Washington Post on Dr Hilgers' NaPro Center

[Rach620]

Institute Practices Reproductive Medicine – and Catholicism

“We have built a new women’s health science,” said Thomas W. Hilgers, who runs the institute. “Our system works cooperatively with the natural fertility cycle and enables doctors to treat women and married couples, especially Catholic married couples, in a way that allows them to live out their faith.”

Hilgers and his supporters say the approach, called “natural procreative technology” or “NaProTechnology,” can address a spectrum of women’s health issues, including family planning, premenstrual syndrome, postpartum depression and infertility, without the use of birth control pills, sterilization, abortion or in vitro fertilization (IVF). Instead, Hilgers said, he uses diagnostics, hormones and surgery to identify and treat underlying causes of reproductive ailments that other doctors often miss.

Although the institute is not formally affiliated with the church, Hilgers’s work is endorsed by groups such as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and the Catholic Medical Association.

But many mainstream authorities question Hilgers’s assertions that his techniques are equal or even superior to standard therapies. They worry that women are being misled and given unproven, ineffective treatments, denying them the best available care.

“This is anti-science,” said Anita L. Nelson, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of California at Los Angeles. “I respect people’s personal values. But I am deeply concerned that they are giving treatments and making claims that are not scientifically proven as safe and effective.”

Interesting article. I didn’t realize that there was the strong secular opposition to Dr. Hilgers’ work that the article reports there is. It’s sad and un-helpful that they don’t take his work seriously!

 

[Bruised_Reed]

It’s also notable that there isn’t a specific criticism to his work. Just “concern” about some rather vague issues. If there is something that needs attention or a closer look by someone objective (and I do mean objective not someone with an agenda for life or against it) then so be it. But I don’t think any of the critics really have a clue about what Dr. Hilgers does. Vague. So very vague.