Where not using contraception can kill

[captbackfire]

In the United States, medicine IS a business. Anyone who visits a doctor or takes an aspirin is a consumer.

As a a woman b a person with profound orthopedic issues and c a person with a severe genetic deformity, every medical professional I have come in contact with - save ONE - has attempted to twist my arm into artificial birth control or sterilization.

Assuming you are a man, you may not apprecate how hard sell the birth control industry is.

I have only been Catholic for a few years, and have been all three of the above for decades. Now that I am Catholic, one would think that doctors would respect THAT answer, but, no, they still try to convince you what is “best”. I have to have all of the most updated facts in order to converse with them from an informed point of view. Believe it or not, people usually find it refreshing to see that someone took the time to do the research.

This gal ain’t a blind follower of ANYTHIING.

My teenager (one living child) is very well informed, thank you. He also knows how to research for himself. We are a family who reads and we inform ourselves. It is our duty as Catholics to stay informed.

As an adult covert to Catholicism, I can tell you that I would not BE Catholic if I did not use my own mind. Catholicism is based on Faith and Reason.

God has commanded that I be salt and light to the world. Both influence, and I pray God that I have been some small influence on someone.

Medicine is a business all over the world. I interpreted your post to say you were studying the birth control information as a consumer - this lead me to come to the (albeit, erroneous) conclusion that you were a consumer of these goods.

No, I am a woman closing in on 60 years of age, with one daughter whose conception was planned. I do understand birth control and the pharmaceutical edge on marketing, which then trickles down to the doctors and finally to the patients. All one need do is say, “No, thank you.” I have never had a physician or any medical personnel try to strong-arm me about birth control, and my reproductive years began in 1964, I did use artificial birth control for a number of years, but not because someone talked me into it. I suffered no physical ill effects from the use of these methods. I fail to understand why you must nearly go to medical school to feel you have the authority to say “No, thank you” to any doctor who is pushing product or procedure. Without your consent your doctor is unable to medicate you.

I am a cradle Catholic. I have seen conversion in action, as my mother was a convert and was thoroughly devout in every way. My father was Catholic as well, born into the faith, and quite opinionated about Vatican II and the changes that he witnessed with anger and sorrow. My siblings are all still practicing the faith. I am not. That may explain my bewilderment with some of the teachings of the RCC with regard to personal sacrifice. I find it extreme when there are medical advances which can remove much of the risk for women today. I don’t disrespect it. It just seems a little over the top to me. We can be of longer and more valuable service to humanity if we survive than if we die in childbirth. It all looks archaic and wasteful to me.

capt

 

[1ke]

My siblings are all still practicing the faith. I am not. That may explain my bewilderment with some of the teachings of the RCC with regard to personal sacrifice. I find it extreme when there are medical advances which can remove much of the risk for women today. I don’t disrespect it. It just seems a little over the top to me. We can be of longer and more valuable service to humanity if we survive than if we die in childbirth. It all looks archaic and wasteful to me.

Your bewilderment is misplaced. There is no requirement by the Church for someone who has been advised not to get pregnant to contravene that advice. So, there is no dilemma here. No one is being asked to get pregnant and die in child birth.

 

[kage_ar]

I find it extreme when there are medical advances which can remove much of the risk for women today. I don’t disrespect it. It just seems a little over the top to me. We can be of longer and more valuable service to humanity if we survive than if we die in childbirth. It all looks archaic and wasteful to me.

capt

The Church has never said that we are to discount medical advances.

The conditions that exist (outside of the third world) where a woman will die in childbirth are very rare, virtually non-existant. They are the exception to the rule.

If my life were on the line, the failure rate of ANY form of artificial birth control not would be unacceptable. My husband would not trust my life to a pill that may or may not work, or to a bit of laytex - even if it wern’t immoral!

Natural Family Planning has a failure rate that is equal to or lower than that of Artificial Birth Control.

The Church, in Her loving wisdom, gives married women with health, emotional, spiritual or financial reason to avoid pregnancy two options - Natural Family Planning or abstainence. The Church does not say she should “die in childbirth”.

Have you studied NFP?

 

[captbackfire]

The Church has never said that we are to discount medical advances.

The conditions that exist (outside of the third world) where a woman will die in childbirth are very rare, virtually non-existant. They are the exception to the rule.

If my life were on the line, the failure rate of ANY form of artificial birth control not would be unacceptable. My husband would not trust my life to a pill that may or may not work, or to a bit of laytex - even if it wern’t immoral!

Natural Family Planning has a failure rate that is equal to or lower than that of Artificial Birth Control.

The Church, in Her loving wisdom, gives married women with health, emotional, spiritual or financial reason to avoid pregnancy two options - Natural Family Planning or abstainence. The Church does not say she should “die in childbirth”.

Have you studied NFP?

The percentage of women who will become pregnant within the first year of using the following methods of Natural Family Planning are:

calendar method 25%
ovulation method 25%
symptothermal method 25%
post-ovulation method 25%

The OP mentioned searching for a method that could help her to “avoid death or medical complications that would cause severe impairments as a result . . .” This would mean either death before conception, death before the birth, or in childbirth, or after the birth. Natural family planning appears to have no edge over any other method of birth control, and is reportedly less effective than some, according to the Guttmacher Institute. It seems that the optimal course of action for the OP is to abstain completely for the duration of her marriage. And, according to my understanding of Catholicism, sexual activities not designed with “openness to life” as their goal, are also forbidden.

Sounds very austere to me.

I find it interesting that you say your “husband would not trust [my] life to a pill that may or may not work or to a bit of” latex. I would have thought it would be of more significance to hear and understand what your personal feeling is on the matter, how you came to your conclusions, and how that’s working for you today.

capt

 

[wanner47]

The percentage of women who will become pregnant within the first year of using the following methods of Natural Family Planning are:

calendar method 25%
ovulation method 25%
symptothermal method 25%
post-ovulation method 25%

The OP mentioned searching for a method that could help her to “avoid death or medical complications that would cause severe impairments as a result . . .” This would mean either death before conception, death before the birth, or in childbirth, or after the birth. Natural family planning appears to have no edge over any other method of birth control, and is reportedly less effective than some, according to the Guttmacher Institute. It seems that the optimal course of action for the OP is to abstain completely for the duration of her marriage. And, according to my understanding of Catholicism, sexual activities not designed with “openness to life” as their goal, are also forbidden.

Sounds very austere to me.

I find it interesting that you say your “husband would not trust [my] life to a pill that may or may not work or to a bit of” latex. I would have thought it would be of more significance to hear and understand what your personal feeling is on the matter, how you came to your conclusions, and how that’s working for you today.

capt

Cite your source for these figures, please.

 

[estesbob]

The percentage of women who will become pregnant within the first year of using the following methods of Natural Family Planning are:

calendar method 25%
ovulation method 25%
symptothermal method 25%
post-ovulation method 25%

capt

This study says it is 0.04%

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

 

[cfrancis]

The percentage of women who will become pregnant within the first year of using the following methods of Natural Family Planning are:

calendar method 25%
ovulation method 25%
symptothermal method 25%
post-ovulation method 25%

The OP mentioned searching for a method that could help her to “avoid death or medical complications that would cause severe impairments as a result . . .” This would mean either death before conception, death before the birth, or in childbirth, or after the birth. Natural family planning appears to have no edge over any other method of birth control, and is reportedly less effective than some, according to the Guttmacher Institute. It seems that the optimal course of action for the OP is to abstain completely for the duration of her marriage. And, according to my understanding of Catholicism, sexual activities not designed with “openness to life” as their goal, are also forbidden.

Sounds very austere to me.

I find it interesting that you say your “husband would not trust [my] life to a pill that may or may not work or to a bit of” latex. I would have thought it would be of more significance to hear and understand what your personal feeling is on the matter, how you came to your conclusions, and how that’s working for you today.

capt

As you chose to use the Guttmacher Institute, certainly not an unbiased or subjective source, you should have no problem with the sources from whence the Catholics get their information:
CCLI:

The Los Angeles Study:100% Method Effectiveness
The Fairfield Study: 99% Method Effectiveness
The Roetzer Studies: 99% and 100% Method Effectiveness
The Doring Temperature-Only Study: 99% and 100% Method Effectiveness
The Vincent Study: 99% Method Effectiveness

Science Daily: Natural Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds

The Effectiveness of Natural Family Planning Methods for Birth Spacing: A comprehensive review:

Abstract: Calendar rhythm is in the same range of effectiveness as modern NFP. When calendar rhythm studies are standardized, the projected rhythm pregnancy rates, 15.0 and 18.5 are within the range of modern NFP methods. Unplanned pregnancy rates for the modern NFP methods range between 10 and 20 pregnancies per 100 women per year. Multivariate analysis comparing sympto-thermal and ovulation method unplanned pregnancy rates shows an ST life table rate of 10.2+2.5 and an OM rate of 16.0+3.3. NFP is as effective as barrier methods of birth spacing and can be used very effectively to avoid pregnancy (less than 5 pregnancies per 100 women per year) if the rules are followed.

 

[kage_ar]

Cite your source for these figures, please.

Beat me to it

 

[kage_ar]

I find it interesting that you say your “husband would not trust [my] life to a pill that may or may not work or to a bit of” latex. I would have thought it would be of more significance to hear and understand what your personal feeling is on the matter, how you came to your conclusions, and how that’s working for you today.

capt

Have been using NFP since before I became Catholic. It has been around 15 years now. 100% effective in avoiding.

Now that I am looking at being too old to have any more babies, I wish I’d risked my ability to walk and had more kids.

 

[captbackfire]

This study says it is 0.04%

sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070221065200.htm

My figures come from The Guttmacher Institute, “Get In The Know: 20 Questions About Pregnancy, Contraception and Abortion”, table #1 citing Typical Use. I had already referred to Guttmacher in my post.

The Institute for Reproductive Health quotes these stats for failure rates of typical use of NFP:

Standard days method: 12%
2-Day method: 14%
Lactational amennorhea method: 1.5% (only for 6 months)
Billings ovulation method: 20%
Symptothermal method: 20%

USCCB provides this scant information:

Those who are careful will experience a 1-3% failure rate
Those who are not so careful will experience a 2-15% failure rate.

If death is a possible side effect of sexual activity, abstinence seems the best way to go.

Every source quoted by “cfrancis” for information regarding NFP could also be considered biased. Every source has its bias. This does not mean that every source relies on inaccurate studies or faith-mocking scientists.

capt

 

[cfrancis]

My figures come from The Guttmacher Institute, “Get In The Know: 20 Questions About Pregnancy, Contraception and Abortion”, table #1 citing Typical Use. I had already referred to Guttmacher in my post.

The Institute for Reproductive Health quotes these stats for failure rates of typical use of NFP:

Standard days method: 12%
2-Day method: 14%
Lactational amennorhea method: 1.5% (only for 6 months)
Billings ovulation method: 20%
Symptothermal method: 20%

USCCB provides this scant information:

Those who are careful will experience a 1-3% failure rate
Those who are not so careful will experience a 2-15% failure rate.

If death is a possible side effect of sexual activity, abstinence seems the best way to go.

Every source quoted by “cfrancis” for information regarding NFP could also be considered biased. Every source has its bias. This does not mean that every source relies on inaccurate studies or faith-mocking scientists.

capt

Yes, every source has its bias, which is why I mentioned the bias of the Guttmacher Institute. I should also point out the bias of your post re: the info from the IRH:
S

tandard Days Method: 5%
TwoDay Method: 4%
Lactational Amenorrhea Method: 0.5% - 1.5*
Billings Ovulation Method: 3 - 5%
Symptothermal Method: 2 - 5%

 

[captbackfire]

Yes, every source has its bias, which is why I mentioned the bias of the Guttmacher Institute. I should also point out the bias of your post re: the info from the IRH:
S

If you re-read my post you will notice that I am quoting failure rate for typical use, not for perfect use. This seems appropriate, as the vast majority of men and women who employ NFP are TYPICAL and not PERFECT.

capt

 

[wanner47]

If you re-read my post you will notice that I am quoting failure rate for typical use, not for perfect use. This seems appropriate, as the vast majority of men and women who employ NFP are TYPICAL and not PERFECT.

capt

From here:

The Los Angeles study was developed specifically to test for user effectiveness differences between the STM and the OM.7 Therefore the participants were randomly assigned to either side of the study, and the resulting populations were statistically very well matched.

The study population was essentially a group of spacers for two reasons: 1)** no one with a serious reason to avoid pregnancy was allowed in the study**; participants were warned that there might be an unplanned pregnancy rate of 25%, and they had to be willing to accept that risk to enter the study. In such a group of “spacers” it is hardly surprising that a number of couples decided to “take chances,” i.e. have intercourse at a time indicated as fertile by the particular method. Thus, the STM group experienced a “user effectiveness” rate of 15 pregnancies per 100 woman years (i.e. an 85% effectiveness rate) while the OM group experienced a “user effectiveness” rate of 37 per 100 woman years (i.e. a 63% effectiveness rate). The designers of the study concluded that the difference was statistically very significant in favor of the Sympto-Thermal Method. (Significantly higher user-effectiveness rates were reported in the five nation WHO study of the OM:8 20.6 per 100 woman years according to the standard Pearl formula.)

The Fairfield study showed somewhat similar results.9 In the same study that showed a pure method surprise pregnancy Pearl rate of only 0.75, there was an overall user effectiveness rate of 5.49, still a most respectable 94.5% effectiveness rate. However when the spacers were analyzed as a separate group, the five nation average Pearl rate was 14.83 per 100 woman years — i.e., an 85% effectiveness rate.

The Austrian and German studies show a very narrow spread between method effectiveness, and that probably says that as a whole the couples in those studies were more committed to keeping the rules.

In the Roetzer study, the overall user-effectiveness Pearl rate of 0.8 (12 pregnancies in 17,026 cycles), is still within the 99% level of effectiveness.10

In the Doring study, there were 125 pregnancies in approximately 48,387 cycles, yielding a Pearl rate of 3.1 per 100 woman years, i.e. a 97% effectiveness rate.11

Conclusion 2. Studies conducted in Austria, Canada, Colombia, France, Germany, Mauritius and the United States have demonstrated a user effectiveness ranging from 85% to 99%. The evidence also strongly supports the common sense notion that the lower effectiveness rates will be found in groups which contain a significant proportion of couples who have no serious reason for postponing pregnancy.

For purposes of comparison, it should be noted that the 85% user effectiveness rate of the STM when used by spacers is equal to or higher than the user effectiveness of any other non-permanent method of birth control except the Pill.12

Therefore, “typical use” would describe couples who have no serious reason to avoid pregnancy, unlike the OP.

 

[captbackfire]

The OP does not describe her medical condition, but I accept that she has a serious reason to avoid conception. That is why I have repeatedly suggested that the optimal solution for her would be absolute abstinence for the rest of her reproductive life. If after that her husband is still very much present in the marriage, perhaps then her risk might be minimized to zero and intercourse would not have the same burden attached.

In the Catholic faith, it appears that a woman in the original poster’s position has absolutely no way around the artificial birth control dilemma. If she desires to remain unwaveringly faithful to God and her Church, then she must accept all of the Church’s teachings on ABC. In her case, I suppose a priest will tell her the same thing, and if he does not then he is a charlatan. Anything that she can think of to relieve sexual tension or to express union with her husband will be sinful.

If this is not the case, I’d love to read about it.

capt

 

[wanner47]

The OP does not describe her medical condition, but I accept that she has a serious reason to avoid conception. That is why I have repeatedly suggested that the optimal solution for her would be absolute abstinence for the rest of her reproductive life. If after that her husband is still very much present in the marriage, perhaps then her risk might be minimized to zero and intercourse would not have the same burden attached.

In the Catholic faith, it appears that a woman in the original poster’s position has absolutely no way around the artificial birth control dilemma. If she desires to remain unwaveringly faithful to God and her Church, then she must accept all of the Church’s teachings on ABC. In her case, I suppose a priest will tell her the same thing, and if he does not then he is a charlatan. Anything that she can think of to relieve sexual tension or to express union with her husband will be sinful.
If this is not the case, I’d love to read about it.

capt

Everything is true except the last sentence (bolded by me).

There are other ways to express union with one’s spouse that do not involve sexual intercourse (or other illicit sexual acts).

As for the OP’s husband, if he truly loves her as Christ loves the Church – as it says in Scripture – then he will be more than willing to accept abstinence to keep her safe and/or to work with her to find a method of NFP that both are confident and comfortable using to avoid pregnancy.

 

[captbackfire]

"Anything that she can think of to relieve sexual tension or to express union with her husband will be sinful. If this is not the case, I’d love to read about it."[capt]

Everything is true except the last sentence (bolded by me).

There are other ways to express union with one’s spouse that do not involve sexual intercourse (or other illicit sexual acts).

I repeat: I’d love to read about it - do you have information on sexual activities permitted by the Church that do not run up against the “openness to life” criterion? What are they? I’m not referring to kissing and hugging - I’m interested in the specific permissible sexual activities that do not violate “openness to life” that could be satisfying to both partners.

capt

 

[wanner47]

"Anything that she can think of to relieve sexual tension or to express union with her husband will be sinful. If this is not the case, I’d love to read about it."[capt]

I repeat: I’d love to read about it - do you have information on sexual activities permitted by the Church that do not run up against the “openness to life” criterion? What are they? I’m not referring to kissing and hugging - I’m interested in the specific permissible sexual activities that do not violate “openness to life” that could be satisfying to both partners.

capt

Check out “Holy Sex!” by Greg Popcak and “Good News About Sex and Marriage” by Christopher West.

 

[choose_to_love]

Capt., for your consideration regarding efficacy of NFP: pregnancy rate of 1.8 per 100 women per 13 cycles. P. Frank-Herrman, published in Human Reproduction, Volume 22, no. 5, pp. 1310-1319, May 2007. 900 women in the study, 17,000 + cycles analyzed. As far as I am aware, Ms. Frank-Herrman is not affiliated with a church or organization like CCLI, although I am open to correction on this point. I think she is a professor at a university in Germany.

humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/22/5/1310

 

[captbackfire]

choose to love,

I am no statistician - I married one whom I just laid in the ground on Jan. 5th - and I find statistics extremely dense and droll. I did wade through the link you provided and found that the scientists concluded the following about STM:

The women studied were 19-46 years of age.
Average length of cycles: 22-35 days (which makes the data for this method inapplicable for those who have irregular cycles)
Of the original 900, 322 used STM only, 509 occasionally used a barrier method. That, of course, casts a shadow on the Catholic user of this method. (I found it interesting that nearly 3/4 of the participants were Catholic and yet ~60% were unmarried).

The STM mix group (those who used barrier methods) did so in 53% of their cycles.
70% of the couples participated for at least 13 cycles.

The bottom line is that STM can be effective if used perfectly. If someone’s life is at risk, however, and pregnancy could lead to death, it seems the smart thing to do is simply (!) abstain completely from sexual activity.

If Catholics are “open to life” in all areas of their lives, these various forms of natural family planning should not present a problem. I say, have at it and best wishes for good health and a great job to support what might be a very large family.

capt

 

[bookgirl32]

I have a medical condition where a pregnancy would cause serious medical problems quickly and as the months go both myself and our child would probably die before anything medical could be done.

Because of this (and not wanting to use the Pill because of its destruction of fertilised eggs) I opted for NFP and condoms.

I am unable to rely on NFP alone because of medical problems that do not give a predictable cycle.

Is there somewhere that says that a married couple who find themselves in this situation can use preventative methods to be able to have sex and to avoid death or medical complications that would cause severe impairments to result?

Lou

I’m seriously sorry for your situation and I feel for you. However, NFP is not reliant upon regular cycles for effectiveness. When it is used consistently and as directed by a practitioner, it is more effective than a condom. So the condom is really redundant, and is sinful in the process, as well as more harmful to your marriage than if you were simply abstaining altogether.

Again, I am in a similar situation and it is really hard, but a condom is never okay.