The Right to Choose

  • Thread starter Thread starter ryecroft
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sugabee43 said:
Please define “behavioral cost” for me…
Click to expand...
Sure.

Suppose I am buying a lawnmower and one is $100, and the other is $200. They both seem the same - same size, weight, power, etc. However, with the $100 model I have to mix oil with gas before filling the tank. That is what economists call a transaction cost.

Two health clubs may charge the same, but one has a parking lt right by the door and at the other customers must park a block away. That one block walk each way is a transaction cost.

Maybe two medicines have the same effect. One costs $100 and the other costs $200. But, with the $100 medicine, the patient can’t drive for two hours after taking the medicine. That loss of two hours potential driving is a transaction cost.

So, let me MAKE UP some completely FICTIONAL transaction costs for NFP vs pill for examples. With the pill a woman has cramps for a week every month. With NFP a woman must spend an hour doing calculations everyday. Each would be a transaction cost for use of that product
 
choose_to_love said:
tjm, here is another link to NFP effectiveness:

humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/22/5/1310 variously described as an unintended pregnancy rate of 0.6 per 100 women per 13 cycles. Google Petra Frank-Herrman for others.

The British Medical Journal article has footnotes to numerous studies in many countries.

pubmedcentral.nih.gov/picrender.fcgi?artid=1678728&blobtype=pdf
Click to expand...
The study excludes imperfect use- contraceptives has a “perfect” and “typical” effectiveness. Their number makes sense, but it is not what most people experience
 
WillieWonka said:
Sure.

Suppose I am buying a lawnmower and one is $100, and the other is $200. They both seem the same - same size, weight, power, etc. However, with the $100 model I have to mix oil with gas before filling the tank. That is what economists call a transaction cost.

Two health clubs may charge the same, but one has a parking lt right by the door and at the other customers must park a block away. That one block walk each way is a transaction cost.

Maybe two medicines have the same effect. One costs $100 and the other costs $200. But, with the $100 medicine, the patient can’t drive for two hours after taking the medicine. That loss of two hours potential driving is a transaction cost.

So, let me MAKE UP some completely FICTIONAL transaction costs for NFP vs pill for examples. With the pill a woman has cramps for a week every month. With NFP a woman must spend an hour doing calculations everyday. Each would be a transaction cost for use of that product
Click to expand...
So if I’m understanding the concept correctly, here goes: With the pill, a woman must take time out of her day at least once per year for a doctor’s visit for the prescription, pay for the medicine, remember to take the pill at the same time every day, and have the risks of side effects such as cramps, bloating, weight gain, mood changes, blood clots that could cause stroke or death, increased risk of cancer (some studies say yes, some no), increased risk of deformity of your baby if you become pregnant while taking it, and approximately 10% of the time an embryo is aborted because the drug causes the lining of the uterus to not allow attachment. You are discouraged from smoking and they don’t like you to take it after age 40 or 45. With NFP, you don’t need a doctor or a prescription. All you do is buy a basal thermometer, a chart book, and a book (or you can take a class) explaining how to do it. Every morning when you wake up, you spend 5 minutes taking your temperature and recording it on the chart. You know when you ovulate based upon your temperature and your mucus discharge. You can get your husband involved in charting, and you learn more about your body and how it works. If you’re trying to avoid pregnancy, you can do this 98% of the time if you follow the directions. There are no side effects and no risk of stroke or cancer. The only “negative” is that you could get pregnant 2% of the time. But that can occur with the pill, also; especially if you double-ovulate or don’t take the pills like you’re supposed to. Is this a fair assessment?
 
Sugabee43 said:
So if I’m understanding the concept correctly, here goes: With the pill, a woman must take time out of her day at least once per year for a doctor’s visit for the prescription, pay for the medicine, remember to take the pill at the same time every day, and have the risks of side effects such as cramps, bloating, weight gain, mood changes, blood clots that could cause stroke or death, increased risk of cancer (some studies say yes, some no), increased risk of deformity of your baby if you become pregnant while taking it, and approximately 10% of the time an embryo is aborted because the drug causes the lining of the uterus to not allow attachment. You are discouraged from smoking and they don’t like you to take it after age 40 or 45. With NFP, you don’t need a doctor or a prescription. All you do is buy a basal thermometer, a chart book, and a book (or you can take a class) explaining how to do it. Every morning when you wake up, you spend 5 minutes taking your temperature and recording it on the chart. You know when you ovulate based upon your temperature and your mucus discharge. You can get your husband involved in charting, and you learn more about your body and how it works. If you’re trying to avoid pregnancy, you can do this 98% of the time if you follow the directions. There are no side effects and no risk of stroke or cancer. The only “negative” is that you could get pregnant 2% of the time. But that can occur with the pill, also; especially if you double-ovulate or don’t take the pills like you’re supposed to. Is this a fair assessment?
Click to expand...
Good assessment for women not using anything and trying to decide what method to use.

However, for women using the pill, they have answere to some of the transaction costs you list. For example, they know about their own cramps, bloating, weight gain, and mood changes. If they experience those, they are transaction costs (TC). If they don’ those TC don’t enter the picture.

If they do experience those costs, then they form the core of a demand for soemthing else. If they don’t experience them, they do not generate demand for somehting else.

I guess I would surmise that if women find TC unacceptable on a pill, they would migrate to IUD or Norplant, or something I’m unfamiliart with. I would expect them to settle in on the method that works well for them and for which they pay the least TC.

How many days can they have intercourse with the pill/IUD/Norplant vs NFP? That would also be a TC. (Actually an opportunity cost, but lets call it a TC.)
 
tjm,

Which one or ones? Frank-Herrman’s track 17 000 + cycles over 20 years, I think.

I think the CCL website has results of several different studies.
 
WillieWonka said:
Good assessment for women not using anything and trying to decide what method to use.

However, for women using the pill, they have answere to some of the transaction costs you list. For example, they know about their own cramps, bloating, weight gain, and mood changes. If they experience those, they are transaction costs (TC). If they don’ those TC don’t enter the picture.

If they do experience those costs, then they form the core of a demand for soemthing else. If they don’t experience them, they do not generate demand for somehting else.

I guess I would surmise that if women find TC unacceptable on a pill, they would migrate to IUD or Norplant, or something I’m unfamiliart with. I would expect them to settle in on the method that works well for them and for which they pay the least TC.

How many days can they have intercourse with the pill/IUD/Norplant vs NFP? That would also be a TC. (Actually an opportunity cost, but lets call it a TC.)
Click to expand...
Yes, I would, too. The least TC, IMHO, is NFP - precisely because it can be done over long periods of time, is chemical-free, non-invasive, and inexpensive.

I am unsure about the IUD/Norplant contraceptives, but compared with the pill, yes, you do have more days that you must abstain from intercourse. It depends upon each individual woman’s body and timing as to how many. But you know, that is a benefit because the couple has a “courtship” every month in which they can re-discover each other emotionally and intellectually, without intercourse.

Another benefit to NFP is that, if the couple desires, they can choose the gender of their baby depending upon when the have conjugal relations in terms of ovulation and sperm viability. I know this, because I have a friend who has done this. She had 7 children, and spaced them exactly 2 years apart, and had alternate gendered babies. This is also a woman who had health issues and miscarried 5 times. They still practice NFP and have not had any children in 5 years.
 
Sugabee43 said:
Yes, I would, too. The least TC, IMHO, is NFP - precisely because it can be done over long periods of time, is chemical-free, non-invasive, and inexpensive.

I am unsure about the IUD/Norplant contraceptives, but compared with the pill, yes, you do have more days that you must abstain from intercourse. It depends upon each individual woman’s body and timing as to how many. But you know, that is a benefit because the couple has a “courtship” every month in which they can re-discover each other emotionally and intellectually, without intercourse.

Another benefit to NFP is that, if the couple desires, they can choose the gender of their baby depending upon when the have conjugal relations in terms of ovulation and sperm viability. I know this, because I have a friend who has done this. She had 7 children, and spaced them exactly 2 years apart, and had alternate gendered babies. This is also a woman who had health issues and miscarried 5 times. They still practice NFP and have not had any children in 5 years.
Click to expand...
Courtship of hardship? I imagine that depends on the individuals. I would class it as a TC rather than a benefit since those looking for courtship can always set up any schedule they want.

It all comes down to each individual woman and what she has worked out for herself. Each finds what works best, and it is that method that has to be contrasted to NFP. There is no single answer. It’s not something determiend by logic but by individual experience.

Each woman will ask, “Is there a net gain for me? A net loss?” The way she answers the question determines the demand for NFP and the marketing strategy to meet it. Surveys, focus groups, interviews all are involved.

As an aside, when the pill was first being tested they used third world countries. Those women were so delighted not to be pregnant they withheld information about side effects, fearing if they revealed them they would lose the pills. So, when side effects showed up in first world trials, their extent came as something of a surprise to the researchers.
 
It all depends upon how you look at it, whether abstention is a courtship or “hardship”. That’s all part of the marketing, of course. The same is true of ABC - if you focus on the side effects, costs and risks and not on the convenience, it would be a negative thing, also. The Church could do so much for NFP if she chose to spend the marketing on it, but sadly, she does not; and so it is left up to CCL and laity to inform as much as possible. What makes me angry are the people (Catholics, especially) who dismiss NFP out of hand without knowing anything about it and its benefits.
 
‘Right to Choice!’

A bit off topic but someone in UK has won the right to be killed!

The BBC News 24 channel in UK, ‘Have your say’ are debating the ‘Right to chose’ death as a moral responsible right.

People from all walks of life are arguing for euthenasia.

Responses from responsible Christians urgently required to debate this perilous topic.

Please visit this site and contribute.

Blessings and peace.
 
Sugabee43 said:
It all depends upon how you look at it, whether abstention is a courtship or “hardship”. That’s all part of the marketing, of course. The same is true of ABC - if you focus on the side effects, costs and risks and not on the convenience, it would be a negative thing, also. The Church could do so much for NFP if she chose to spend the marketing on it, but sadly, she does not; and so it is left up to CCL and laity to inform as much as possible. What makes me angry are the people (Catholics, especially) who dismiss NFP out of hand without knowing anything about it and its benefits.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what you or I think about courtship vs hardship. What matters is what consumers think. They may agree or disagree.

But, if effectiveness is the same as other properly used methods, and consumers have figured out the method, delivery, and dosage that works for them, then I’d say black-out days and cost are the two operative variables a woman would consider. I don’t know what pills cost, and I doscount a doctor’s visit because she would see a doctor on an annual basis anyway.

The cost of NFP is black-out days. The cost of pills is dollars. And I would be the first to acknowledge emotion ptobably plays a bigger part in deciding values and costs than dollars and cents.
 
Sugabee43 said:
Because it’s not abortificient, like the Pill and IUD, it doesn’t contain chemicals that can harm the woman or any baby she may conceive, and it does not interfere with the unitive or procreative aspect of conjugal love. Plus, it’s relatively cheap (all you need is a basal thermometer and a charting method). And, you don’t have to be able to read or write to do it!!🙂
Click to expand...
**“abortifAcient”. Sorry. Pet peeve.

Limerick**
 
tjm,

did you read the full Frank-Herrman study? It appears to me that the results they are talking about are from 900 women who were just beginning to use NFP, i.e., they were taught the method as part of the study. They were tracked for a year, and pregnancy rate was under 1%.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top