Guest guest Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 Thanks, , for your words below. Dr. Ed Keefe said that there was only one method: periodic abstinence. In addition we speak of God's plan for marriage and family but we completely ignore his plan for mother and baby which requires no abstinence for the natural spacing of births. One Cardinal (President of the Pontifical Council for the Family and now deceased) and a few priests promote ecological breastfeeding but this option has been ignored by too many in the Church. Sheila K. KippleyNFP Internationalwww.NFPandmore.orgThe Seven Standards of Ecological BreastfeedingBreastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood FACTS group Dear and Margurete, Thank you for sending me the study on Symptothermal with NFP only and NFP-mix (barrier use during the fertile time). It was very interesting. Although there was no difference in efficacy rates in this study between the 2 groups, i wonder if the users were followed over a longer period of time, that a difference may have eventually been evident. I also wonder if the ability of the women to assess and determine the start and end of their fertile period is altered in any way (in methods which are based solely on cervical mucus determinations). In other words, if barrier methods are used (lubricated condoms, foams, etc), does this change the woman's perception of "sensation" or visual observation of cervical mucus, since she may indeed have residual secretions from these methods. Sometimes, it is difficult enough for women to determine what kind of mucus they have, let alone introducing foreign substances into the equation. More importantly, in my mind, and of course, this is just my opinion, but wouldn't it be better if the FACTS group advocates use of NFP only (whether Creighton or BOMA or CCL or Marquette), and concentrates on the bulk of the studies in which couples abstain during the fertile period. Wouldn't it be better, if as purists, we advocate the "gold standard" of NFP with abstinence during the fertile period, and let OTHERS who wish to do so, advocate use of barriers? We teach the method in its purest form with all of its benefits. We make no excuse for a fertile period which requires abstinence. We cite the advantages to the couples in promoting virtues of patience, temperance, and chastity. While recognizing that we will be teaching and advocating NFP to groups who may not have our religious background, they can not object if WE promote NFP with abstinence only. As Catholics, we are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world. With the call to evangelize ever present on our hearts, we also can not knowingly cooperate with evil. A man and woman's authentic freedom exists when the couple expresses and embraces the act of self-giving reciprocal love. By practicing their rights according to the natural moral law, they are thus cooperating with the Divine Plan of God, the Creator. Married couples must be open to the transmission of life, without interfering with the Natural Moral Law, which is that law of human conduct that arises from human nature as ordered to its ultimate end. Divine Positive Law, are those laws of human conduct that are found in the revealed word of the Old and New Testaments. Thus according to "the order of nature" where God is the author, takes priority over anything derived from reason. Consequently, a violation consists of any interference with the order designed by God or acting against what we know to be true expressions of what most fulfills human potential. The two ends of marriage - love and life - always go hand in hand. Contraception divorces the unitive and procreative end in the conjugal love act. "Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. The difference, both anthropological, and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle...involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality...Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny (CCC 2370-71). You do not have to be Catholic, to recognize the truth in the above 2 paragraphs. As moral law, they are evident to all minds, and the argument can be made along a humanist philosophy. By advocating NFP with barriers, we are (1) potentially cooperating with evil, (2) espousing a contrary worldview to our view of Truth as revealed in Scripture and Tradition and Magisterial Documents, (3) potentially confusing those learning about NFP for the first time, who may quickly assume that contraceptives during a fertile period of a NFP method is an approved Catholic practice, (4) depriving spouses of the benefits accrued by abstaining during the fertile period, and (5) depriving the marriage of graces conveyed by God from adhering to His plan for marriage. I would only like to be involved in FACTS if we promote NFP without the use of barriers for all of these reasons stated above. I hope I have not offended anyone. If someone learns about NFP and is so motivated to use NFP outside of marriage or with the use of barriers, then that is their decision, I am not morally culpable in confusing them or misleading them. I feel it is better scientifically to advocate the pure method of NFP (without barriers during the fertile period), and let others study the use of barriers or mixing of methods. I pray that we can all come together soon as a national organization committed to some version of the above. Blessings during this Holy Week, Dr. Peck, MD, AAFP, Marquette NFP Instructor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2012 Report Share Posted March 31, 2012 RIght Sheila. And also I think it is a too-common mistake to think of the detached, objective, "just the facts" scientist who, given any a priori attachment to ethical values, is thereby unduly influenced by those values, as if science has to assume a neutral playing field even when it comes to ethical values, excluding any philosophical "givens" (rational nihilism and empiricism applied to science). I think scientists maybe above all others, ought to have as part of their goal the attainment of a right understanding, a correct anthropology, when it comes to applying technology to deeply important human endeavors. Applied to this subject, this mistake would mean that Catholic providers and scientists in particular, would have to turn the page backwards, and operate under the pretense that we don't have the privileged understanding that we do ( in effect the "interpretive hermeneutic" enabling a privileged "in-sight"), one which really ought to be our pearl of great price scientifically. Sincerely yours, Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...) Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com) (office) (cell) (FAX) pedullad@... Re: FACTS group Thanks, , for your words below. Dr. Ed Keefe said that there was only one method: periodic abstinence. In addition we speak of God's plan for marriage and family but we completely ignore his plan for mother and baby which requires no abstinence for the natural spacing of births. One Cardinal (President of the Pontifical Council for the Family and now deceased) and a few priests promote ecological breastfeeding but this option has been ignored by too many in the Church. Sheila K. Kippley NFP International www.NFPandmore.org The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood FACTS group Dear and Margurete, Thank you for sending me the study on Symptothermal with NFP only and NFP-mix (barrier use during the fertile time). It was very interesting. Although there was no difference in efficacy rates in this study between the 2 groups, i wonder if the users were followed over a longer period of time, that a difference may have eventually been evident. I also wonder if the ability of the women to assess and determine the start and end of their fertile period is altered in any way (in methods which are based solely on cervical mucus determinations). In other words, if barrier methods are used (lubricated condoms, foams, etc), does this change the woman's perception of "sensation" or visual observation of cervical mucus, since she may indeed have residual secretions from these methods. Sometimes, it is difficult enough for women to determine what kind of mucus they have, let alone introducing foreign substances into the equation. More importantly, in my mind, and of course, this is just my opinion, but wouldn't it be better if the FACTS group advocates use of NFP only (whether Creighton or BOMA or CCL or Marquette), and concentrates on the bulk of the studies in which couples abstain during the fertile period. Wouldn't it be better, if as purists, we advocate the "gold standard" of NFP with abstinence during the fertile period, and let OTHERS who wish to do so, advocate use of barriers? We teach the method in its purest form with all of its benefits. We make no excuse for a fertile period which requires abstinence. We cite the advantages to the couples in promoting virtues of patience, temperance, and chastity. While recognizing that we will be teaching and advocating NFP to groups who may not have our religious background, they can not object if WE promote NFP with abstinence only. As Catholics, we are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world. With the call to evangelize ever present on our hearts, we also can not knowingly cooperate with evil. A man and woman's authentic freedom exists when the couple expresses and embraces the act of self-giving reciprocal love. By practicing their rights according to the natural moral law, they are thus cooperating with the Divine Plan of God, the Creator. Married couples must be open to the transmission of life, without interfering with the Natural Moral Law, which is that law of human conduct that arises from human nature as ordered to its ultimate end. Divine Positive Law, are those laws of human conduct that are found in the revealed word of the Old and New Testaments. Thus according to "the order of nature" where God is the author, takes priority over anything derived from reason. Consequently, a violation consists of any interference with the order designed by God or acting against what we know to be true expressions of what most fulfills human potential. The two ends of marriage - love and life - always go hand in hand. Contraception divorces the unitive and procreative end in the conjugal love act. "Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. The difference, both anthropological, and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle...involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality...Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny (CCC 2370-71). You do not have to be Catholic, to recognize the truth in the above 2 paragraphs. As moral law, they are evident to all minds, and the argument can be made along a humanist philosophy. By advocating NFP with barriers, we are (1) potentially cooperating with evil, (2) espousing a contrary worldview to our view of Truth as revealed in Scripture and Tradition and Magisterial Documents, (3) potentially confusing those learning about NFP for the first time, who may quickly assume that contraceptives during a fertile period of a NFP method is an approved Catholic practice, (4) depriving spouses of the benefits accrued by abstaining during the fertile period, and (5) depriving the marriage of graces conveyed by God from adhering to His plan for marriage. I would only like to be involved in FACTS if we promote NFP without the use of barriers for all of these reasons stated above. I hope I have not offended anyone. If someone learns about NFP and is so motivated to use NFP outside of marriage or with the use of barriers, then that is their decision, I am not morally culpable in confusing them or misleading them. I feel it is better scientifically to advocate the pure method of NFP (without barriers during the fertile period), and let others study the use of barriers or mixing of methods. I pray that we can all come together soon as a national organization committed to some version of the above. Blessings during this Holy Week, Dr. Peck, MD, AAFP, Marquette NFP Instructor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 Dear , Thank you for your thoughtful response. I had hoped to reply sooner, but since my youngest child is just a few weeks old, I have not had much time to spend on the computer. Nonetheless you do make some very good points that I wanted to address. Before I begin though, let me be very clear that FACTS does not advocate for the use of barrier methods with NFP. Our goal is to educate health professionals about the basics of fertility and NFP so they can share up to date, accurate information with patients. In the current state of medical education (and primary care residency programs), natural methods are almost a total unknown. The information that is given is often inaccurate and/or out of date, even in Catholic institutions. To get this material included in the curriculum, we are working to put together factual presentations and papers that highlight the effectiveness of natural and fertility awareness based methods. For example, one of our sub-groups is doing a thorough review of the literature to examine the effectiveness of NFP methods. Most of the studies that have been done involve couples that abstain during the fertile period, but unfortunately, the research is scarce, so we have included the 1or 2 studies that may also involve the use of barriers in control groups. Of course, as you noted, a woman's ability to determine her fertile window based on mucus observations may very well be affected by the use of barrier methods. And many who promote the use of NFP agree that when a couple uses barrier methods during the fertile window they are in effect abandoning the use of the NFP method for family planning in favor of an artificial method. For this reason, this FACTS sub-group is looking at pregnancy rates in those groups that only use NFP. I also appreciate you sharing those sections from the Catechism that speak to the purpose of the marital act. Yes, motivations are important, and those who are in clinical settings do dialogue with patients and follow their consciences. Certainly some members of the FACTS group share your philosophical beliefs, , but learning how the "other side" thinks through dialogue has also been of value. Some of these people are open-minded enough to incorporate change in how they practice--i.e. one day in the not so distant future, they may actually offer one of the natural methods to patients when they may not have been willing to do so in the past. Again, we do welcome you and others to join our work with FACTS. http://www.fmec.net/projects/project.php?project_id=6395 For those of you that live near the DC area or are willing to travel there, we also invite you to attend our spring FACTS meeting on Friday, May 25th. Just e-mail me and I will send you the details. Realistically, we have a long way to go to get information about NFP/FAM into the mainstream medical world, but by engaging in respectful dialogue with others and presenting the evidence, we have made some progress and will strive to do even more. Respectfully,Marguerite Duane, MDFACTS Co-Founder To: "nfpprofessionals " <nfpprofessionals > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 9:25 AM Subject: FACTS group Dear and Margurete, Thank you for sending me the study on Symptothermal with NFP only and NFP-mix (barrier use during the fertile time). It was very interesting. Although there was no difference in efficacy rates in this study between the 2 groups, i wonder if the users were followed over a longer period of time, that a difference may have eventually been evident. I also wonder if the ability of the women to assess and determine the start and end of their fertile period is altered in any way (in methods which are based solely on cervical mucus determinations). In other words, if barrier methods are used (lubricated condoms, foams, etc), does this change the woman's perception of "sensation" or visual observation of cervical mucus, since she may indeed have residual secretions from these methods. Sometimes, it is difficult enough for women to determine what kind of mucus they have, let alone introducing foreign substances into the equation. More importantly, in my mind, and of course, this is just my opinion, but wouldn't it be better if the FACTS group advocates use of NFP only (whether Creighton or BOMA or CCL or Marquette), and concentrates on the bulk of the studies in which couples abstain during the fertile period. Wouldn't it be better, if as purists, we advocate the "gold standard" of NFP with abstinence during the fertile period, and let OTHERS who wish to do so, advocate use of barriers? We teach the method in its purest form with all of its benefits. We make no excuse for a fertile period which requires abstinence. We cite the advantages to the couples in promoting virtues of patience, temperance, and chastity. While recognizing that we will be teaching and advocating NFP to groups who may not have our religious background, they can not object if WE promote NFP with abstinence only. As Catholics, we are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world. With the call to evangelize ever present on our hearts, we also can not knowingly cooperate with evil. A man and woman's authentic freedom exists when the couple expresses and embraces the act of self-giving reciprocal love. By practicing their rights according to the natural moral law, they are thus cooperating with the Divine Plan of God, the Creator. Married couples must be open to the transmission of life, without interfering with the Natural Moral Law, which is that law of human conduct that arises from human nature as ordered to its ultimate end. Divine Positive Law, are those laws of human conduct that are found in the revealed word of the Old and New Testaments. Thus according to "the order of nature" where God is the author, takes priority over anything derived from reason. Consequently, a violation consists of any interference with the order designed by God or acting against what we know to be true expressions of what most fulfills human potential. The two ends of marriage - love and life - always go hand in hand. Contraception divorces the unitive and procreative end in the conjugal love act. "Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. The difference, both anthropological, and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle...involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality...Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny (CCC 2370-71). You do not have to be Catholic, to recognize the truth in the above 2 paragraphs. As moral law, they are evident to all minds, and the argument can be made along a humanist philosophy. By advocating NFP with barriers, we are (1) potentially cooperating with evil, (2) espousing a contrary worldview to our view of Truth as revealed in Scripture and Tradition and Magisterial Documents, (3) potentially confusing those learning about NFP for the first time, who may quickly assume that contraceptives during a fertile period of a NFP method is an approved Catholic practice, (4) depriving spouses of the benefits accrued by abstaining during the fertile period, and (5) depriving the marriage of graces conveyed by God from adhering to His plan for marriage. I would only like to be involved in FACTS if we promote NFP without the use of barriers for all of these reasons stated above. I hope I have not offended anyone. If someone learns about NFP and is so motivated to use NFP outside of marriage or with the use of barriers, then that is their decision, I am not morally culpable in confusing them or misleading them. I feel it is better scientifically to advocate the pure method of NFP (without barriers during the fertile period), and let others study the use of barriers or mixing of methods. I pray that we can all come together soon as a national organization committed to some version of the above. Blessings during this Holy Week, Dr. Peck, MD, AAFP, Marquette NFP Instructor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 10, 2012 Report Share Posted April 10, 2012 Dear Marguerite, Thank you for your reply and congratulations on your new baby!! I hope he is a better sleeper than mine:) I agree with your comments and will consider future involvement. As I am new to this online forum, and am unsure which participants know about others, I would just draw your attention to Dr. Fehring's work as CMR Editor. He is VERY familiar with all of the NFP research and compiled a nice summary of the major studies for his online Marquette class which i was privileged to take. Rather than "recreate the wheel", perhaps your subgroup has already conferred with him? I also think, and believe i spoke with you in prior emails, that he would be an excellent person to travel to future AAFP meetings to present the existing NFP research and answer questions. I believe he said that he was interested in past emails about this subject. Thanks again for your commitment to NFP. Blessings, Dr. Peck, MD, CCD, AAFP, Marquette NFP Instructor Pecks Family Practice, PLC 1688 W Granada Blvd, Ste 2A Ormond Beach, FL 32174 fax: cell: To: "nfpprofessionals " <nfpprofessionals >; Bame Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:25 PMSubject: Re: FACTS group Dear , Thank you for your thoughtful response. I had hoped to reply sooner, but since my youngest child is just a few weeks old, I have not had much time to spend on the computer. Nonetheless you do make some very good points that I wanted to address. Before I begin though, let me be very clear that FACTS does not advocate for the use of barrier methods with NFP. Our goal is to educate health professionals about the basics of fertility and NFP so they can share up to date, accurate information with patients. In the current state of medical education (and primary care residency programs), natural methods are almost a total unknown. The information that is given is often inaccurate and/or out of date, even in Catholic institutions. To get this material included in the curriculum, we are working to put together factual presentations and papers that highlight the effectiveness of natural and fertility awareness based methods. For example, one of our sub-groups is doing a thorough review of the literature to examine the effectiveness of NFP methods. Most of the studies that have been done involve couples that abstain during the fertile period, but unfortunately, the research is scarce, so we have included the 1or 2 studies that may also involve the use of barriers in control groups. Of course, as you noted, a woman's ability to determine her fertile window based on mucus observations may very well be affected by the use of barrier methods. And many who promote the use of NFP agree that when a couple uses barrier methods during the fertile window they are in effect abandoning the use of the NFP method for family planning in favor of an artificial method. For this reason, this FACTS sub-group is looking at pregnancy rates in those groups that only use NFP. I also appreciate you sharing those sections from the Catechism that speak to the purpose of the marital act. Yes, motivations are important, and those who are in clinical settings do dialogue with patients and follow their consciences. Certainly some members of the FACTS group share your philosophical beliefs, , but learning how the "other side" thinks through dialogue has also been of value. Some of these people are open-minded enough to incorporate change in how they practice--i.e. one day in the not so distant future, they may actually offer one of the natural methods to patients when they may not have been willing to do so in the past. Again, we do welcome you and others to join our work with FACTS. http://www.fmec.net/projects/project.php?project_id=6395 For those of you that live near the DC area or are willing to travel there, we also invite you to attend our spring FACTS meeting on Friday, May 25th. Just e-mail me and I will send you the details. Realistically, we have a long way to go to get information about NFP/FAM into the mainstream medical world, but by engaging in respectful dialogue with others and presenting the evidence, we have made some progress and will strive to do even more. Respectfully, Marguerite Duane, MD FACTS Co-Founder To: "nfpprofessionals " <nfpprofessionals > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 9:25 AMSubject: FACTS group Dear and Margurete, Thank you for sending me the study on Symptothermal with NFP only and NFP-mix (barrier use during the fertile time). It was very interesting. Although there was no difference in efficacy rates in this study between the 2 groups, i wonder if the users were followed over a longer period of time, that a difference may have eventually been evident. I also wonder if the ability of the women to assess and determine the start and end of their fertile period is altered in any way (in methods which are based solely on cervical mucus determinations). In other words, if barrier methods are used (lubricated condoms, foams, etc), does this change the woman's perception of "sensation" or visual observation of cervical mucus, since she may indeed have residual secretions from these methods. Sometimes, it is difficult enough for women to determine what kind of mucus they have, let alone introducing foreign substances into the equation. More importantly, in my mind, and of course, this is just my opinion, but wouldn't it be better if the FACTS group advocates use of NFP only (whether Creighton or BOMA or CCL or Marquette), and concentrates on the bulk of the studies in which couples abstain during the fertile period. Wouldn't it be better, if as purists, we advocate the "gold standard" of NFP with abstinence during the fertile period, and let OTHERS who wish to do so, advocate use of barriers? We teach the method in its purest form with all of its benefits. We make no excuse for a fertile period which requires abstinence. We cite the advantages to the couples in promoting virtues of patience, temperance, and chastity. While recognizing that we will be teaching and advocating NFP to groups who may not have our religious background, they can not object if WE promote NFP with abstinence only. As Catholics, we are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world. With the call to evangelize ever present on our hearts, we also can not knowingly cooperate with evil. A man and woman's authentic freedom exists when the couple expresses and embraces the act of self-giving reciprocal love. By practicing their rights according to the natural moral law, they are thus cooperating with the Divine Plan of God, the Creator. Married couples must be open to the transmission of life, without interfering with the Natural Moral Law, which is that law of human conduct that arises from human nature as ordered to its ultimate end. Divine Positive Law, are those laws of human conduct that are found in the revealed word of the Old and New Testaments. Thus according to "the order of nature" where God is the author, takes priority over anything derived from reason. Consequently, a violation consists of any interference with the order designed by God or acting against what we know to be true expressions of what most fulfills human potential. The two ends of marriage - love and life - always go hand in hand. Contraception divorces the unitive and procreative end in the conjugal love act. "Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. The difference, both anthropological, and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle...involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality...Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny (CCC 2370-71). You do not have to be Catholic, to recognize the truth in the above 2 paragraphs. As moral law, they are evident to all minds, and the argument can be made along a humanist philosophy. By advocating NFP with barriers, we are (1) potentially cooperating with evil, (2) espousing a contrary worldview to our view of Truth as revealed in Scripture and Tradition and Magisterial Documents, (3) potentially confusing those learning about NFP for the first time, who may quickly assume that contraceptives during a fertile period of a NFP method is an approved Catholic practice, (4) depriving spouses of the benefits accrued by abstaining during the fertile period, and (5) depriving the marriage of graces conveyed by God from adhering to His plan for marriage. I would only like to be involved in FACTS if we promote NFP without the use of barriers for all of these reasons stated above. I hope I have not offended anyone. If someone learns about NFP and is so motivated to use NFP outside of marriage or with the use of barriers, then that is their decision, I am not morally culpable in confusing them or misleading them. I feel it is better scientifically to advocate the pure method of NFP (without barriers during the fertile period), and let others study the use of barriers or mixing of methods. I pray that we can all come together soon as a national organization committed to some version of the above. Blessings during this Holy Week, Dr. Peck, MD, AAFP, Marquette NFP Instructor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 Dear ,Thanks for the follow-up. I am aware of 's work and he has been very helpful thus far in contributing to the work of the FACTS group.Since so few health care professionals and patients are aware of NFP, we need to identify lots of knowledgeable individuals interested and willing to give presentations at both the national and local levels. One of the goals of the FACTS group is to develop a standardized CME presentation and train speakers to deliver it to health professionals and trainees. Let me know if this is something you are interested in as well.Sincerely. Marguerite Duane Sent from my iPhoneh Dear Marguerite, Thank you for your reply and congratulations on your new baby!! I hope he is a better sleeper than mine:) I agree with your comments and will consider future involvement. As I am new to this online forum, and am unsure which participants know about others, I would just draw your attention to Dr. Fehring's work as CMR Editor. He is VERY familiar with all of the NFP research and compiled a nice summary of the major studies for his online Marquette class which i was privileged to take. Rather than "recreate the wheel", perhaps your subgroup has already conferred with him? I also think, and believe i spoke with you in prior emails, that he would be an excellent person to travel to future AAFP meetings to present the existing NFP research and answer questions. I believe he said that he was interested in past emails about this subject. Thanks again for your commitment to NFP. Blessings, Dr. Peck, MD, CCD, AAFP, Marquette NFP Instructor Pecks Family Practice, PLC 1688 W Granada Blvd, Ste 2A Ormond Beach, FL 32174 fax: cell: To: "nfpprofessionals " <nfpprofessionals >; Bame Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:25 PMSubject: Re: FACTS group Dear , Thank you for your thoughtful response. I had hoped to reply sooner, but since my youngest child is just a few weeks old, I have not had much time to spend on the computer. Nonetheless you do make some very good points that I wanted to address. Before I begin though, let me be very clear that FACTS does not advocate for the use of barrier methods with NFP. Our goal is to educate health professionals about the basics of fertility and NFP so they can share up to date, accurate information with patients. In the current state of medical education (and primary care residency programs), natural methods are almost a total unknown. The information that is given is often inaccurate and/or out of date, even in Catholic institutions. To get this material included in the curriculum, we are working to put together factual presentations and papers that highlight the effectiveness of natural and fertility awareness based methods. For example, one of our sub-groups is doing a thorough review of the literature to examine the effectiveness of NFP methods. Most of the studies that have been done involve couples that abstain during the fertile period, but unfortunately, the research is scarce, so we have included the 1or 2 studies that may also involve the use of barriers in control groups. Of course, as you noted, a woman's ability to determine her fertile window based on mucus observations may very well be affected by the use of barrier methods. And many who promote the use of NFP agree that when a couple uses barrier methods during the fertile window they are in effect abandoning the use of the NFP method for family planning in favor of an artificial method. For this reason, this FACTS sub-group is looking at pregnancy rates in those groups that only use NFP. I also appreciate you sharing those sections from the Catechism that speak to the purpose of the marital act. Yes, motivations are important, and those who are in clinical settings do dialogue with patients and follow their consciences. Certainly some members of the FACTS group share your philosophical beliefs, , but learning how the "other side" thinks through dialogue has also been of value. Some of these people are open-minded enough to incorporate change in how they practice--i.e. one day in the not so distant future, they may actually offer one of the natural methods to patients when they may not have been willing to do so in the past. Again, we do welcome you and others to join our work with FACTS. http://www.fmec.net/projects/project.php?project_id=6395 For those of you that live near the DC area or are willing to travel there, we also invite you to attend our spring FACTS meeting on Friday, May 25th. Just e-mail me and I will send you the details. Realistically, we have a long way to go to get information about NFP/FAM into the mainstream medical world, but by engaging in respectful dialogue with others and presenting the evidence, we have made some progress and will strive to do even more. Respectfully, Marguerite Duane, MD FACTS Co-Founder To: "nfpprofessionals " <nfpprofessionals > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 9:25 AMSubject: FACTS group Dear and Margurete, Thank you for sending me the study on Symptothermal with NFP only and NFP-mix (barrier use during the fertile time). It was very interesting. Although there was no difference in efficacy rates in this study between the 2 groups, i wonder if the users were followed over a longer period of time, that a difference may have eventually been evident. I also wonder if the ability of the women to assess and determine the start and end of their fertile period is altered in any way (in methods which are based solely on cervical mucus determinations). In other words, if barrier methods are used (lubricated condoms, foams, etc), does this change the woman's perception of "sensation" or visual observation of cervical mucus, since she may indeed have residual secretions from these methods. Sometimes, it is difficult enough for women to determine what kind of mucus they have, let alone introducing foreign substances into the equation. More importantly, in my mind, and of course, this is just my opinion, but wouldn't it be better if the FACTS group advocates use of NFP only (whether Creighton or BOMA or CCL or Marquette), and concentrates on the bulk of the studies in which couples abstain during the fertile period. Wouldn't it be better, if as purists, we advocate the "gold standard" of NFP with abstinence during the fertile period, and let OTHERS who wish to do so, advocate use of barriers? We teach the method in its purest form with all of its benefits. We make no excuse for a fertile period which requires abstinence. We cite the advantages to the couples in promoting virtues of patience, temperance, and chastity. While recognizing that we will be teaching and advocating NFP to groups who may not have our religious background, they can not object if WE promote NFP with abstinence only. As Catholics, we are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world. With the call to evangelize ever present on our hearts, we also can not knowingly cooperate with evil. A man and woman's authentic freedom exists when the couple expresses and embraces the act of self-giving reciprocal love. By practicing their rights according to the natural moral law, they are thus cooperating with the Divine Plan of God, the Creator. Married couples must be open to the transmission of life, without interfering with the Natural Moral Law, which is that law of human conduct that arises from human nature as ordered to its ultimate end. Divine Positive Law, are those laws of human conduct that are found in the revealed word of the Old and New Testaments. Thus according to "the order of nature" where God is the author, takes priority over anything derived from reason. Consequently, a violation consists of any interference with the order designed by God or acting against what we know to be true expressions of what most fulfills human potential. The two ends of marriage - love and life - always go hand in hand. Contraception divorces the unitive and procreative end in the conjugal love act. "Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. The difference, both anthropological, and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle...involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality...Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man's eternal destiny (CCC 2370-71). You do not have to be Catholic, to recognize the truth in the above 2 paragraphs. As moral law, they are evident to all minds, and the argument can be made along a humanist philosophy. By advocating NFP with barriers, we are (1) potentially cooperating with evil, (2) espousing a contrary worldview to our view of Truth as revealed in Scripture and Tradition and Magisterial Documents, (3) potentially confusing those learning about NFP for the first time, who may quickly assume that contraceptives during a fertile period of a NFP method is an approved Catholic practice, (4) depriving spouses of the benefits accrued by abstaining during the fertile period, and (5) depriving the marriage of graces conveyed by God from adhering to His plan for marriage. I would only like to be involved in FACTS if we promote NFP without the use of barriers for all of these reasons stated above. I hope I have not offended anyone. If someone learns about NFP and is so motivated to use NFP outside of marriage or with the use of barriers, then that is their decision, I am not morally culpable in confusing them or misleading them. I feel it is better scientifically to advocate the pure method of NFP (without barriers during the fertile period), and let others study the use of barriers or mixing of methods. I pray that we can all come together soon as a national organization committed to some version of the above. Blessings during this Holy Week, Dr. Peck, MD, AAFP, Marquette NFP Instructor = Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2012 Report Share Posted April 15, 2012 Yes I would be interested. Thank you. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&TSender: nfpprofessionals Date: Sun, 15 Apr 2012 09:34:23 -0500To: nfpprofessionals <nfpprofessionals >ReplyTo: nfpprofessionals Subject: Re: FACTS group Dear ,Thanks for the follow-up. I am aware of 's work and he has been very helpful thus far in contributing to the work of the FACTS group.Since so few health care professionals and patients are aware of NFP, we need to identify lots of knowledgeable individuals interested and willing to give presentations at both the national and local levels. One of the goals of the FACTS group is to develop a standardized CME presentation and train speakers to deliver it to health professionals and trainees. Let me know if this is something you are interested in as well.Sincerely. Marguerite Duane Sent from my iPhoneh Dear Marguerite,Thank you for your reply and congratulations on your new baby!! I hope he is a better sleeper than mine:) I agree with your comments and will consider future involvement. As I am new to this online forum, and am unsure which participants know about others, I would just draw your attention to Dr. Fehring's work as CMR Editor. He is VERY familiar with all of the NFP research and compiled a nice summary of the major studies for his online Marquette class which i was privileged to take. Rather than "recreate the wheel", perhaps your subgroup has already conferred with him? I also think, and believe i spoke with you in prior emails, that he would be an excellent person to travel to future AAFP meetings to present the existing NFP research and answer questions. I believe he said that he was interested in past emails about this subject. Thanks again for your commitment to NFP. Blessings, Dr. Peck, MD, CCD, AAFP, Marquette NFP InstructorPecks Family Practice, PLC1688 W Granada Blvd, Ste 2AOrmond Beach, FL 32174 fax: cell: To: "nfpprofessionals " <nfpprofessionals >; Bame Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 1:25 PMSubject: Re: FACTS group Dear ,Thank you for your thoughtful response. I had hoped to reply sooner, but since my youngest child is just a few weeks old, I have not had much time to spend on the computer. Nonetheless you do make some very good points that I wanted to address.Before I begin though, let me be very clear that FACTS does not advocate for the use of barrier methods with NFP. Our goal is to educate health professionals about the basics of fertility and NFP so they can share up to date, accurate information with patients. In the current state of medical education (and primary care residency programs), natural methods are almost a total unknown. The information that is given is often inaccurate and/or out of date, even in Catholic institutions. To get this material included in the curriculum, we are working to put together factual presentations and papers that highlight the effectiveness of natural and fertility awareness based methods. For example, one of our sub-groups is doing a thorough review of the literature to examine the effectiveness of NFP methods. Most of the studies that have been done involve couples that abstain during the fertile period, but unfortunately, the research is scarce, so we have included the 1or 2 studies that may also involve the use of barriers in control groups. Of course, as you noted, a woman's ability to determine her fertile window based on mucus observations may very well be affected by the use of barrier methods. And many who promote the use of NFP agree that when a couple uses barrier methods during the fertile window they are in effect abandoning the use of the NFP method for family planning in favor of an artificial method. For this reason, this FACTS sub-group is looking at pregnancy rates in those groups that only use NFP.I also appreciate you sharing those sections from the Catechism that speak to the purpose of the marital act. Yes, motivations are important, and those who are in clinical settings do dialogue with patients and follow their consciences. Certainly some members of the FACTS group share your philosophical beliefs, , but learning how the "other side" thinks through dialogue has also been of value. Some of these people are open-minded enough to incorporate change in how they practice--i.e. one day in the not so distant future, they may actually offer one of the natural methods to patients when they may not have been willing to do so in the past.Again, we do welcome you and others to join our work with FACTS. http://www.fmec.net/projects/project.php?project_id=6395 For those of you that live near the DC area or are willing to travel there, we also invite you to attend our spring FACTS meeting on Friday, May 25th. Just e-mail me and I will send you the details. Realistically, we have a long way to go to get information about NFP/FAM into the mainstream medical world, but by engaging in respectful dialogue with others and presenting the evidence, we have made some progress and will strive to do even more.Respectfully,Marguerite Duane, MDFACTS Co-FounderTo: "nfpprofessionals " <nfpprofessionals > Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2012 9:25 AMSubject: FACTS group Dear and Margurete, Thank you for sending me the study on Symptothermal with NFP only and NFP-mix (barrier use during the fertile time). It was very interesting. Although there was no difference in efficacy rates in this study between the 2 groups, i wonder if the users were followed over a longer period of time, that a difference may have eventually been evident. I also wonder if the ability of the women to assess and determine the start and end of their fertile period is altered in any way (in methods which are based solely on cervical mucus determinations). In other words, if barrier methods are used (lubricated condoms, foams, etc), does this change the woman's perception of "sensation" or visual observation of cervical mucus, since she may indeed have residual secretions from these methods. Sometimes, it is difficult enough for women to determine what kind of mucus they have, let alone introducing foreign substances into the equation. More importantly, in my mind, and of course, this is just my opinion, but wouldn't it be better if the FACTS group advocates use of NFP only (whether Creighton or BOMA or CCL or Marquette), and concentrates on the bulk of the studies in which couples abstain during the fertile period. Wouldn't it be better, if as purists, we advocate the "gold standard" of NFP with abstinence during the fertile period, and let OTHERS who wish to do so, advocate use of barriers? We teach the method in its purest form with all of its benefits. We make no excuse for a fertile period which requires abstinence. We cite the advantages to the couples in promoting virtues of patience, temperance, and chastity. While recognizing that we will be teaching and advocating NFP to groups who may not have our religious background, they can not object if WE promote NFP with abstinence only. As Catholics, we are called to be "light" and "salt" to the world. With the call to evangelize ever present on our hearts, we also can not knowingly cooperate with evil. A man and woman's authentic freedom exists when the couple expresses and embraces the act of self-giving reciprocal love. By practicing their rights according to the natural moral law, they are thus cooperating with the Divine Plan of God, the Creator. Married couples must be open to the transmission of life, without interfering with the Natural Moral Law, which is that law of human conduct that arises from human nature as ordered to its ultimate end. Divine Positive Law, are those laws of human conduct that are found in the revealed word of the Old and New Testaments. Thus according to "the order of nature" where God is the author, takes priority over anything derived from reason. Consequently, a violation consists of any interference with the order designed by God or actingagainst what we know to be true expressions of what most fulfills human potential. The two ends of marriage - love and life - always go hand in hand. Contraception divorces the unitive and procreative end in the conjugal love act. "Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. The difference, both anthropological, and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle...involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality...Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understoodonly in reference to man's eternal destiny (CCC 2370-71). You do not have to be Catholic, to recognize the truth in the above 2 paragraphs. As moral law, they are evident to all minds, and the argument can be made along a humanist philosophy. By advocating NFP with barriers, we are (1) potentially cooperating with evil, (2) espousing a contrary worldview to our view of Truth as revealed in Scripture and Tradition and Magisterial Documents, (3) potentially confusing those learning about NFP for the first time, who may quickly assume that contraceptives during a fertile period of a NFP method is an approved Catholic practice, (4) depriving spouses of the benefits accrued by abstaining during the fertile period, and (5) depriving the marriage of graces conveyed by God from adhering to His plan for marriage. I would only like to be involved in FACTS if we promote NFP without the use of barriers for all of these reasons stated above. I hope I have not offended anyone. If someone learns about NFP and is so motivated to use NFP outside of marriage or with the use of barriers, then that is their decision, I am not morally culpable in confusing them or misleading them. I feel it is better scientifically to advocate the pure method of NFP (without barriers during the fertile period), and let others study the use of barriers or mixing of methods. I pray that we can all come together soon as a national organization committed to some version of the above. Blessings during this Holy Week, Dr. Peck, MD, AAFP, Marquette NFP Instructor= Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.