Ok with not prescribing OCPs?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
I have a question.....do you have to flog yourself daily or is that just something Opus Dei only makes their hitmen do? :smuggrin:

First of all, what is it about this topic that makes you so hostile?
Secondly, if someone decides not to prescribe OCP's in their practice, that is their right. No one makes patients come to them, and if a patient wants OCP's then they will find another doctor. I personally do not plan on prescribing OCP's in my practice, not because I am trying to "convert" anyone, but simply because the practice of OCP's are opposed to my religious beliefs. Not to get too religious here, but every christian denomination was opposed to OCP's up until the 1930's. The Anglican church became the first to accept their use. Then most mainline protestant denominations began to accept their use in the 1950's.
The point is, the widespread acceptance of contraceptives in society is a relatively new phenomenon in history.

Members don't see this ad.
 
First of all, what is it about this topic that makes you so hostile?
Secondly, if someone decides not to prescribe OCP's in their practice, that is their right. No one makes patients come to them, and if a patient wants OCP's then they will find another doctor. I personally do not plan on prescribing OCP's in my practice, not because I am trying to "convert" anyone, but simply because the practice of OCP's are opposed to my religious beliefs. Not to get too religious here, but every christian denomination was opposed to OCP's up until the 1930's. The Anglican church became the first to accept their use. Then most mainline protestant denominations began to accept their use in the 1950's.
The point is, the widespread acceptance of contraceptives in society is a relatively new phenomenon in history.

Not to get too "factual" here, but the first OCP wasn't even PRODUCED until 1950!! But I guess the churches could see into the future and were already writing their complaints back in the 30's? And the mainline protestant denominations accepted them immediately, it would appear.
 
Not to get too "factual" here, but the first OCP wasn't even PRODUCED until 1950!! But I guess the churches could see into the future and were already writing their complaints back in the 30's? And the mainline protestant denominations accepted them immediately, it would appear.

Nicur is right about birth control in general, not necesarrily OCPs. Here's a link to see when protestants approved of contraception in the 1930s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambeth_Conferences
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm applying for a residency in Ob/Gyn, and due to religious reasons, I don't feel comfortable prescribing OCPs. I really love the field of Ob/gyn, but am worried that my refusal to prescribe birth control will be problematic during my residency years. any one have any in put on this?

Medschoolrunner-

Good for you! Be assured that it is totally possible to go into OB/GYN and still stay true to your morals. (Possible, but not necessarily easy!) Someone already pointed you towards the One More Soul website, which lists the MANY doctors around the US and Canada who are already doing this. Let me also suggest their listing of residencies, which has posts from other residents who have interviewed at various programs around the country, and comments on their receptivity to NFP-only (ie, non-contracepting, non-sterilizing) docs. There are programs (very few, but they do exist) that are NFP-only, and then there are programs that are NFP-friendly. Go to www. OMSoul.com, then under "NFP directory", scroll down to the "Residency Program Review" link.

It IS possible, I have several friends who have done it, and know many AMAZING OB/GYNs who practice this way (who, for the record, have thriving practices, and I don't think their families have gone hungy, not even once! :). They are very satisfied in their practices, and after working with them, I can tell their patients are very satisfied as well.

Let me tell you an encouraging story. I am a second year med student with my heart set on OB/GYN. I have been working with an OB at my med school for several weeks in a row. He found out that I did not plan on prescibing contraception of any sort in my practice. He kept challenging me with various situations, but I defended my position well (OCPs are NOT, by the way, the only solution to many gynecological problems. In fact, there are very acceptable non-OCP treatments for all of them. For more info, visit http://www.fertilitycare.org/napro/index.html). He was especially telling me that there was no way I would find a residency that would accomodate me with my "special needs" of not prescribing contraception, Plan B, no sterilizations, etc. Finally, yesterday when I was with him, he told me that he had spoken to the director of the residency program that he is an attending in, and told me that he thinks they would be able to adapt to my needs in their program, and asked me to seriously consider them and told me to set up an appointment with the director! And this after I had expressed no interest whatsoever in their program or even of staying in this state! AND, I'm only a lowly 2nd year!

Sooo....my point is, if you believe what you believe and you know why you believe it and can support why you believe it, but are still a good student and will provide good care to your patients, YOU WILL be able to find a program. Don't worry about that. And rest assured that there are PLENTY of women out there looking for a doctor JUST LIKE YOU. And no, they're not just the hippie-type, or just Catholics, but women of all race/religion/creed who have discovered that NFP is better for them and their marriages (5% divorce rate in NFP couples, as opposed to the 50% of all other couples, Christians and Catholics included), and that they have no side effects, are better informed about the workings of their own bodies, and can still plan pregnancies with 98-99% efficacy (if you don't believe me on that one, ask the WHO, who conducted studies in India in 1998 with NFP, or the Chinese government, who now uses the Billings Method as one of the top 3 methods of family planning, and has a 99% success rate!!)

If you have any questions, feel free to message me. I'll be praying for you in your journey!!!:thumbup:
 
Not to get too "factual" here, but the first OCP wasn't even PRODUCED until 1950!! But I guess the churches could see into the future and were already writing their complaints back in the 30's? And the mainline protestant denominations accepted them immediately, it would appear.

Let me clarify, the Anglican church was the first to accept the idea of contraception in the 1930's or 40's (i.e. people using barrier methods). Then, beginning in the 50's more protestant churches began to allow the practice of contraception. The catholic church is the only church, that I am aware of, that has never accepted this practice.
That being said, I think that it is important to recognize that contrary to popular belief, the practice of OB/Gyn is not synonymous with prescribing contraception. There are residency programs out there that do not endorse the "contraceptive mentality" to fertility and sexuality and there are patients who prefer not to use any form of contraception. That is not to say that these patients want to multiply like rabbits, but there are other ways of regulating pregnancy (i.e. Natural family planning, Billings Ovulation method, Creighton Model, etc) which allow people to space out their children.
 
I have a question.....do you have to flog yourself daily or is that just something Opus Dei only makes their hitmen do? :smuggrin:

No, actually I go to a flogging spa, the Opus Dei ninja/assissins are way too overqualified for something so mundane as flogging. But thanks for asking.
 
Sooo....my point is, if you believe what you believe and you know why you believe it and can support why you believe it, but are still a good student and will provide good care to your patients, YOU WILL be able to find a program. Don't worry about that. And rest assured that there are PLENTY of women out there looking for a doctor JUST LIKE YOU. And no, they're not just the hippie-type, or just Catholics, but women of all race/religion/creed who have discovered that NFP is better for them and their marriages (5% divorce rate in NFP couples, as opposed to the 50% of all other couples, Christians and Catholics included),

Even if the divorce rate statistic you give is true, it doesn't mean NFP is "better" for anyone's marriage. People who practice NFP are less likely to believe in divorce in the first place, or to consider it an option when they experience marital problems. Correlation, not necessarily causation.

I can't see any method that prevents couples from having intercourse every month for several days during a woman's peak arousal, as being a healthy thing for a marriage. Maybe it's just me.
 
you shouldn't be letting your religious beliefs get in the way of what the patient needs, wants or is best for them just because you have morals to uphold as you state. Again, most of us here think you and the OP need to find a profession that meshes with your beliefs for the most part if you want to do your patients justice and adhere to that "do no harm" principle we all learn as med students/doctors.

I "shouldn't be letting blah blah blah"? According to whose beliefs? Yours? Why are your beliefs more valid than mine? Why is your idea of "what's best for patients" more legitimate than the Catholic view, especially considering that the Church probably has more non-profit hospitals in the world than any other religion, has been caring for the poor and needy for hundreds of years, and has a view of human dignity that is unsurpassed. The popularity of contraception in today's "progressive" society means very little when considering whether contraception meets a person's needs or is best for them. Perhaps it is YOUR view that does women and society more harm than good.
 
I "shouldn't be letting blah blah blah"? According to whose beliefs? Yours? Why are your beliefs more valid than mine? Why is your idea of "what's best for patients" more legitimate than the Catholic view, especially considering that the Church probably has more non-profit hospitals in the world than any other religion, has been caring for the poor and needy for hundreds of years, and has a view of human dignity that is unsurpassed. The popularity of contraception in today's "progressive" society means very little when considering whether contraception meets a person's needs or is best for them. Perhaps it is YOUR view that does women and society more harm than good.

You have no idea what my religious belief are to begin with so calm your ass down. And no where did I say that my beliefs were superior to yours but if that's what you want to infer, then more power to you. What I said was that your beliefs, whatever the heck they are, shouldn't be getting in the way of your patients needs. In ob-gyn, a majority of your women are going to be seeking OCP's so don't try shoving your NFP bull down their throat if that is not what they are interested in. As I said, send them to someone who can prescribe them OCP's or better yet stay away from the profession.
 
You have no idea what my religious belief are to begin with so calm your ass down. And no where did I say that my beliefs were superior to yours but if that's what you want to infer, then more power to you. What I said was that your beliefs, whatever the heck they are, shouldn't be getting in the way of your patients needs. In ob-gyn, a majority of your women are going to be seeking OCP's so don't try shoving your NFP bull down their throat if that is not what they are interested in. As I said, send them to someone who can prescribe them OCP's or better yet stay away from the profession.

What leads you to think I need to be calmed down? That I suggested the possibility that your view could be the one that does more harm than good? Or that the Catholic view on this issue is as valid, if not more valid, than your own? Patient "needs" are not assessed in a vacuum, but are interpretted through the lens of one's beliefs, secular or religious. Your beliefs influence your views on what's appropriate no less than mine. As far as I'm concerned, by beliefs are not "getting in the way", they provide a way. You are telling me they are getting in the way simply because you don't like what I believe. Am I wrong?
 
What leads you to think I need to be calmed down? That I suggested the possibility that your view could be the one that does more harm than good? Or that the Catholic view on this issue is as valid, if not more valid, than your own? Patient "needs" are not assessed in a vacuum, but are interpretted through the lens of one's beliefs, secular or religious. Your beliefs influence your views on what's appropriate no less than mine. As far as I'm concerned, by beliefs are not "getting in the way", they provide a way. You are telling me they are getting in the way simply because you don't like what I believe. Am I wrong?

They would be getting in the way if that's not what your patient was interested in. I don't really care what you believe, because it makes no difference to me one way or another. So how is it that my beliefs of listening to my patients and prescribing the OCP'S that my patients are interested in going to do them more harm than good. It's preventing them from having an unwanted pregnancy especially if they are not ready financially, mentally and spiritually. That is doing plenty good in my books. I also plan on encouraging my patients to use barrier contraception on top of OCP's to decrease the transmission of STD'S especially if not in a monogomous relationship.
Sure your beliefs "provide a way" if that is what your patient is interested in, (NFP), but again, the majority of women would be interested in having something more reliable on a day to day, every day basis when it comes to having intercourse than NFP (where intercourse with their lover would have to be planned around a calender). I don't know what the stats on NFP is if done correctly. For all I know it may be 99% as someone on here as stated, but the question is how many people do it correctly? Where as Depo, the patch, and the pill are way more reliable because the majority of these methods are done way more correctly than NFP from what I've read.
Again, your beliefs would be "getting in the way" if your patient is interested in OCP's or other forms of BC and your are preaching this NFP stuff to them. For the minority that are interested, well preach on and hope they follow your instructions because otherwise, you will be a very busy OB delivering all these unplanned babies. So I guess then it might all work in your favor anyway in the long run and keep your practice pretty busy.
 
Medschoolrunner-

Good for you! Be assured that it is totally possible to go into OB/GYN and still stay true to your morals. (Possible, but not necessarily easy!) Someone already pointed you towards the One More Soul website, which lists the MANY doctors around the US and Canada who are already doing this. Let me also suggest their listing of residencies, which has posts from other residents who have interviewed at various programs around the country, and comments on their receptivity to NFP-only (ie, non-contracepting, non-sterilizing) docs. There are programs (very few, but they do exist) that are NFP-only, and then there are programs that are NFP-friendly. Go to www. OMSoul.com, then under "NFP directory", scroll down to the "Residency Program Review" link.

It IS possible, I have several friends who have done it, and know many AMAZING OB/GYNs who practice this way (who, for the record, have thriving practices, and I don't think their families have gone hungy, not even once! :). They are very satisfied in their practices, and after working with them, I can tell their patients are very satisfied as well.

Let me tell you an encouraging story. I am a second year med student with my heart set on OB/GYN. I have been working with an OB at my med school for several weeks in a row. He found out that I did not plan on prescibing contraception of any sort in my practice. He kept challenging me with various situations, but I defended my position well (OCPs are NOT, by the way, the only solution to many gynecological problems. In fact, there are very acceptable non-OCP treatments for all of them. For more info, visit http://www.fertilitycare.org/napro/index.html). He was especially telling me that there was no way I would find a residency that would accomodate me with my "special needs" of not prescribing contraception, Plan B, no sterilizations, etc. Finally, yesterday when I was with him, he told me that he had spoken to the director of the residency program that he is an attending in, and told me that he thinks they would be able to adapt to my needs in their program, and asked me to seriously consider them and told me to set up an appointment with the director! And this after I had expressed no interest whatsoever in their program or even of staying in this state! AND, I'm only a lowly 2nd year!

Sooo....my point is, if you believe what you believe and you know why you believe it and can support why you believe it, but are still a good student and will provide good care to your patients, YOU WILL be able to find a program. Don't worry about that. And rest assured that there are PLENTY of women out there looking for a doctor JUST LIKE YOU. And no, they're not just the hippie-type, or just Catholics, but women of all race/religion/creed who have discovered that NFP is better for them and their marriages (5% divorce rate in NFP couples, as opposed to the 50% of all other couples, Christians and Catholics included), and that they have no side effects, are better informed about the workings of their own bodies, and can still plan pregnancies with 98-99% efficacy (if you don't believe me on that one, ask the WHO, who conducted studies in India in 1998 with NFP, or the Chinese government, who now uses the Billings Method as one of the top 3 methods of family planning, and has a 99% success rate!!)

If you have any questions, feel free to message me. I'll be praying for you in your journey!!!:thumbup:

It seems to me you doth protest too much. You claim that your are morally opposed to OCP's because, presumably, they work as contraceptives. Nevertheless, you also assert that there is no gynacological pathology that must be treated with OCP's and therefore, one presumes, you mean to insist that not only will you refuse to prescribe OCP's for the purpose of contraception, you will also refuse to prescribe OCP's for purposes other than contraception.

This raises several questions: First, if your objection to the prescription of OCP's is based on your objection to contraception, why go out of your way to also suggest that you will refuse to prescribe them for purposes other than contraception? Is it because (a) you fear patients will present to your office with pathology treatable with OCP's, but that secretly they intend to benefit from the contraceptive effects of OCP's? Or, is it because (b) despite genuine pathology treatable with OCP's, the incidental contraceptive effects of OCP's is too much to accept? Or, is it because (c) you have a deep seated objection to the administration of hormone pills no matter what thier purpose?

It seems to me that many of the procedures that gynecologists must perform have the incidental effect of also causing sterility, not to mention all of the non-gynacological treatments that also have this effect. If you are intent to deny OCP's for non-contraceptive purposes because it may also act as a contraceptive, must not you also object to the administration of any and all treatments that have this effect?

Judd
 
This raises several questions: First, if your objection to the prescription of OCP's is based on your objection to contraception, why go out of your way to also suggest that you will refuse to prescribe them for purposes other than contraception? Is it because (a) you fear patients will present to your office with pathology treatable with OCP's, but that secretly they intend to benefit from the contraceptive effects of OCP's? Or, is it because (b) despite genuine pathology treatable with OCP's, the incidental contraceptive effects of OCP's is too much to accept? Or, is it because (c) you have a deep seated objection to the administration of hormone pills no matter what thier purpose?
Judd

Judd,
let me pose you a question:
If you knew of a way to treat your patient's PMS symptoms (just an example) without increasing her risk of

thromboembolism, retinal thrombosis, thrombophlebitis, MI, cerebral thrombosis, cerebral hemorrhage, HTN, severe hepatic adenoma (rare), cholestatic jaundice, gallbladder dz, depressionan, aphylaxis/anaphylactoid rxn, nausea/vomiting, abdominal cramps, bloating, breakthrough bleeding, altered menstrual flow, amenorrhea, breast tenderness, breast changes, edema, headache/migraine, weight changes, cervical secretion changes, emotional lability, vaginal candidiasis, rash, acne, melasma, contact lenses intolerance, elevated BP, glucose intolerance (list taken from epocrates.com)

...wouldn't you choose that option? I know, as a patient, that I would choose the treatment option with the fewest/no side effects! And, as a doctor, I would want to provide that option to my patient. Point of fact is, there are other ways to treat women other than OCPs. What does an OCP do anyway? It masks symptoms, fools the body into a fake "menstural cycle". Have you fixed anything? Not really. Perhaps the women has lighter periods, fewer cramps, less PMS, etc. But the underlying problem has not been corrected. All you've done is introduce fake hormones into her body that cover it up.

I don't know about you, but my preference would be to get to the underlying homornal imbalances at the root of the problem, or perhaps a structural root, whatever it be. Is that harder? Heck yeah! It requires a little work on the part of the woman, to chart her mucus (which is an EXTREMELY accurate diagnostic tool), perhaps a few blood draws to measure her hormonal levels. The doc has to think a little harder, too- to really figure the problem out. And to me, that is medicine. See a problem. Figure out what it is. Fix it. None of this cover-up business.

Perhaps the reasons that people are so opposed, sometimes violently opposed (as evidenced by many of the posts in this thread) to alternative treatments to OCPs, is that people don't really understand or know ANYTHING about them! Have you ever looked at any of the research? I challenge you to read some of it- it's quite convincing. And I think it's always a good idea to educate oneself about BOTH sides of an issue before coming to a decision.

I'm no expert. I was only just introduced to a lot of this during an internship this past summer. I don't know every single treatment for every single malady. But again, I would point to you http://www.fertilitycare.org/napro/index.html to start learning a little more. If you have specific questions, please ask and I will see what I can do to find you an answer.

God bless!
 
Members don't see this ad :)
No, actually I go to a flogging spa, the Opus Dei ninja/assissins are way too overqualified for something so mundane as flogging. But thanks for asking.
At least you have a sense of humor.....that's refreshing. :laugh:
 
I "shouldn't be letting blah blah blah"? According to whose beliefs? Yours? Why are your beliefs more valid than mine? Why is your idea of "what's best for patients" more legitimate than the Catholic view, especially considering that the Church probably has more non-profit hospitals in the world than any other religion, has been caring for the poor and needy for hundreds of years, and has a view of human dignity that is unsurpassed. The popularity of contraception in today's "progressive" society means very little when considering whether contraception meets a person's needs or is best for them. Perhaps it is YOUR view that does women and society more harm than good.
I "shouldn't be letting blah blah blah"? According to whose beliefs?
Perhaps the patient's beliefs should be taken into account as well. If you disagree with them to the point where you can not render effective care (meaning achieving a satisfactory result as defined by the patient) then that is grounds for a referral as much as a highly complex medical case being referred to another physician, except in this case the "problem" lies within the ethics of the first doctor, not the patient. There is such a thing as being TOO morally steadfast.
 
Perhaps the patient's beliefs should be taken into account as well. If you disagree with them to the point where you can not render effective care (meaning achieving a satisfactory result as defined by the patient) then that is grounds for a referral as much as a highly complex medical case being referred to another physician, except in this case the "problem" lies within the ethics of the first doctor, not the patient. There is such a thing as being TOO morally steadfast.

I realize that patients may disagree with my beliefs/views/etc. But doctors don't simply do whatever a patient wants. While autonomy is important, it does not trump other ethical principles, such as beneficence, justice, do no harm. While the content of these latter principles is open to interpretation, that interpretation is not simply "whatever the patient wants". If effective care is simply achieving a satisfactory result as defined by the patient, then why have studies and reports that provide guidelines for care, such as BP, glucose, or lipid goals that determine the standards for "healthy."

Fertility is not an illness that needs to be treated, and using technology/medications to suppress or destroy a women's fertility is not necessarily health care. It's largely done for social reasons, not medical ones. And even if it apparently solved those social problems (more consumerism, less poverty), it still would not be health care.
 
Judd,
let me pose you a question:
If you knew of a way to treat your patient's PMS symptoms (just an example) without increasing her risk of

thromboembolism, retinal thrombosis, thrombophlebitis, MI, cerebral thrombosis, cerebral hemorrhage, HTN, severe hepatic adenoma (rare), cholestatic jaundice, gallbladder dz, depressionan, aphylaxis/anaphylactoid rxn, nausea/vomiting, abdominal cramps, bloating, breakthrough bleeding, altered menstrual flow, amenorrhea, breast tenderness, breast changes, edema, headache/migraine, weight changes, cervical secretion changes, emotional lability, vaginal candidiasis, rash, acne, melasma, contact lenses intolerance, elevated BP, glucose intolerance (list taken from epocrates.com)

...wouldn't you choose that option? I know, as a patient, that I would choose the treatment option with the fewest/no side effects! And, as a doctor, I would want to provide that option to my patient. Point of fact is, there are other ways to treat women other than OCPs. What does an OCP do anyway? It masks symptoms, fools the body into a fake "menstural cycle". Have you fixed anything? Not really. Perhaps the women has lighter periods, fewer cramps, less PMS, etc. But the underlying problem has not been corrected. All you've done is introduce fake hormones into her body that cover it up.

I don't know about you, but my preference would be to get to the underlying homornal imbalances at the root of the problem, or perhaps a structural root, whatever it be. Is that harder? Heck yeah! It requires a little work on the part of the woman, to chart her mucus (which is an EXTREMELY accurate diagnostic tool), perhaps a few blood draws to measure her hormonal levels. The doc has to think a little harder, too- to really figure the problem out. And to me, that is medicine. See a problem. Figure out what it is. Fix it. None of this cover-up business.

Perhaps the reasons that people are so opposed, sometimes violently opposed (as evidenced by many of the posts in this thread) to alternative treatments to OCPs, is that people don't really understand or know ANYTHING about them! Have you ever looked at any of the research? I challenge you to read some of it- it's quite convincing. And I think it's always a good idea to educate oneself about BOTH sides of an issue before coming to a decision.

I'm no expert. I was only just introduced to a lot of this during an internship this past summer. I don't know every single treatment for every single malady. But again, I would point to you http://www.fertilitycare.org/napro/index.html to start learning a little more. If you have specific questions, please ask and I will see what I can do to find you an answer.

God bless!

Perhaps you should at least wait until you've had your third year clerkship in OB-GYN before claiming you "know how to help". Many of the methods you *think* will work are just too impractical. People aren't willing to take the time to mess with some ineffective method when they REALLY don't want to be pregnant. No matter what you say, NFP isn't as effective as OCPs. I'm a practicing Catholic in a monomagous relationship and as a married intern I really don't want to get pregnant, plain and simple. And when I finally have that day off I'm probably going to want to have sex :idea: and NOT worry about whether it's a "bad time of the month". I would guess that many individuals are in this boat as well and you need to respect that and not try to change their ways with your "educational" methods that are likely to fail. I respect you and your beliefs and if you want to be a pregnant resident then have at it, but most people realize that's ridiculous!
 
Perhaps you should at least wait until you've had your third year clerkship in OB-GYN before claiming you "know how to help". Many of the methods you *think* will work are just too impractical. People aren't willing to take the time to mess with some ineffective method when they REALLY don't want to be pregnant. No matter what you say, NFP isn't as effective as OCPs. I'm a practicing Catholic in a monomagous relationship and as a married intern I really don't want to get pregnant, plain and simple. And when I finally have that day off I'm probably going to want to have sex :idea: and NOT worry about whether it's a "bad time of the month". I would guess that many individuals are in this boat as well and you need to respect that and not try to change their ways with your "educational" methods that are likely to fail. I respect you and your beliefs and if you want to be a pregnant resident then have at it, but most people realize that's ridiculous!

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying it is better to put our patients at risk for a whole host of unnecessary side effects because it is too inconvenient to take 30 seconds a day to chart, or to abstain from intercourse from a few days a month? That doesn't make sense to me. It's like telling your obese patient who just can't give up his Whoppers and Big Macs that it's ok, he doesn't have to control his eating, you'll just up his meds. I really think that a degree of self control is healthy, be it in a diet or a marriage or what have you. Is it hard? Yes! (Have you ever tried to lose 10 lbs?!?!) Is it doable? Double-yes. Over 6 MILLION couples are currently doing it in China alone, and that with a 99% success rate (ask their government, who seems to like the Billings Method quite a bit)

Again, as for this "ineffective method", as you call it...may I ask you what you are basing that statement on? You may be surprised to learn that current research is against you. Perhaps you are thinking of the infamous "Rhythm Method". Thank goodness, that method went out in the 1960s when the Drs. Billings began their research on cervical mucus in Australia. Please see the following website for a few published statistics:
http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/general/bc_evi.htm.
 
Perhaps you should at least wait until you've had your third year clerkship in OB-GYN before claiming you "know how to help". Many of the methods you *think* will work are just too impractical. People aren't willing to take the time to mess with some ineffective method when they REALLY don't want to be pregnant. No matter what you say, NFP isn't as effective as OCPs. I'm a practicing Catholic in a monomagous relationship and as a married intern I really don't want to get pregnant, plain and simple. And when I finally have that day off I'm probably going to want to have sex :idea: and NOT worry about whether it's a "bad time of the month". I would guess that many individuals are in this boat as well and you need to respect that and not try to change their ways with your "educational" methods that are likely to fail. I respect you and your beliefs and if you want to be a pregnant resident then have at it, but most people realize that's ridiculous!

I think that you have a very good point here. I can only imagine how difficult it would be for an intern to be pregnant. However, the church has never claimed that her teachings are easy. She simply claims that the teachings are true.
Secondly, as doctors I feel we have an obligation to challenge our patients to understand their bodies better and to take better care of them. By simply giving them a pill to cover up any actual medical condition just because it is easier is not real medicine. That takes little to no thinking and is something that anyone with basic medical training could do. To actually take the time and explain the process of the menstrual cycle, cervical mucous, changes in basal body temp, etc to a patient is unheard of in my experience. Yet, isn't that our job. Maybe patients aren't as interested in learning about their bodies simply because they don't know there is more to learn than "oh, I bleed for a few days every month".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm a practicing Catholic in a monomagous relationship and as a married intern I really don't want to get pregnant, plain and simple. And when I finally have that day off I'm probably going to want to have sex :idea: and NOT worry about whether it's a "bad time of the month". I would guess that many individuals are in this boat as well and you need to respect that and not try to change their ways with your "educational" methods that are likely to fail. I respect you and your beliefs and if you want to be a pregnant resident then have at it, but most people realize that's ridiculous!

But let's be honest, the reason you use contraceptives is not a medical reason. You use them because you want to pursue a career and have a certain kind of life during residency. Wanting either of those is not necessarily wrong. I just want to point out the difference between using medicine for medical/health care issues and using medicine for nonmeidcal issues.

As for being a practicing Catholic, I encourage you to listen to Janet Smith's talk "Contraception - Why not", or read Kimberly Hahn's book called Life-Giving Love, or Christopher West's talk on "Marriage and the Eucharist". There are many good resources for learning about the Church's view of this issue. Fundamentally, it's not about having the kind of life we want or think we need, but about knowing the Lord and trusting in Him.
 
Judd,
let me pose you a question:
If you knew of a way to treat your patient's PMS symptoms (just an example) without increasing her risk of

thromboembolism, retinal thrombosis, thrombophlebitis, MI, cerebral thrombosis, cerebral hemorrhage, HTN, severe hepatic adenoma (rare), cholestatic jaundice, gallbladder dz, depressionan, aphylaxis/anaphylactoid rxn, nausea/vomiting, abdominal cramps, bloating, breakthrough bleeding, altered menstrual flow, amenorrhea, breast tenderness, breast changes, edema, headache/migraine, weight changes, cervical secretion changes, emotional lability, vaginal candidiasis, rash, acne, melasma, contact lenses intolerance, elevated BP, glucose intolerance (list taken from epocrates.com)

Look up the s/e of any medication. There are just as many. A list of side effects doesn't mean we should avoid prescribing a medication, it means we balance the risks with the benefits of using the medication. Just food for thought.
 
These women don't need to be having all these babies, they are having sex with their SO's for the fun part most of the time, and what happens, OOPS, another baby which means more money that they don't have, more need for welfare or a second job to support yet more babies. Think and tell me how many of these young unwed mothers truly have gotten pregnant by actually trying to have a baby? I don't know but you are doing these people a disservice by not giving them OCP's. And what about barrier contraception? Does that mean you don't advocate that either? Because if so, then more power to you in treating all these women who have undiagnosed GC that leads to PID and then infertility when later on they actually want to have babies. And let's not forget HIV. What do you tell these people, don't have sex, until you are married? Seriously? People like you should stay out of OB-GYN. Ok, stay, but please don't preach this, send them to other OB's who are gonna do these people right by giving them control of their bodies.

If these women don't need to be having all these babies, then they shouldn't be having sex. What you are doing by encouraging people to have sex without thinking of procreation when they DO NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL MEANS to take care of more children is encouraging wholesale irresponsibility for one's actions. It's absolutely a fact that these people are going to be engaging in much more intercourse thinking they are immune from getting pregnant, and have many more chances for a possible pregnancy. I contend that the widespread availability of OCPs has led to many more teenage pregnancies and unanticipated pregnancies than ever before in history, and I'm sure current rates of unwanted pregnancies would support this. You ask, "how many of these young unwed mothers truly have gotten pregnant by actually trying to have a baby?" Whether they are trying to have a baby or not is moot: if they are not trying, they should not be having sex. And on the other hand, if they are unwed as you say, and you are prescribing OCP, then you are contributing to a whole host of problems because people who engage in premarital sex have higher divorce rates and problems with future relationships. In addition you are contributing to the spread of terrible diseases like AIDS, which is spread by people not being in monogamous relationships.

Do you realize that if there was no such thing as premarital sex and people engaged in totally monogamous relationships, diseases like AIDS, chlamydia, GC, HSV-2, and all the other STDs would fall out of existance? There would absolutely not be a single STD left in the world. Have you read books like "My Own Country" which describes firsthand stories of how terrible AIDS is and how it destroy's people health and inevitably leads to downward spiraling disease exacerbations and death? Is it so bad to aim for such a profound increasing quality of life for so many people? By prescribing OCPs to people who are not married, and if you look at the rates of people who use it, a very high percentage is going to be from unmarried people, you are encouraging people who are unmarried to engage in premarital sex and causing all kinds of irreparable problems in their life, including health related. It's like encouraging smoking, or prescribing something that would make it much easier for people to smoke. What if we precribed a drug that allowed people to smoke while eliminating the risk of lung cancer, but the person had to take it on a regular basis. Would you prescribe this medication? I would not, because it would certainly cause increased rates of lung cancer.

People like you should stay out of OB-GYN. Ok, stay, but please don't preach this, send them to other OB's who are gonna do these people right by giving them control of their bodies.

When a person is going to become pregnant, that child is the product of two parents. I don't know what you mean by giving women control of their bodies when the child is equally the father's. If you were a father, would you not be sad if you found out your wife was using OCPs or had an abortion and you were expecting a child? Any discussion of this issue should totally include both parents.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I'm applying for a residency in Ob/Gyn, and due to religious reasons, I don't feel comfortable prescribing OCPs. I really love the field of Ob/gyn, but am worried that my refusal to prescribe birth control will be problematic during my residency years. any one have any in put on this?

I think it's wonderful that you're applying to an Ob/gyn residency and that you are upholding your beliefs. I have a lot to say about this, but I'm a little tired of typing from the last post (it's so hard to translate thoughts into writing!), but does anyone know How much of a residency you would actually be in a situation where you would have to prescribe birth control as opposed to working in a hospital and doing mostly high-risk stuff, or gyn stuff, or other ob stuff? What are the breakdowns like?
 
I've just finished my 3rd year ob/gyn rotation at a large county hospital. I've been practicing NFP for 20 years and I am a great believer in how fantastic and effective it is. Many of my patients were Catholic, at least by upbringing. But you know what? Most of my patients were crappy candidates for NFP. I saw women pregnant because they missed getting their repeat Depo shot by a few weeks. Women pregnant with abusive boyfriends and husbands, who knew it was a bad idea for them to be pregnant again. Women who, when informed of their birth-control options, absolutely knew that they wouldn't take a pill every day, let alone take their temperature every day and chart their cervical mucus. Incarcerated women whose 3 previous children were in custody with Social Services. I know there have been studies showing NFP working for women in the slums of Calcutta, but those women have a whole different set of motivations for not getting pregnant - there's no safety net for them.

When Catholic practitioners refuse to prescribe birth control other than NFP, you do indeed honor your beliefs, and you will have a loyal clientele. But you also abandon the large number of Catholic women who are very poor candidates for NFP. I would really respect anyone who said, we don't believe in birth control or abortion; if you want to have your baby we will provide a loving home for her and if you ever want your baby back, you can have her back. This is what the midwives on the Farm (Tennessee) offered for many years; I'd challenge Catholic practitioners to do the same, to deal with the consequences of your practice choices.

I find it interesting that Doc Zuzu is prescribing contraceptives; as far as I understand, the Council of Catholic Bishops (not sure about name) which sets policy for the Catholic hospitals, proscribes birth control for those hospitals. So is the hospital contravening the rules set by its governing body, or am I misunderstanding something here?
 
ask their government, who seems to like the Billings Method quite a bit

Isn't this the same government that for a long time denied they had any AIDS cases?
 
Fertility is not an illness that needs to be treated, and using technology/medications to suppress or destroy a women's fertility is not necessarily health care.

I agree, but a woman has a right to control her ability to procreate. If that means she believes the risks are worth the benefit (and the risks are not THAT high compared to the risk of bleeding complications from an OTC medicine such as aspirin).

Do you realize that if there was no such thing as premarital sex and people engaged in totally monogamous relationships, diseases like AIDS, chlamydia, GC, HSV-2, and all the other STDs would fall out of existance? There would absolutely not be a single STD left in the world.

Yes, but I see that about as likely as my living to see the second coming of Christ. Note: I'm in a totally monogamous relationship and I am not having sex with my girlfriend until we get married, but remember that you can't make social decisions based upon the actions of the best and brightest, because the slow and dim will confound your admirable aspirations every time. It's not that I necessarily disagree with your goal, just that I know it's not practically achievable because you can not enforce morality and/or common sense.
 
This thread is reminding me of the half dozen accounts I have read of women who have been unable to obtain Plan B due to "conscience clauses." In the most recent one, a woman in a long term relationship (with three children) experienced condom breakage. She called every pharmacy in her phone book (that every pharmacy within 100 miles). She called every pharmacy in her county and all the surrounding counties. She tried all the hospitals. She even called all the Planned Parenthoods (they were closed on the weekends). She wasn't able to find a single doctor or pharmacist who would fill her prescription. All day long, while her window of effectiveness got smaller and smaller, she was forced to answer highly invasive questions about her sexual practices and her relationship (to see if she met the physicians' "criteria").

She wasn't able to get Plan B within the 72 hour effective range. Still not giving up, she drove an hour and a half to the nearest Planned Parenthood that was open on Tuesday (the condom broke Friday night, and she couldn't get off of work on Monday). Depending on where you live, it is NOT easy to get these medications. This happened after Plan B was supposed to be made over the counter. Thanks to "conscience clauses," however, the pharmacists were able to deny selling it to her.

Now, I realize that this thread has been about plain ol' oral contraceptive pills. I realize people have their morals. What they don't realize is that someone else's contraceptive choices and sexual practices are none of their business. Don't like OCPs? Don't take them, and don't sleep with people who use them. Stick to your morals... don't stick your morals to other people. If you insist on being archaic (NFP is not exactly the most effective form of contraception), put a huge sign outside your practice so that anyone who disagrees with your morals can know not to waste their time on you.
 
I've just finished my 3rd year ob/gyn rotation at a large county hospital. I've been practicing NFP for 20 years and I am a great believer in how fantastic and effective it is. Many of my patients were Catholic, at least by upbringing. But you know what? Most of my patients were crappy candidates for NFP. I saw women pregnant because they missed getting their repeat Depo shot by a few weeks. Women pregnant with abusive boyfriends and husbands, who knew it was a bad idea for them to be pregnant again. Women who, when informed of their birth-control options, absolutely knew that they wouldn't take a pill every day, let alone take their temperature every day and chart their cervical mucus. Incarcerated women whose 3 previous children were in custody with Social Services. I know there have been studies showing NFP working for women in the slums of Calcutta, but those women have a whole different set of motivations for not getting pregnant - there's no safety net for them.

If these people are not willing to get pregnant, they shouldn't be having intercourse. Since when has the easiest solution been the correct one? The other thing is you mention the issue of the safety net in Calcutta. If people here couldn't get OCPs or other birth-control options, this would decrease their safety net and lead to different behavior. If people cannot see the consequences of their actions (ie engaging in intercourse leading to pregnancy), they are by all means going to continue to engage in those activities, and continue to have unwanted pregnancies, spread STDs, etc. One of the basic principles of economics is that people respond to incentives. By allowing availability of OCPs, there is no longer any incentive for people to abstain from sex/use NFP, and thus a great increase in teenage pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies, relationship problems, etc. You cannot prescribe OCPs and think you are not contributing to the problem.

When Catholic practitioners refuse to prescribe birth control other than NFP, you do indeed honor your beliefs, and you will have a loyal clientele. But you also abandon the large number of Catholic women who are very poor candidates for NFP. I would really respect anyone who said, we don't believe in birth control or abortion; if you want to have your baby we will provide a loving home for her and if you ever want your baby back, you can have her back. This is what the midwives on the Farm (Tennessee) offered for many years; I'd challenge Catholic practitioners to do the same, to deal with the consequences of your practice choices.

You challenge Catholic practitioners to deal with the consequences of their choices, but how do you deal with the consequences of people getting HIV, the number of teenage pregnancies, and all of the other problems? And why are the patients not expected to deal with the consequences of their getting pregnant when they themselves chose to engage in intercourse?

I agree, but a woman has a right to control her ability to procreate. If that means she believes the risks are worth the benefit (and the risks are not THAT high compared to the risk of bleeding complications from an OTC medicine such as aspirin).

I'm not sure I agree with this at all, that a woman has the right to control her ability to procreate, because she is one who decided to have intercourse and create a new life, so really she has already made the choice. And actually it is a joint decision to procreate between the couple, so it is not her decision. When you say a woman has the right to choose, are you saying that if the father wants the child and she does not, she is allowed to use OCPs? Is the child not equally the father's and the mothers, as I mentioned earlier?
 
The last time I checked, areas with comprehensive sex education and readily available (free or low-cost) contraceptives have the LOWEST rates of STIs and unplanned pregnancy, esspecially among teenagers. Places that promote abstienecn-only non-education that have poor access to contraceptives have higher rates of teen pregnancy. Gee, why might that be? I bet if you think about it really hard, you'll get it.

"OCPs make people have sex more, so they have more unwanted babies." Next you'll be telling us that war is peace.

Telling people, "Just don't have sex," has NEVER worked, and it never will. If we throw out all the wonders of modern medicine, we'll have more STIs and more unwanted children. Just look at our history books and look at really conservative areas of the country today.


ETA:
And one more thing. It is ALWAYS the woman's choice if she is making a medical decision about her body and how it is used. That means that if she wants to use OCPs, her lover's opinion isn't relevant (just as it isn't relevant if she doesn't want to use them, but her lover does want her to). The same thing goes for Plan B, abortion, or deciding to carry to term. She is the one who would actually have to use the medicine or go through the procedure, not him. She cannot force him to have a vasectomy, he can't force her to get her tubes tied... and so on and so forth. Each person's medical decisions are their own business and no one else's.

Should couples talk about this kind of thing before having sex? Most definitely, but the final decision gets made by the person whose body will be effected. In the case of anything related to pregnancy, that would be the woman.

And last, but certainly not least, there is one more thing that needs to be kept in mind. Consenting to sex does not indicate a willingness to gestate, esspecially if precautionary measures are taken. Consent to sex is consent to sex. Yes, there are risks involved, but having sex does not indicate how a woman would decide to deal with a condom breakage/OCP failure/pregnancy/etc, should one occur.
 
If these women don't need to be having all these babies, then they shouldn't be having sex. What you are doing by encouraging people to have sex without thinking of procreation when they DO NOT HAVE THE FINANCIAL MEANS to take care of more children is encouraging wholesale irresponsibility for one's actions. It's absolutely a fact that these people are going to be engaging in much more intercourse thinking they are immune from getting pregnant, and have many more chances for a possible pregnancy. I contend that the widespread availability of OCPs has led to many more teenage pregnancies and unanticipated pregnancies than ever before in history, and I'm sure current rates of unwanted pregnancies would support this. You ask, "how many of these young unwed mothers truly have gotten pregnant by actually trying to have a baby?" Whether they are trying to have a baby or not is moot: if they are not trying, they should not be having sex. And on the other hand, if they are unwed as you say, and you are prescribing OCP, then you are contributing to a whole host of problems because people who engage in premarital sex have higher divorce rates and problems with future relationships. In addition you are contributing to the spread of terrible diseases like AIDS, which is spread by people not being in monogamous relationships.

Do you realize that if there was no such thing as premarital sex and people engaged in totally monogamous relationships, diseases like AIDS, chlamydia, GC, HSV-2, and all the other STDs would fall out of existance? There would absolutely not be a single STD left in the world. Have you read books like "My Own Country" which describes firsthand stories of how terrible AIDS is and how it destroy's people health and inevitably leads to downward spiraling disease exacerbations and death? Is it so bad to aim for such a profound increasing quality of life for so many people? By prescribing OCPs to people who are not married, and if you look at the rates of people who use it, a very high percentage is going to be from unmarried people, you are encouraging people who are unmarried to engage in premarital sex and causing all kinds of irreparable problems in their life, including health related. It's like encouraging smoking, or prescribing something that would make it much easier for people to smoke. What if we precribed a drug that allowed people to smoke while eliminating the risk of lung cancer, but the person had to take it on a regular basis. Would you prescribe this medication? I would not, because it would certainly cause increased rates of lung cancer.



When a person is going to become pregnant, that child is the product of two parents. I don't know what you mean by giving women control of their bodies when the child is equally the father's. If you were a father, would you not be sad if you found out your wife was using OCPs or had an abortion and you were expecting a child? Any discussion of this issue should totally include both parents.

I agree with you that these women shouldn't be out there having all this sex if they don't want babies, STD's etc. But serioulsy, that is how the IDEAL WORLD should function. IT'S NOT REALITY. These women are having sex and whether or not you deny them OCP's is not going to stop that. So we need to address the issue at hand. These poor, uneducated, economically unstable women, or really anyone out there having unprotected sex need some kind of contraception and you, preaching to them about how they shouldn't be having sex is not going to stop them. And giving them OCP's or other forms of BC is not necessarily encouraging them to go out there and make woopie with everything that has a penis, but really is addressing the problem at hand which is, people have sex for all sorts of stupid reasons. Why not give them the necessary tools to prevent them from catching STD's and having unwanted pregnancies. I don't think you can compare that to encouraging people to smoke cigarretes, which have been proven to cause cancer. OCP's have not been proven to cause STD's, but lack of education on sexuality and risky behavior is what has been proven to cause these problems.

My second point, I not only an advocate for OCP's, but also an advocate for barrier contraceptives as well because as we all know, hormonal contreceptives do not decrease the chances of STD's.

Thirdly, a monogomous relationship does not equate zero STD's. I don't know what planet you live in but many, many people cheat on their spouses and for some crazy reason (I have no idea why:smuggrin: ) do not tell those spouses that they are screwing someone else on the side. So your whole idea of people being in monogomous relationship as the cure to all these STD's is moot. We are fallible humans last I checked. Great in theory, but DOES NOT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD!!!

Fourthly, your christian/spiritual morals sound wonderful and ideal, but they do not have much function in the real world. I think you need to wake up and realize that SEX IS HAPPENING ALL AROUND YOU, whether it's premarital, marital, heterosextual, homosexual, whatever. THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED, AND NOT WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE SHOULD/SHOULDN'T BE HAVING SEX OUTSIDE OF MARRIAGE.

And Last, but not least, let's not get started on the whole abortion debate. I don't equate prevention of pregnancy to the termination of one. Abortion SHOULD NOT be used as a form of BC. But people in a marriage/relationship usually tend to discuss what they want in regards to family planning and the father should definetly have a say so in that department. Absolutely. Let the two come together to visit the doctor and discuss what they want openly. If the woman is taking OCP's behind the husband's back without letting the doctor know, I as a soon to be physician have no control over that situation, and if I knew the situation would likely feel uncomfortable prescribing these meds without further discussion. But we don't always know the whole story so we can't go assuming that this woman could be lying to her husband and what not. I'm treating her, as my patient.
 
What they don't realize is that someone else's contraceptive choices and sexual practices are none of their business. Don't like OCPs? Don't take them, and don't sleep with people who use them.

Other people's sexual practices ARE my business, and society's business, since we have to deal with the consequences of their actions. Telling all the young people that it's ok to have premarital multipartner sex is leading to a social disaster, and it's not going to be fixed with bandaids like plan B.
 
Consent to sex is consent to sex. Yes, there are risks involved, but having sex does not indicate how a woman would decide to deal with a condom breakage/OCP failure/pregnancy/etc, should one occur.

Right, and consent to eat food is consent to eat food, not digestion, not absorption, just eating. It's the person's right to deal with risks (such as digestion) as he/she feels fit, perhaps by vomiting or taking an emergency laxative.
 
Right, and consent to eat food is consent to eat food, not digestion, not absorption, just eating. It's the person's right to deal with risks (such as digestion) as he/she feels fit, perhaps by vomiting or taking an emergency laxative.

Not wanting to get pregnant is now equivalent to having an eating disorder... that's rich. Really rich. Pregnancy is not a necessary part of a woman's life. She does not have to be pregnant in order to survive (unlike your digestion analogy, pregnancy disrupts homeostasis, while digestion maintains it).

Aside from that, I actually do think that a person has a right to vomit or take laxatives after eating, so your attempt to get me to argue that point isn't going to work. You can't force someone with an eating disorder to stop. They have to decide on their own when they want to try recovery, otherwise it won't work.

Similarly, it is a woman's right to use Plan B or have an abortion or carry to term. I will fight for all three of those rights, and I will always fight to make any of those three as easy and safe to accomplish as possible, without anyone shaming her for her decision.

It is not society's business to control the sexual practices of other people. We don't have any more of a social problem (due to sex) now than we ever have. People are having the same amount of sex at the same ages as they always have (we're just getting married later now). We have the same amount of extramarital sex as we always have, but people are divorcing more now. People don't see the point of staying in a crappy marriage, unlike the good old days when people would be more ashamed of divorce than they were of an affair. The only difference between then and now is that there isn't so much shame being thrown around (primarily at women, by the way).
 
I've just finished my 3rd year ob/gyn rotation at a large county hospital. I've been practicing NFP for 20 years and I am a great believer in how fantastic and effective it is. Many of my patients were Catholic, at least by upbringing. But you know what? Most of my patients were crappy candidates for NFP. I saw women pregnant because they missed getting their repeat Depo shot by a few weeks. Women pregnant with abusive boyfriends and husbands, who knew it was a bad idea for them to be pregnant again. Women who, when informed of their birth-control options, absolutely knew that they wouldn't take a pill every day, let alone take their temperature every day and chart their cervical mucus. Incarcerated women whose 3 previous children were in custody with Social Services. I know there have been studies showing NFP working for women in the slums of Calcutta, but those women have a whole different set of motivations for not getting pregnant - there's no safety net for them.

When Catholic practitioners refuse to prescribe birth control other than NFP, you do indeed honor your beliefs, and you will have a loyal clientele. But you also abandon the large number of Catholic women who are very poor candidates for NFP. I would really respect anyone who said, we don't believe in birth control or abortion; if you want to have your baby we will provide a loving home for her and if you ever want your baby back, you can have her back. This is what the midwives on the Farm (Tennessee) offered for many years; I'd challenge Catholic practitioners to do the same, to deal with the consequences of your practice choices.

I find it interesting that Doc Zuzu is prescribing contraceptives; as far as I understand, the Council of Catholic Bishops (not sure about name) which sets policy for the Catholic hospitals, proscribes birth control for those hospitals. So is the hospital contravening the rules set by its governing body, or am I misunderstanding something here?

Great post :thumbup:
 
Isn't this the same government that for a long time denied they had any AIDS cases?

Yeah, China's not really a government we should be looking up to. They have that whole forced abortion thing among everything else...
 
Yeah, China's not really a government we should be looking up to. They have that whole forced abortion thing among everything else...

Yeah, China definitely has a lot of issues, particularly with reproductive choice. I'm not sure how serious the "forced abortion" issue is, though. From what I have heard, they have you pay a hefty fine for having more than one child, so a lot of women end up aborting when they would rather carry to term (since they can't afford the fine). Or, they end up giving birth in secrecy, and leaving the child to be (hopefully) found and sent to an orphanage. Have you got more info on the government actually forcing women to abort?
 
If these people are not willing to get pregnant, they shouldn't be having intercourse.

Actually, my point was that these women ARE willing to get pregnant...but I personally would rather that they didn't! They have often not carefully thought through the consequences, or they are being overly optimistic about the ability of their incarcerated boyfriend to be a responsible father to the child, etc.. The advantage of BCM like depo, IUD, etc. is that you cannot get pregnant in a moment of weakness/lack of self-discipline/drunkenness, which you certainly can using NFP (I know, friends of mine have had spectacular NFP failures that way).

NFP does not require education, it requires serious motivation by BOTH partners. Starving couples in Calcutta with too many kids have a ton of motivation to make NFP work. A woman who can fall back on her family, social services, etc. has a lot less motivation because she has a safety net. I know I'm imposing my moral judgement on their life situations, but frankly I don't really want my tax dollars to be supporting the 5th child of a single woman who is already unemployed and entirely supported by my tax dollars. I'd much rather have her be on a long-term BCM that is reliable even if she's drinking or using. And most of the women I've met in this situation would rather not be having that 5th kid either.

When it comes to teen pregnancy, it's important to remember that a significant number of teens get pregnant by guys who are much older than they are, and that often that sex is non-consensual. This is not about amoral kids screwing around because birth control is available; it's about a whole lot more complex issues.
 
a woman has a right to control her ability to procreate.

Why is this considered a right? Perhaps the ability to procreate is more like a responsibility, and the destruction or misuse of that ability is irresonsibility, and the willing perpetuation of that state of affairs by doctors, educators, and government an even greater irresponsibility.

All the problems mentioned, which are completely legitimate, don't exist in isolation but are part of a larger social problem. Society's are born and survive around a common world view that shapes their values and binds them together. The common world view in the US has become "everybody have your own morality/beliefs and do your own thing." Does this seem problematic to anyone?
 
Why is this considered a right? Perhaps the ability to procreate is more like a responsibility, and the destruction or misuse of that ability is irresonsibility, and the willing perpetuation of that state of affairs by doctors, educators, and government an even greater irresponsibility.

Actually, what people have a right to is privacy and control over their own medical decisions. You seem to be arguing that procreation is a duty that everyone should perform. What do you have in mind, policing people's bedrooms and liberating their medical files to make sure that they are having sex according to YOUR moral set?

pillion said:
The common world view in the US has become "everybody have your own morality/beliefs and do your own thing." Does this seem problematic to anyone?

Seeing as how that's the basic reason white people came to America in the first place (and subsequently hijacked it from the native peoples), I'd be willing to wager that most people here aren't going to have a problem with diversity of morals/beliefs. We don't have a melting pot, we have a stew. It's ridiculous to expect everyone in a country with such a large population of people from many different cultural/religious/non-religious backgrounds to have the same opinions on morality, particularly when it comes to sexual practices.
 
The common world view in the US has become "everybody have your own morality/beliefs and do your own thing." Does this seem problematic to anyone?

Nope.....what seems problematic to me and apparently several others on this board is that you seem to think that the only responsible action of a woman is to get married, and pop out a baby every few years for the Good Lord. :laugh:
 
You seem to be arguing that procreation is a duty that everyone should perform. What do you have in mind, policing people's bedrooms and liberating their medical files to make sure that they are having sex according to YOUR moral set?

I'm not saying people have a duty to procreate, but to be responsible with respect to their their sexuality, that is, understanding what sex is, why they are engaging in it, and ready to accept the implications of it. Being responsible implies they don't need to be policed, and sharing a common moral perspective means nobody is imposing anyone elses moral view. Is this practical? Probably not anytime soon, but it's a worthwhile goal.

I'd be willing to wager that most people here aren't going to have a problem with diversity of morals/beliefs. We don't have a melting pot, we have a stew. It's ridiculous to expect everyone in a country with such a large population of people from many different cultural/religious/non-religious backgrounds to have the same opinions on morality, particularly when it comes to sexual practices.

There can be a certain fundamental moral agreement within a large population. Take an issue like racism. Do you think the country shares a common disdain for racism (despite the fact that racism still exists)? IMO, the so called sexual-revolution/liberation/whatever is due for a counter revolution by a society that is suffering the consequences of such imprudence. We need a re-moralizing of our country in regard to sexuality.
 
Nope.....what seems problematic to me and apparently several others on this board is that you seem to think that the only responsible action of a woman is to get married, and pop out a baby every few years for the Good Lord. :laugh:

Come one, I'm not that narrow-minded. She can also join a convent.
 
If these people are not willing to get pregnant, they shouldn't be having intercourse.


Oh my goodness I can't believe you said that! This just goes to show that we all have our opinions and no one is going to change anyone else's feelings on the matter. We're all too old and stubborn and think we know it all.:eek:
 
understanding what sex is, why they are engaging in it, and ready to accept the implications of it.

What sex is? I think we're all aware.
Why we engage in it? Because it feels damn good and it's part of a healthy relationship, regardless of the existence of a piece of paper legally binding the people together as a legal unit.
Be ready to accept the implications of it? I do agree here. My daughter is here because of the very kinds of things that you rail against, and I wouldn't trade her for the world:
 

Attachments

  • Picture 273.jpg
    Picture 273.jpg
    14.9 KB · Views: 112
Come one, I'm not that narrow-minded. She can also join a convent.

I do appreciate your sense of humor!

I also wanted to comment on the posts above that mentioned birth control as contributing to the spread of AIDS; as far as I know, gay men generally don't use birth control, so it's unlikely to be a contributing factor in that population.

Also, as far as our current amorality contributing to the spread of STDs: let us not forget that Columbus, that emininent Catholic, may have brought syphilis to the New World about 500 years ago, and that gonorrhea has similarly been around for hundreds of years. These are hardly new since the advent of birth control methods.
 
I do appreciate your sense of humor!

I also wanted to comment on the posts above that mentioned birth control as contributing to the spread of AIDS; as far as I know, gay men generally don't use birth control, so it's unlikely to be a contributing factor in that population.

Also, as far as our current amorality contributing to the spread of STDs: let us not forget that Columbus, that emininent Catholic, may have brought syphilis to the New World about 500 years ago, and that gonorrhea has similarly been around for hundreds of years. These are hardly new since the advent of birth control methods.

Contraceptives contribute insofar as they give a false sense of security. Check out medinstitute.org for more information.

Also, I don't think it was implied that STDs have not been around for a long time. It's a question of how widespread STDs have become.
 
Thirdly, a monogomous relationship does not equate zero STD's. I don't know what planet you live in but many, many people cheat on their spouses and for some crazy reason (I have no idea why ) do not tell those spouses that they are screwing someone else on the side. So your whole idea of people being in monogomous relationship as the cure to all these STD's is moot. We are fallible humans last I checked. Great in theory, but DOES NOT WORK IN THE REAL WORLD!!!

This is not a monogamous relationship.

Similarly, it is a woman's right to use Plan B or have an abortion or carry to term. I will fight for all three of those rights, and I will always fight to make any of those three as easy and safe to accomplish as possible, without anyone shaming her for her decision.

I absolutely do not believe that a woman should have the right to have an abortion without the say of the father. I'm not saying that this is the way it is now. But if a wife is having a baby and wants to have an abortion, while the husband disagrees, she should not have the right because whatever way you look at it, the child is equally the mother's and father's. When she engaged in intercourse and became pregnant, she was becoming something more than herself. It's not as if she created the child by herself, or as if she was totally responsible for what happened. If the situation was reversed, and the father wanted her to have an abortion and she did not want to, of course she has the right to carry to term. Of course I'm not trying to say that children are property or anything like that, but I think you know what I mean. Both parents have equal responsibility.

It is not society's business to control the sexual practices of other people. We don't have any more of a social problem (due to sex) now than we ever have. People are having the same amount of sex at the same ages as they always have (we're just getting married later now). We have the same amount of extramarital sex as we always have, but people are divorcing more now. People don't see the point of staying in a crappy marriage, unlike the good old days when people would be more ashamed of divorce than they were of an affair. The only difference between then and now is that there isn't so much shame being thrown around (primarily at women, by the way).

It's established that people are having sex at younger ages than ever before, getting STIs at younger ages, etc, etc, etc, and in many others spheres, such as access to drugs and usage of drugs at a younger age. It's much more of a social problem today than it was 50 years ago. This is practically established, I'm not sure where you got the information that the only difference is that people are getting married later, which is true. I don't know anything about rates of extramarital sex today compared to past generations.
 
Oh my goodness I can't believe you said that! This just goes to show that we all have our opinions and no one is going to change anyone else's feelings on the matter. We're all too old and stubborn and think we know it all.:eek:

Please, no!!! Don't ever think that everyone has their opinions and no one is going go change anyone else's! You have to think that everyone is open to new thoughts and new ideas. Incidentally, what I meant by my statement is that people should be willing to take responsibility for their actions.
 
I do appreciate your sense of humor!

I also wanted to comment on the posts above that mentioned birth control as contributing to the spread of AIDS; as far as I know, gay men generally don't use birth control, so it's unlikely to be a contributing factor in that population.

I agree, it's not a contributing factor in that population. But if you trace the history of HIV and AIDS, you will find that in the early years of the disease there was a predilection among gay men, and even clinically if you talk to physicians who were on the forefront of treating AIDS, they will tell you the initial population was mostly like that. But the meteoric rise of the disease in the next period, when it really became a national problem, was mainly due to heterosexuals.
 
Top