Natural family planning: current knowledge and new strategies for the 1990s. Washington, DC: Georgetown University, 1990:130-2.
[40] Ryder REJ, Depares J, Norman C, Walker S, Scanlon MF. Ovarian ultrasonography and the precision of the symptoms of ovulation. Clin Sci 1985;69(suppl 12):17P.
I hope that you would not prescribe the pill, or other hormonal contraceptives due to their abortaficiant natures, and that they are serious health risks for women. There’s no need to force of woman’s body to not function naturally. And the pill fails to fix the other medical issues that it can be prescribed for, such as ovarian cysts. Just masks the symptoms. The pill’s bad medicine all the way around. We need more believing Christians to stand up for the truth of God’s creation.
I know lots of people, both Catholic and Protestants, that do not use birth control for the reason they want to leave all that in the hands of providence.
The Duggars on TV is a classic example of non Catholics with that point of view.
The available evidence supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking OCs, postfertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. Physicians should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization. Since it would be difficult to predict which patients might object to being given an OC if they were aware of possible postfertilization effects, mentioning the potential for postfertilization effects of OCs to all patients and providing detailed information about the evidence to those who request it is necessary for adequate informed consent.
A number of physicians and researchers have noted that the oral contraceptive pill (OCP) and other forms of contraception are actually abortifacients (they cause an early abortion). This paper explains using layman's terms.
The Pill has a postfertilization effect causing the unrecognized loss of preborn children. Since the evidence indicated to me that the Pill could have a postfertilization effect, I felt I could no longer, in good conscience, prescribe it.
***I hope that you would not prescribe the pill, or other hormonal contraceptives due to their abortaficiant natures***
I don’t.
But the Roman Catholics keep coming and see others down the hall. They get their pills.
“Catholics use the pill the same way everyone else does... Priests don’t even preach against it any more,” said Jon O’Brien, president of Catholics for Choice.
“There is no evidence that the teachings of the church influence Catholics in their decisions about the kind of contraception they actually use,” said Frances Kissling.
Great sources these.
Kahlenborn C, Modugno F, Potter DM, Severs WB.
Department of Internal Medicine, Altoona Hospital, Altoona, PA, USA. drchris@polycarp.org
Comment in:
OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis of case-control studies that addressed whether prior oral contraceptive (OC) use is associated with premenopausal breast cancer. METHODS: We searched the MEDLINE and PubMed databases and bibliography reviews to identify case-control studies of OCs and premenopausal breast cancer published in or after 1980. Search terms used included breast neoplasms, oral contraceptives, contraceptive agents, and case-control studies. Studies reported in all languages were included. Thirty-four studies were identified that met inclusion criteria. Two reviewers extracted data from original research articles or additional data provided by study authors. We used the DerSimonian-Laird method to compute pooled odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (CIs) and the Mantel-Haenszel test to assess association between OC use and cancer. RESULTS: Use of OCs was associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer in general (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29) and across various patterns of OC use. Among studies that provided data on nulliparous and parous women separately, OC use was associated with breast cancer risk in both parous (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.20-1.40) and nulliparous (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.92-1.67) women. Longer duration of use did not substantially alter risk in nulliparous women (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.85-1.96). Among parous women, the association was stronger when OCs were used before first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) (OR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.28-1.62) than after FFTP (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.26). The association between OC use and breast cancer risk was greatest for parous women who used OCs 4 or more years before FFTP (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.26-1.82). CONCLUSION: Use of OCs is associated with an increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer, especially with use before FFTP in parous women.
***And I’m sure you just giggle when writing out the script.***
I don’t write scripts for OCs.
I do shake my head that so many Roman Catholics will be hypocrites on the matter.
Good for you. I withdraw my earlier comment.
I do shake my head that so many Roman Catholics will be hypocrites on the matter.
Unfortunately, I don't.
The Great Apostasy.
What this here thread needs is a few more cut-and-paste nine-mile-long responses. Holy moly. I was hoping to read a debate, and got a treatise.
SnakeDoc
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.