D
Diotima
Guest
Thanks. I hadn’t read the book because I didn’t want to use that particular method, but now I will check it out.
- Status
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
It’s an amazing book even if you never plan on using any method. So informative.
And incidentally, to the poster who made reference to the church’s methods of teaching NFP, I taught myself from books, specifically TCOYF. It’s generally easy enough to teach oneself unless medical issues are involved. Although no one will recommend self taught NFP in case the rules are misunderstood; it’s a personal judgement call. But I don’t really know what more the church can do… Other than perhaps being more up front about it not working in all circumstances and referring people to doctors as soon as something makes no sense.
A
alphawoman
Guest
Remember, these options aren’t alternatives to NFP for the purposes of reproductive control as an explicit goal. They are medical treatment for medical conditions that have the unintended (but morally licit) secondary effect of inhibiting or eliminating fertility without thta end being desired.
It depends on what the medical condition is–could be surgical removal of all/part of reproductive organs, hormonal medications, restorative surgery, etc.
A
alphawoman
Guest
I don’t know if I was the poster you had in mind, but your comments piqued my interest, so I’ll respond.
This isn’t necessarily a question of the Church taking on a teaching role in NFP. Instead, it’s a question of the institution putting its money where its mouth is on the issue of licit fertility control.
As it stands, research institutions (i.e. universities and pharma companies) have to apply for grant funding through private donors or government programs to carry out clinical trials for their products/methods. Given the relative unpopularity of NFP and its perceived inefficacy among medical doctors (as evidenced by lack of coverage in medical school curricula and cited inefficacy in teaching materials referencing Trussell), there is little to no appetite to fund empirically validated trials of NFP methods. Without empirical evidence supporting use of a given “contraceptive” method, medical schools will not incorporate that method into its training curriculum. That translates into a cohort of doctors who can’t provide NFP-based medical care to their patients. If patients, when making the medical decision of how to manage fertility, can’t access that information from a trusted third party (i.e. their doctors), they will disproportionately choose a non-NFP option. Extrapolate that trend, and it explains why (here in Canada), there are only a few dozen couples teaching any NFP method nationally. It’s pitiful.
The Church can break that negative feedback loop by providing funding for research that can then be used to promote and improve the major NFP methods. The existing clinical trials lack credibility for a variety of reasons, not limited to strong subject self-selection biases, lack of diversity of subject population (on the basis of ethnicity, level of education, age, and a variety of health factors), and adverse selection confounders among test subjects. Then there’s also the challenge of accurate coding of method failures among participants, as outcomes are self-reported and may reflect changing goals within test cycles. None of these issues are deal-breakers in well-designed trials that address compliance, reporting, and sample selection.
One of the major methods, Marquette, uses objective hormonal analysis to assess fertility. Why is the Church not supporting scaling that research and commercialization? It would have profound moral and humanitarian benefits if widely adopted, which would be most strongly felt among the world’s poor.
As I’ve said before, this is an opportunity the Church should be seizing.
As to whether women (couples) can/should self-teach or receive instruction and monitoring from a medical professional, I’d say that’s a matter of personal preference. My opinion is that any medical matter should be addressed with an appropriately trained professional. I wouldn’t self-diagnose/self-treat a blood pressure issue, so why a fertility one?
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
Alphawoman it would be great if the church funded some serious research into NFP, although I believe it to be beyond the responsibility of the church. But since the church does fund other forms of scientific research it would be a very useful funding opportunity.
I see where you are coming from regarding self taught NFP. However I don’t think it’s as serious as self diagnosing a blood disorder. It’s a series of simple rules that you learn and apply to your body to determine fertility. Once you grasp them you can quickly tell if you are a textbook case of if something doesn’t make sense. If you are textbook, what more can a practitioner tell you? If something is wrong, for sure you should seek advice from a doctor. There is probably a middle ground of having confusing symptoms that a regular NFP practitioner might be able to help with based on their experiences, of course.
This is just from my experience. In fairness I did consult a doctor / NFP practitioner to make sure I had interpreted my charts correctly but I don’t think I gained much from the experience.
I see where you are coming from regarding self taught NFP. However I don’t think it’s as serious as self diagnosing a blood disorder. It’s a series of simple rules that you learn and apply to your body to determine fertility. Once you grasp them you can quickly tell if you are a textbook case of if something doesn’t make sense. If you are textbook, what more can a practitioner tell you? If something is wrong, for sure you should seek advice from a doctor. There is probably a middle ground of having confusing symptoms that a regular NFP practitioner might be able to help with based on their experiences, of course.
This is just from my experience. In fairness I did consult a doctor / NFP practitioner to make sure I had interpreted my charts correctly but I don’t think I gained much from the experience.
U
UbiCaritas
Guest
While I heartily agree that the Church ought to be funding more and better (i.e., more rigorous) NFP research, I do think that several of the methods are generally self-learnable, unless the user has some other medical problem going on.I don’t know if I was the poster you had in mind, but your comments piqued my interest, so I’ll respond.
This isn’t necessarily a question of the Church taking on a teaching role in NFP. Instead, it’s a question of the institution putting its money where its mouth is on the issue of licit fertility control.
As it stands, research institutions (i.e. universities and pharma companies) have to apply for grant funding through private donors or government programs to carry out clinical trials for their products/methods. Given the relative unpopularity of NFP and its perceived inefficacy among medical doctors (as evidenced by lack of coverage in medical school curricula and cited inefficacy in teaching materials referencing Trussell), there is little to no appetite to fund empirically validated trials of NFP methods. Without empirical evidence supporting use of a given “contraceptive” method, medical schools will not incorporate that method into its training curriculum. That translates into a cohort of doctors who can’t provide NFP-based medical care to their patients. If patients, when making the medical decision of how to manage fertility, can’t access that information from a trusted third party (i.e. their doctors), they will disproportionately choose a non-NFP option. Extrapolate that trend, and it explains why (here in Canada), there are only a few dozen couples teaching any NFP method nationally. It’s pitiful.
The Church can break that negative feedback loop by providing funding for research that can then be used to promote and improve the major NFP methods. The existing clinical trials lack credibility for a variety of reasons, not limited to strong subject self-selection biases, lack of diversity of subject population (on the basis of ethnicity, level of education, age, and a variety of health factors), and adverse selection confounders among test subjects. Then there’s also the challenge of accurate coding of method failures among participants, as outcomes are self-reported and may reflect changing goals within test cycles. None of these issues are deal-breakers in well-designed trials that address compliance, reporting, and sample selection.
One of the major methods, Marquette, uses objective hormonal analysis to assess fertility. Why is the Church not supporting scaling that research and commercialization? It would have profound moral and humanitarian benefits if widely adopted, which would be most strongly felt among the world’s poor.
As I’ve said before, this is an opportunity the Church should be seizing.
As to whether women (couples) can/should self-teach or receive instruction and monitoring from a medical professional, I’d say that’s a matter of personal preference. My opinion is that any medical matter should be addressed with an appropriately trained professional. I wouldn’t self-diagnose/self-treat a blood pressure issue, so why a fertility one?
I think of it as being a bit like eating healthily. Someone without an underlying medical condition will likely do just fine by keeping their calories/carbs to a dull roar, eating more fruits and veggies, drinking more water, that sort of thing. If someone has, say, diabetes/kidney or heart disease/etc, though, they really need someone more skilled to help them figure out a diet, and that’s why regular medical checkups are a good thing. Similarly, seeing an OBGYN for one’s annual visit is a good time to bring up “hey, I have X symptom going on,” despite what some of the more rabid proponents of some methods would say. I am sorry you went through what you did for so long–that must have been really rough!
A
alphawoman
Guest
Thanks for this lovely reply, Ubicaritas. Great analogy.
I would love to see NFP adopted in mainstream medicine, and a larger uptake would mean more accurate medical research to optimize the methods. I do agree that a large component of NFP practice could be self-directed, although I’d ideally like to see that after basic instruction by a medical doctor with annual follow-up during a standard physical. (Much like your example of healthy eating–learn the basics, practice, triage as needed.)
A
alphawoman
Guest
Thanks for a thoughtful reply, ShrodingersCat.
I would caution the distinction between rules that are simple in their instructions versus simple in their enactment, and would argue that NFP’s rules fall into both categories.
I see your point about relative seriousness of taking on your own medical care for routine fertility monitoring vs. management of a blood disorder. Absolutely. When the system is working, you don’t need external intervention. But where the learning curve is steep, or where the cost associated with method failure is high, NFP users need to optimize their practice, and self-care won’t necessarily do that. (I don’t think we disagree on that point.
)
A
alphawoman
Guest
Also, can I just say that I truly appreciate the tone in this thread. We have an interesting discussion going on with reasonable arguments on all sides. Internet, take note! 
T
twoangels
Guest
Have you tried this website? fertilitycare.org/california-medical-consultants/ You can also try contacting the NFP office in your diocese. To go to a Naprodoctor, you would have to learn the Creighton Fertility Care system. They are very specific about the mucus observations because they’re not just looking for ovulation. They’re looking at the mucus patterns as signs of a variety of problems.
There are several NFP support groups on facebook too.
There are several NFP support groups on facebook too.
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
You are probably right, probably my own experiences are influencing my opinion more than they ought to beThanks for a thoughtful reply, ShrodingersCat.
I would caution the distinction between rules that are simple in their instructions versus simple in their enactment, and would argue that NFP’s rules fall into both categories.
I see your point about relative seriousness of taking on your own medical care for routine fertility monitoring vs. management of a blood disorder. Absolutely. When the system is working, you don’t need external intervention. But where the learning curve is steep, or where the cost associated with method failure is high, NFP users need to optimize their practice, and self-care won’t necessarily do that. (I don’t think we disagree on that point.
J
JayLynn
Guest
I haven’t read all the replies so it’s possible someone already suggested this, but I would highly recommend the book “Taking Charge of your Fertility” by Toni Weschler. It is very thorough, and even explains how to check your cervix for fertility signs. That might be helpful if your mucus is unclear.
I also use an app called **OvuView **and have highlighted all the NFP methods to make it extra safe, lol. Before those 2 things I was using billings ovulation method and had 2 surprise pregnancies, but afterwards was able to know with much better accuracy which days were safe and which were not. I hope that helps!
I also use an app called **OvuView **and have highlighted all the NFP methods to make it extra safe, lol. Before those 2 things I was using billings ovulation method and had 2 surprise pregnancies, but afterwards was able to know with much better accuracy which days were safe and which were not. I hope that helps!
A
alphawoman
Guest
I think it’s great that that’s been your experience. Long may it last!You are probably right, probably my own experiences are influencing my opinion more than they ought to be
S
ShrodingersCat
Guest
This is what I do too!
As an aside the beta version of ovuview (you can sign up to be a beta tester) has a way of allowing your husband to view your chart on his phone if he installs the app also. Plus you can record more details about mucus, etc. Its mostly a great upgrade, if a little more complicated to use.
- Status