Re: Scientific American article FYI

[Guest guest]

, re #3 and natural, I think it is good to develop the point

you make because most people are coming from an erroneous idea of

what natural means when discussing a person.

What is natural to a mere animal is not the same thing as what is

natural to a human person because a human person has a mind and will

and therefore a natural human action has a different connotation and

requirement.

Animals act because of instinct - this is their nature.

To act according to the nature of a person requires that one act

because of a consideration of what the correct human response should

be in every situation. So natural family planning is truly a natural

human action because it involves these human deliberations. The

taking of temps, mucus observations, etc. are natural human actions

in regard to fertility.

On the other hand, using contraception is not a truly human action

(and therefore not natural) because it's purpose is to remove from a

couple the need to act rationally regarding their fertility. They

treat themselves as mere animals who respond instinctively to their

desires.

That's what the natural in nfp really means.

This is not understood at all by the proponents of contraception

because they only look at the deliberation to use contraception.

Yes, deliberating about whether contraception is a human action is a

human action. But deciding that contraception is a human action is

wrong. And using contraception is unnatural because in its essence,

it eliminates the rationality needed in every human action.

I have not expressed it too well, but it is a topic that bears more

attention, especially when we talk about what is natural. Today

people are more interested in what is " natural " and it is a great

opportunity to bring them to a deeper understanding of the nature of

a human person and why something is natural, humanly speaking.

a Johannes, RN, BSN

cclanchorage.com

>

> :

>

> Dr. Petra -Herrmann (lead author of the Journal of Human

Reproduction European STM study) found an average of 13 days of

required abstinence with the couples using the European double check

STM.

>

> I found some of Dr. Grimes comments on target and others troubling:

>

> 1. yes -- most (74%) of the couples in the study were listed as

Catholic - but only 36% were married -- most were cohabitating. So

you wonder how much religion was the motivation for using NFP,

> 2. yes -- they did cherry pick the menstrual cycle lengths

(somewhat) --- e.g., they needed to be between 22-35 days -- but 20%

of the cycles could be outside of this length range. And this range

captures about 95% of menstrual cycles.

> 3. yes -- NFP is not natural from the conceptualization that it is

not natural to take your temperature or check your cervical mucus on

a daily basis to monitor fertility nor is it natural to abstain from

intercourse when it is desired --- but the " natural " in NFP is not

based on this conceptualization --- rather on the concept that human

fertility and human sexuality should be integrated and not separated

and that you should not do something to block, suppress, or destroy

one's gift of fertility. Furthermore, as human beings we are often

asked not to respond to and to override natural desires.

>

>

>

> J. Fehring, PhD, RN

> Professor of Nursing

> Marquette University

>

> Scientific American article FYI

> >

> >FYI

> >

> >http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=80D25E2D-E7F2-

99DF-39F66842EB6BE952

> >

> >Article in Scientific American

> >

> >March 26, 2007

> >

> >Modified Rhythm Method Shown to Be as Effective as the Pill—But

Who Has That

> >Kind of Self-Control?

> >

> >Depending on whom you ask, not having babies is easier, or harder,

than ever

> >

> >By Mims

> >

> >For years the birth control methods collectively known as periodic

> >abstinence have been jokingly referred to as " Vatican roulette, " a

nod to

> >the fact that these techniques are both Vatican approved and quite

likely to

> >end in pregnancy. (The World Health Organization reports that on

average,

> >women practicing periodic abstinence for a year have a one in four

chance of

> >becoming pregnant.)

> >

> >A new German study, however, has found that, when practiced

correctly, a

> >method of periodic abstinence known as the sympto-thermal method

(STM) leads

> >to an unintended pregnancy rate of only 0.6 percent annually. This

rate is

> >comparable with that of unintended pregnancies in women who use

birth

> >control pills, the most popular method of contraception in the U.S.

> >

> >For the sympto-thermal method to work, women must keep track of

three

> >things: their core body temperature, the fertile days of their

cycle as

> >measured by a calendar, and their cervical secretions. Using this

> >information, women are able to abstain from sex during their

fertile period,

> >which is the two weeks that surround the day on which they

ovulate.

> >According to lead study author Petra -Herrmann, a fertility

researcher

> >at the University of Heidelberg in Germany, STM is more effective

than the

> >other so-called periodic abstinence methods because it uses more

than one

> >type of information to predict the dates of a woman's fertile

period.

> >

> >As effective as STM can be, experts say it is not right for

everyone.

> >Whereas the method is cheap (read: free) and appeals to women who

want a

> >natural birth control method, it requires a strong commitment on

the part of

> >both partners.

> >

> > " You really can't extrapolate from this paper, " says Grimes,

an

> >obstetrician-gynecologist and vice president of biomedical affairs

at the

> >nonprofit public health organization Family Health

International. " Naive

> >readers see these results, and they think [sTM] is the greatest

thing since

> >laptop computers. The researchers on this paper went back and

cherry-picked

> >this data from an ongoing study from the past 20 years. They chose

the users

> >who were the best users for this method. "

> >

> >Hilda Hutcherson, an ob-gyn and co-director of the New York Center

for

> >Women's Sexual Health at New York-Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia

University

> >Medical Center, found that her patients often stop using periodic

abstinence

> >methods after only a few months. " It's difficult to abstain from

sex for two

> >out of four weeks, " she says. " That means half the month you can't

have sex.

> >That's very difficult for young couples. "

> >

> >Grimes of Family Health International believes that studies of

periodic

> >abstinence are often motivated in part by religious beliefs. " Many

of the

> >authors of these studies have religious orientations, " he

says, " and that

> >clouds the motivations. " Some 74 percent of the women who

participated in

> >-Herrmann's study, which will be published in the journal

Human

> >Reproduction, listed their religion as Roman Catholic, a faith for

which

> >this is the only church sanctioned method of family planning.

> >

> >But Suzanne Parenteau-Carreau, a researcher and an advisor at

Serena, a

> >Canadian volunteer organization devoted to teaching couples how to

practice

> >the method, disagrees. She says that although religion was the

early

> >impetus, couples who practice STM are now seeking " natural'' birth

control.

> >

> > " Now it's more and more from a natural motivation; to be closer to

nature, "

> >she says. " We often say it's people who like camping, bicycling,

outdoor

> >exercise—people who want healthy food and healthy natural family

planning. "

> >

> >But that notion irks Grimes, who insists it is misleading. " I

chafe at the

> >term 'natural family planning,' " he says. " For many couples this

is highly

> >unnatural. 'Natural' is methods that you don't have to think

about, that

> >allow you to be spontaneousÂ…. STM is very unpopular, hard to use,

and has a

> >poor success rate in average couples. Most people aren't willing

to put up

> >with it. "

> >

> >-Herrmann acknowledges that one U.S. study conducted in 1980

in Los

> >Angeles had a 90 percent dropout rate after less than two years.

> >

> >But Grimes concedes that STM has its advantages, chief among them

that " it

> >is cheap, safe and approved by the Roman Catholic ChurchÂ…. It is

a

> >reasonable part of the mix of contraceptive methods, it's just

that for most

> >people it's not an acceptable method. "

> >

> >Whether or not this method will ever gain ground on other

contraceptive

> >methods—the most recent data available indicate that less than 1

percent of

> >women who use birth control in the U.S. use any method of periodic

> >abstinence—all observers agreed that STM can only work for

couples who stick

> >to the plan 100 percent.

> >

> > " It's not for everybody, " -Herrmann notes, " but there is a

group of

> >women who are interested in this method, and I think we should

offer it to

> >them. "

> >

> >The bottom line: all contraceptive methods have their drawbacks,

including

> >the potential of passing along the HIV virus and sexually

transmitted

> >diseases best prevented by condoms. Ultimately, Grimes says, " the

best

> >method for a couple to use is whatever they want. It's

counterproductive to

> >try to steer people to one thing or another. "

> >

> >

> >© 1996-2007 Scientific American, Inc. All rights reserved.

> >Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >