I followed this thread to present, so I borrowed from a couple of posts. --- "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, Natural Family Planning is nearly as effective > as the pill, and > you'll have about a 75% chance of being able to have > sex on your wedding > night.... so there is an alterantive. :)
Does it always have to be "science versus religion?" :( One of the co-inventors of "the Pill," John Rock, was a Catholic obstetrician who thought that because a woman was infertile when her progestin level was high, that using the hormone was in fact a "natural" way to provide birth control. This 'New Yorker' article goes into detail about Dr. Rock and 'his' team that devised an oral contraceptive; it goes much further in discussing the way that modern women have many more cycles than their "primitive" counterparts (an interesting study about the Dogon tribe in Africa), possibly resulting in increased breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer. It also compares Western women with Japanese women wrt breast cancer rates. (long article) http://www.gladwell.com/2000/2000_03_10_a_rock.htm Doug already pointed out the inconsistancy of any form of family planning if sex is only to be for procreation: "I'm also wondering, if it is true in the above article that "...the conjugul act is destined primarily by nature for the begetting of children, those who in exercising it deliberately frustrate its natural power and purpose sin against nature and commit a deed which is shamefull and intrinsically vicious" how is some "natural" method any better than an artificial one being as it is every bit as deliberate?" Dan said, "So, the numbers you quote appear to me to be for ideal cases and perfect use only." - see the studies I cite below, particularly the last: "However, it [ovulation method] is extremely unforgiving of imperfect use, with a first-year probability of failure of 84.2% if the method is not used correctly." For poor/developing nations, where the ability to use a more complex method (ovulation or symptothermal) is more limited, a simple method that requires a woman to have regular cycle of 26-32 days and abstain from sex for 11 days of her cycle is available (Of course, that means her husband must also abstain from sex for 11 of ~30 days - I'm not sure how realistic that is.): http://www.newsflash.org/2002/06/si/si001263.htm http://www.irh.org/pdf/nfpbook.pdf The second site describes several NFP methods, and has graphs/charts/diagrams etc. Failure rates were not given. I did a Medline search for "natural family planning" AND (success OR failure) and found 19 articles, 10 from 1990 or later. >From a 1999 European study reporting on 1328 women aged between 19 and 45 years and willing to participate for at least 12 cycles, symptothermal method: "For the double-check methods, there was an unintended pregnancy rate of 2.61% at the end of the first 12 cycles of use (standard error or SE 0.55%), a drop-out rate for difficulties or dissatisfaction of 3.9% (SE 0.69%) and a lost-to-follow-up rate of 3.1% (SE 0.62%). In the single-check group, there was a total of 13 unintended pregnancies at the end of the first 12 cycles of study participation, giving an unintended pregnancy rate of 8.5% (SE 2.52%), a drop-out rate for difficulties or dissatisfaction of 3.0% (SE 1.76%) and a lost-to-follow-up rate of 23.4% (SE 4.35%). No pregnancy was observed in women over 40 years of age. Most pregnancies occurred because of deliberate unprotected intercourse in the fertile phase ('user failure')." >From a 2000 Italian review: "Several studies in the past decade have shown the efficacy of these methods and that the main cause of failure was either a conscious departure from the rules of the method or erroneous application of the method. Another problem affecting natural family planning that has been highlighted is the relatively high discontinuation rate. These features are probably due to low compliance in applying the natural family planning rules, which may be too demanding for a number of couples." >From a 1997 Italian study: "The main cause of lack of success seems to be the misapplication of NFP rules, whereas the errors due to the method itself are few. Furthermore, it seems that the symptothermal method might give better results than the ovulation method, even though no comparative study has been carried out... Finally, it seems that NFP is best suited for 'spacers' of pregnancies, rather than for 'limiters'. Indeed, the former are more likely to show good compliance, since the sexual abstinence periods are limited and an unwanted pregnancy is not regarded as a completely negative event." >From a 1996 Indian study: "The Billings Ovulation Method based on single index cervical mucus parameter is one such option. The present multicentre trial conducted in India has shown an encouraging use-effectiveness of the method, indicating method failure as low as 1.5 +/- 0.3 and use-failure 15.9 +/- 0.8 per 100 users at 21 months. The method continuation rates have also been as high as 88.3/100 users at 6 months and 52.0/100 users at 21 months." In other words, there is *at least* a 48% drop-out among users at under 2 years, but if one is able to continue, pregnancy can be as low as 1.5/100 women. >From a 1991 study: "Reanalysis of data on the ovulation method of natural family planning collected by the World Health Organization yields the following conclusions. The method is effective during perfect (correct and consistent) use, with a first-year probability of failure of 3.4%. However, it is extremely unforgiving of imperfect use, with a first-year probability of failure of 84.2% if the method is not used correctly. During the initial year, 87% of the cycles were characterized by perfect use. Nevertheless, the 13% of cycles characterized by imperfect use had a tremendous impact on the overall failure rate. During the first year of typical use 22.5% of the women in the clinical trial became accidentally pregnant." And now, to get personal: Many young women have extremely variable cycles; in my twenties, mine varied irregularly from 24-72 days. No necklace of beads could deal with that. And, not to be indelicate, using any rhythm/ovulation method will cut out 2 of the 4 or so days during her cycle when the majority of women are...especially receptive. ;D (While those other 'eager' days are considered 'unclean' in many cultures...) I have no problem with couples who choose to use NFP, but to say that it is as effective as the Pill without mentioning the absolute requirement for periodic abstinence, lack of spontaniety, and virtual elimination of those days when most women are, well, extremely interested in sex is misleading. To deny the use of hormonal and barrier contraception for women, subjecting them to a lifetime of 8 or more pregnancies in a world already overpopulated, is criminal. Debbi __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? U2 on LAUNCH - Exclusive greatest hits videos http://launch.yahoo.com/u2 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
