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.
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.
Talk about "Playing God." 
I must have missed that lecture.
