R
Regina7
Guest
Lucky for us, doctors working under the discipleship of Pope Paul VI have found often better ways than BC to handle these problems. But maybe I’m just being irrelevant
- Status
U
UbiCaritas
Guest
Strictly from a practical perspective, most NaPro docs only take one or two types of insurance. They are quite rare; while you may find several located near some big cities, if you don’t live near a big city you can be out of luck. I live next to a city that’s in the top 10 biggest cities in the US, and there is one NaPro doctor. One.Lucky for us, doctors working under the discipleship of Pope Paul VI have found often better ways than BC to handle these problems. But maybe I’m just being irrelevant
Next, if you don’t have the type of insurance that the NaPro doctors take, you can expect to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars out of pocket for treatment that may not even work. Ditto specialized hormonal blends. Or…you can go to the doctor and get a $4 hormonal birth control prescription that can save your fertility and health, not to mention your sanity.
One of the earlier posters on here wrote a post recently on her experience with a NaPro doctor. Although he isn’t effectively treating her endometriosis, resulting in terrible pain, he refuses to do a hysterectomy on her or prescribe birth control even though, as per Humanae Vitae, such things are entirely acceptable in her situation. Most recently, she had extensive and invasive surgery in which, despite all the invasiveness, he didn’t even remove all the lesions because he wasn’t qualified to do so, something that you’d think a doctor with any ethics at all would mention prior to surgery and arrange help for. Instead, she may well have gone through a highly painful and expensive procedure for nothing.
Or…she could have gotten a $4 prescription for hormonal birth control pills.
NaPro doctors do great work in many areas, but they aren’t perfect. No doctor is. Many of their treatments lack peer review. While their intentions seem to mostly be very good indeed, their singlemindedness on some of this stuff can blind them, and their followers, to practical problems.
U
underacloud
Guest
Yes, I think the singlesmindedness of some is a great concern. Some of them wear it as a badge on honour that they would never prescribe the Pill (or other hormonal treatments that are used for contraception), even though it is morally allowable and may be a good treatment option for certain individuals. Certainly, if they believe the NaPro apporach is always a better medical approach then I can respect that, but many of them confuse the message by discussing the moral evils of the Pill, which is a different issue entirely.
In short, in my opinion, many NaPro doctors are unneccessarily limiting the treatment options available to any given patient.
R
Regina7
Guest
I’ve had “female problems” since I was a teen. And ALL the doctors had the same solution- the pill. Irregular periods? Take the pill. Heavy periods? Take the pill. PCOS? Take the pill. Every single doctor I’ve seen had the same solution. It wasn’t until I called Pope Paul VI Institute until someone finally, FINALLY!, said, “Let’s try to figure out WHY you’re having all these problems, and work from there.”
Every mainstream doctor I’ve seen, and I’ve seen a lot and some of these best, merely try to treat symptoms. When I experienced infertility, the doctors wanted to try clomed, in vitro, etc. Not one even attempted to find the root cause.
The reason I’m such a champion of Napro doctors is because they are trained to look at medical problems from a different perspective. They look for the cause, and from decades of doctor after doctor, that was so incredibly refreshing.
B
bitterhope
Guest
I’ve never had the types of problems that people go to NaPro doctors for thankfully, but several ladies in my family do. Most have gone the route of spending way too much money trying to avoid taking the pill but none of those ladies have gotten relief unfortunately. The two ladies that did the traditional treatments with the pill have had much more pleasant lives AND have been able to have children. One of my sisters in law has spent thousands of dollars at a NaPro doctor without any relief. Her insurance does not cover treatments so it’s all out of pocket, she has to travel over 500 miles for appointments, has had several surgeries, and is constantly having her blood drawn for hormone checks. She is getting close to 40 and has decided that it no longer makes sense to hope for a baby but the drs refuse to give her a hysterectomy either. It’s a very frustrating situation. Another sister in law has gone the traditional route of taking the pill, has four children now and lives relatively pain free. She has had two surgeries but the operations coupled with the pill have kept her stable for several years now. The Church does not say you can not or even should not use hormonal treatments for medical conditions. Clomid is allowed and a blessing for many couples. The pill is as well. So are other hormonal treatments as long as they are used to treat a medical condition and not just for the sake of preventing babies. My regular OB/GYN is not “NaPro” but he is NFP only. He’s the deacon at my church. He also has no problem prescribing the pill or other treatments for medical issues. And he is not opposed to prescribing clomid when needed as long as a lady isn’t having certain medical conditions that would make it unsafe. Yes, doctors should see what the underlying cause of a problem is instead of only treating symptoms but often times even if a cause is discovered all that can truly be done is treat the symptoms anyway. Many times treating the symptoms provides at least some relief. Sometimes when a body is feeling better and the stress level is decreased, healing begins to occur naturally as the body kind of resets itself. I do not mean to bash all NaPro doctors or anything like that, but I find it cultish the way they are always presented as the perfect solution for all feminine problems. Not all patients have such glowing results with them. I also find it sad that often women spend outrageous amounts out of pocket because their insurance won’t cover the appts and treatments but also because the distance they must travel just to go to one. The Church does not say we must only see NaPro doctors or that the treatments they offer are the only acceptable treatments for Catholics. If a NaPro doctor is in your area (not 100+ miles away), accepts your insurance, and has been truly able to help you then by all means keep seeing them. But for the majority of ladies in the US they are too expensive and too far away. And many times the drs can’t really do more than a regular dr can anyway.
L
Listener
Guest
Are you going to tell us what the “root cause” was? Are you entirely cured of your “female problems?” I have never heard of a “root cause” for any of these problems. It seems to me that you either have to endure it, go on hormones forever, or have a hysterectomy.
R
Regina7
Guest
I sought out a napro doctor not because of endo (didn’t even know I had endo then). I had just buried my third baby- two from late miscarriage and one still born. While doctors assured me that this wasn’t “normal,” they also had no clue why. I started seeing a napro doctor, and she’s the one who found the endo and a host of other issues.
When I mentioned “root cause,” I meant that the napro doctor is the first to try and discover WHY I had these issues. She found the endo, said that means I probably had hormones imbalances (she was right) and she tested them, which is good because my hormone problems are atypical, which means standard procedure wouldn’t have worked for me.
I’m surprised to hear that people have insurance issues, though I certainly don’t doubt it with all the insurance garbage. I have typical insurance and haven’t had problems with blood tests getting covered. Perhaps the way the tests are coded determine this? It is a shame though if women aren’t given this option.
R
Regina7
Guest
Are you entirely cured of your “female problems?” y.
I suppose it depends what you mean by “cured.” Most women who have endo always have it but hopefully to less severe degrees if treated correctly. But, to me, being “cured” means being able to have another child. I don’t care about the pain, the awful periods, the hemor raging…none of it. Some would say they are cured to be rid of the horror that is endo, but I’ll say I’m cured when I’m holding a breathing baby.
I suppose it depends what you mean by “cured.” Most women who have endo always have it but hopefully to less severe degrees if treated correctly. But, to me, being “cured” means being able to have another child. I don’t care about the pain, the awful periods, the hemor raging…none of it. Some would say they are cured to be rid of the horror that is endo, but I’ll say I’m cured when I’m holding a breathing baby.
U
UbiCaritas
Guest
**
Regina7:
Are you entirely cured of your “female problems?” y
I suppose it depends what you mean by “cured.” Most women who have endo always have it but hopefully to less severe degrees if treated correctly. But, to me, being “cured” means being able to have another child. I don’t care about the pain, the awful periods, the hemor raging…none of it. Some would say they are cured to be rid of the horror that is endo, but I’ll say I’m cured when I’m holding a breathing baby **
But for most of us, endless pain and hemorrhaging mean a pretty miserable quality of life. Plus, it means the endo isn’t really being treated (if your treatment means that you’re still dealing with “pain, awful periods, and hemorrhaging,” how effective is it?), and that can also lead to cancer.
Finally, I would argue that getting pregnant only to get a few months’ respite from severe pain and bleeding is a questionable reason to get pregnant. I’m sure your reasons for getting pregnant each time were not based solely on that, but a woman shouldn’t have to decide between either a) being in terrible pain and unable to function for 1-2 weeks of every four or b) being pregnant. There are many reasons that a baby might not be a good idea for a woman at a given time. (Leaving aside the question of unmarried women, the poster I cited earlier has serious anxiety issues. Even if she could, I’d suspect that having a baby every ten months wouldn’t do much for her mental health.) There are other alternatives. That one of them can be used for immoral reasons doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used for moral ones, any more than we should insist on being operated on with steak knives rather than scalpels because scalpels can be used in the performance of an abortion.
ETA: fixed quote box
ETA2: still won’t fix the quote, so the bolded above is a quote from Regina7’s post, while the non-bolded is mine.
Are you entirely cured of your “female problems?” y
I suppose it depends what you mean by “cured.” Most women who have endo always have it but hopefully to less severe degrees if treated correctly. But, to me, being “cured” means being able to have another child. I don’t care about the pain, the awful periods, the hemor raging…none of it. Some would say they are cured to be rid of the horror that is endo, but I’ll say I’m cured when I’m holding a breathing baby **
But for most of us, endless pain and hemorrhaging mean a pretty miserable quality of life. Plus, it means the endo isn’t really being treated (if your treatment means that you’re still dealing with “pain, awful periods, and hemorrhaging,” how effective is it?), and that can also lead to cancer.
Finally, I would argue that getting pregnant only to get a few months’ respite from severe pain and bleeding is a questionable reason to get pregnant. I’m sure your reasons for getting pregnant each time were not based solely on that, but a woman shouldn’t have to decide between either a) being in terrible pain and unable to function for 1-2 weeks of every four or b) being pregnant. There are many reasons that a baby might not be a good idea for a woman at a given time. (Leaving aside the question of unmarried women, the poster I cited earlier has serious anxiety issues. Even if she could, I’d suspect that having a baby every ten months wouldn’t do much for her mental health.) There are other alternatives. That one of them can be used for immoral reasons doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used for moral ones, any more than we should insist on being operated on with steak knives rather than scalpels because scalpels can be used in the performance of an abortion.
ETA: fixed quote box
ETA2: still won’t fix the quote, so the bolded above is a quote from Regina7’s post, while the non-bolded is mine.
X
Xantippe
Guest
I suppose it depends what you mean by “cured.” Most women who have endo always have it but hopefully to less severe degrees if treated correctly. But, to me, being “cured” means being able to have another child. I don’t care about the pain, the awful periods, the hemor raging…none of it. Some would say they are cured to be rid of the horror that is endo, but I’ll say I’m cured when I’m holding a breathing baby.
But for most of us, endless pain and hemorrhaging mean a pretty miserable quality of life. Plus, it means the endo isn’t really being treated (if your treatment means that you’re still dealing with “pain, awful periods, and hemorrhaging,” how effective is it?), and that can also lead to cancer.
Finally, I would argue that getting pregnant only to get a few months’ respite from severe pain and bleeding is a questionable reason to get pregnant. I’m sure your reasons for getting pregnant each time were not based solely on that, but a woman shouldn’t have to decide between either a) being in terrible pain and unable to function for 1-2 weeks of every four or b) being pregnant. There are many times and reasons that a baby might not be a good idea for a woman at a given time. (Leaving aside the question of unmarried women, the poster I cited earlier has serious anxiety issues. Even if she could, I’d suspect that having a baby every ten months wouldn’t do much for her mental health.) There are other alternatives. That one of them can be used for immoral reasons doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used for moral ones, any more than we should insist on being operated on with steak knives rather than scalpels because scalpels can be used in the performance of an abortion.
**I’ll put me in bold and add that a woman with that kind of medical situation is not going into pregnancy in tip-top physical shape.
It sounds to me like a recipe for pregnancy anemia and all sorts of bad stuff.**
R
Regina7
Guest
But for most of us, endless pain and hemorrhaging mean a pretty miserable quality of life. Plus, it means the endo isn’t really being treated (if your treatment means that you’re still dealing with “pain, awful periods, and hemorrhaging,” how effective is it?), and that can also lead to cancer.
Finally, I would argue that getting pregnant only to get a few months’ respite from severe pain and bleeding is a questionable reason to get pregnant. I’m sure your reasons for getting pregnant each time were not based solely on that, but a woman shouldn’t have to decide between either a) being in terrible pain and unable to function for 1-2 weeks of every four or b) being pregnant. There are many times and reasons that a baby might not be a good idea for a woman at a given time. (Leaving aside the question of unmarried women, the poster I cited earlier has serious anxiety issues. Even if she could, I’d suspect that having a baby every ten months wouldn’t do much for her mental health.) There are other alternatives. That one of them can be used for immoral reasons doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be used for moral ones, any more than we should insist on being operated on with steak knives rather than scalpels because scalpels can be used in the performance of an abortion.
**I’ll put me in bold and add that a woman with that kind of medical situation is not going into pregnancy in tip-top physical shape.
It sounds to me like a recipe for pregnancy anemia and all sorts of bad stuff.**
You misunderstood me. I want to get pregnant because I want a child, not to get respite from the painful periods. I’m actually a bit insulted that you’d suggest that as I never even hinted that I wanted a pregnancy to get a break from pain. What I was trying to say is that I will consider myself cured if/when I can have a successful pregnancy. Other people have different meanings of what they mean by cured.
Xanthippe, the reason I’m seeing this doctor is so that I CAN be in tip top shape for pregnancy.
It seems that some here may be justifying BC use by lashing out at me and finding all the faults with Napro. If you are using BC, that’s between you, your doctor and your priest. I’m not going to argue with you or tell you to change treatment plans. I was simply trying to let OP know that there are other methods of treatment besides BC and that she should look into them to help her decide how she’d like to proceed.
U
UbiCaritas
Guest
(I’ve tried to fix the tags for quotes, so apologies if that didn’t work.)
But how are you in tip-top shape for pregnancy if you are hemorrhaging every month?
And I think I made it quite clear that I didn’t think you’d decide to get pregnant only to get a break from that, but that that was the option you are presenting someone: spend thousands of dollars to not get relief unless you’re pregnant, or spend $4 to get relief and increase the chances you could. That’s not “justifying the use of birth control”; that’s justifying the use of a treatment that can be used as birth control but which, in this case, would be used to prevent the pain and hemorrhaging that, by your own admission, the treatment you advocate doesn’t.
R
Regina7
Guest
These quotes aren’t working, so I’ll start new.
I haven’t been hemorraging every month. I had surgery to remove endo almost a year ago and have been trying to normalize hormones to prevent it from coming back. My periods have gotten “normal” in the past year. And, like I said, my insurance has covered everything so it’s not like I’m spending a fortune. I pay $10 more a month for hormones compared to BC pills. So I’m not paying thousands more. Obviously everyone has different insurance but if mine covers it, then others do as well. At least for everyone at dh’s company, which is one of the largest nationwide.
I haven’t been hemorraging every month. I had surgery to remove endo almost a year ago and have been trying to normalize hormones to prevent it from coming back. My periods have gotten “normal” in the past year. And, like I said, my insurance has covered everything so it’s not like I’m spending a fortune. I pay $10 more a month for hormones compared to BC pills. So I’m not paying thousands more. Obviously everyone has different insurance but if mine covers it, then others do as well. At least for everyone at dh’s company, which is one of the largest nationwide.
U
UbiCaritas
Guest
Fair enough. However, the local NaPro doc here takes, IIRC, only United and Aetna. Dh’s company is–don’t want to be too specific, and all that–one of the top 5 biggest companies in the world. The insurance plan we have through them is neither, and also is a 100% in-network plan. Aside from a very small copay, any treatment we get from an in-network doctor is covered. Any treatment we get from a not-in-network doctor isn’t. Ergo, my total cost (aside, natch, for what we pay in insurance rates) for my pregnancy and birth with DD was $30–the specialist copay for the first visit to determine I was pregnant. If I had gone with an out-of-network doctor and hospital? Egads. Considering I had a C-section, we’re talking probably $50,000 minimum. Likewise, any visits or surgeries performed by that doctor would be 100% out of pocket for me. I’m far from the only person for whom this is true.
I should also add that an OB needn’t be associated with NaPro to be pro-life and supportive of NFP; mine certainly is both.
(Also, for the record, I neither have endo nor use hormonal birth control; we’re NFPers here. However, I do get very, very angry when friends are told over and over again to spend that kind of money and go through debilitating surgeries that often end up not doing a thing to improve their situation, and that to not do so is to make them bad Catholics in some way, even though hormonal birth control is in the Church’s own teaching a perfectly acceptable treatment for certain conditions.)
R
Regina7
Guest
I suppose the true anger should be directed towards insurance companies that basically dictate what treatment we get. It’s sad that a woman isn’t able to try napro because of insurance.
My napro doc is part of a regular OB practice. She’s the only one in the group who does napro or even nfp. The good thing is that the group takes a wide variety of insurance.
U
underacloud
Guest
Regina7, I suspect your posts have come under scrutiny because you have used the often repeated but highly dubious line about the Pill only treating the symptoms.
One of the first things a doctor will ask someone before discussing treatment of endo is whether the patient intends to have any more children, and when. Treatment plans will differ greatly whether a patient intends to preserve their fertility or accept inhibited fertility as an unintended side effect of treatment. Neither of these options is considered immoral in Catholic moral theology.
If endo is caused by hormonal imbalance, as you’ve said, then rebalancing the hormones is a very sensible treatment option. Some doctros choose the Pill, the Shot, The Rod, etc as a convenient way to do this. Some other doctors - including Napro - choose other forms of hormones. But they’re doing much the same thing.
One of the first things a doctor will ask someone before discussing treatment of endo is whether the patient intends to have any more children, and when. Treatment plans will differ greatly whether a patient intends to preserve their fertility or accept inhibited fertility as an unintended side effect of treatment. Neither of these options is considered immoral in Catholic moral theology.
R
Regina7
Guest
BC doesn’t work quite the same way though:
Combination hormonal treatment is very effective for treating endometriosis. Hormonal treatment doesn’t “cure” endometriosis, but it may help with controlling pain by stopping your periods and preventing endometriosis from getting worse. Hormonal treatment, also known as “oral contraceptives” or “birth control pills” are used for many reasons other than trying to prevent pregnancy. From youngwomenshealth.org
BC stops ovulation. Though I’m not a doctor, it seems they overload the woman with hormones so that she doesn’t ovulate and to thicken uterus in case she does. If non-synthetic hormones can be tailored to still keep ovulation but be enough to help with endo, I personally would prefer it. I think what irritates me about BC pills (and many other drugs) is that they are one-size fits all for the most part. Doctors don’t test and say since women A already has normal estrogen levels, let’s do this, but women B, who is severely deficient in estrogen, should take this medicine instead. Not all women are the same. Not all endo women are either. I have severe deficiencies in both estrogen and progesterone, whereas many endo women are estrogen dominant. So my needs are different than a woman with normal or elevated estrogen, yet I’d be given the same pill as everyone else. So I suppose my problem is less with BC and more with how “regular” doctors approach problems. In over 25 years, my napro doctor is the first to actually check my hormones. The response of every single other doctor: “Just go on the pill.”
U
underacloud
Guest
It does work in much the same way - using hormones to treat the condition - it is mostly the degree that differs, and perhaps the specific hormones used.
And what you describe is certainly not the experience of many women, nor the one-size fits all approach secular doctors are accused of across the board. That seems to be a bit of a marketing mantra of the NaPro crowd. eg my wife has treated her endo and pcos with progesterone based hormonal treatments, not combined hormonal treatments.
As I said, the use of hormones, the degree of hormonal activity, and whether or not the cycle is suppressed will depend on the patients intentions. In general, a lower dose hormone treatement that leaves the cycle in tack will be less effective in suppressing endo. A woman who wants to preserve fertility may choose this option, and cope with a bit of pain. A woman who is not interested in having more children and just wants to pain to be treated may choose a higher dose treatment and generally supressing the cycle.
Anyway, if the criticism of the Pill is that it is a one size fits all approach, that still doesn’t explain why it can’t be one of the options among many treatment plans that could be explored. The fact thet many NaPro doctors would refuse to ever use the Pill suggest something more of a philosophical issue. They seem intent on preserving fertility at any cost, which is not required of Catholic women suffering endo.
And what you describe is certainly not the experience of many women, nor the one-size fits all approach secular doctors are accused of across the board. That seems to be a bit of a marketing mantra of the NaPro crowd. eg my wife has treated her endo and pcos with progesterone based hormonal treatments, not combined hormonal treatments.
As I said, the use of hormones, the degree of hormonal activity, and whether or not the cycle is suppressed will depend on the patients intentions. In general, a lower dose hormone treatement that leaves the cycle in tack will be less effective in suppressing endo. A woman who wants to preserve fertility may choose this option, and cope with a bit of pain. A woman who is not interested in having more children and just wants to pain to be treated may choose a higher dose treatment and generally supressing the cycle.
Anyway, if the criticism of the Pill is that it is a one size fits all approach, that still doesn’t explain why it can’t be one of the options among many treatment plans that could be explored. The fact thet many NaPro doctors would refuse to ever use the Pill suggest something more of a philosophical issue. They seem intent on preserving fertility at any cost, which is not required of Catholic women suffering endo.
R
Regina7
Guest
So secular doctors can tailor the pill to each woman? S/he can determine the exact dose needed, based on her particular hormone levels and intentions, and have the pharmacy make it? For $4? I had no idea that was possible.
I didn’t say that the pill couldn’t be an option. I simply mentioned napro as an option and got attacked for things that I never even said.
X
Xantippe
Guest
Actually, don’t they thin the uterine lining (thin uterine lining, but thicken cervical fluid)? That makes preserving ovulation while taking low dose hormones morally somewhat problematic. A thin uterine lining is one that is less capable of preserving early human life. I understand that it could be equally licit as taking full dose hormones, but I personally would have qualms about it. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the thin lining is a feature, not a bug for endometriosis therapy, right?
- Status