4 ms·

For couples looking for a non-surgical, non-pharmaceutical approach to family planning, the Billings and Sympto-Thermal methods of NFP are are good options: ht

For couples looking for a non-surgical, non-pharmaceutical approach to family planning, the Billings and Sympto-Thermal methods of NFP are are good options: http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/ http://www.thebillingsovulationmethod.org/ http://ccli.org/nfp/stm-method/ccl-stm-method.php http://ccli.org/nfp/stm-method/ccl-stm-method.php Both are well-researched (backed by solid science), easy to learn and use, and have effectiveness rates as good or better than many methods of artificial contraception. Also, they naturally help the couples become increasingly aware of their fertility, and can aid them in achieving pregnancy if/when that is desirable.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
The charts in this article disagree with your "easy to learn" statement about fertility awareness methods. It is one of the least effective in typical use although theoretically it's not bad. As you say these methods are more useful for getting pregnant than for not.
- michaelsbradley 12y ago
  Here is the paper presented by Prof. S. Z. Qian in September 2000 regarding a large trial of the Billings Method conducted in China: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/qia/qia_01nfpchina.html http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/qia/qia_01nfpchina.html "Due to its high efficacy, low expenditure and extreme safety incomparable by any other contraceptive methods, the BOM is well accepted by the Chinese couple of different cultural and economical backgrounds." So, while I do not have enough background information on the chart provided by NYT, it doesn't seem to square with other known data.
  - silencio 12y ago
    I don't think it necessarily contradicts the NYT chart. Fertility awareness ~can~ be fairly effective. I think the problem is that the linked paper only studied women for 12 months (try doing NFP for 10 years and saying it's effective) and they cherrypicked them too... normal cycles (!), partnered, specific age range, para 1 (!!!). That is definitely not going to match up with what NYT used and I wouldn't be surprised if any one of those points ends up making a difference. I'm trying to get pregnant for the first time right now with still irregular cycles, and NFP for the purpose of pregnancy (educated, and I spend a LOT of time on a lot of communities about this) is a huge headache. There's no way I'd try this as birth control.
    - michaelsbradley 12y ago
      I'm in my late 30s and have met and know couples who use/d NFP for a decade+. No one I've spoken with has said it's a huge headache, though some have candidly admitted that the self-control factor is sometimes challenging (that aspect is going to vary by couple, of course). I can't speak to your experience, and as you say you have irregular cycles. BOM can actually be quite simple for many couples, STM a little less so since it tracks more fertility signs. Here's a more recent report on a German study: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.short http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.short "The STM is a highly effective family planning method, provided the appropriate guidelines are consistently adhered to."
  - mikenuman 12y ago
    It's just another rhythm method, and this is covered by graph 2. The study you quote represents a "perfect use" because of the additional surveillance and support leading to better outcomes, associated with a study. BTW the study also compares with a low efficacy IUD; modern IUDs are much more effective.
    - michaelsbradley 12y ago
      The phrase "just another rhythm method" is potentially quite misleading or indicative of misunderstanding – I don't presume to know your motives for employing the phrase. Now, there is a true sense in which all NFP methods can be described as "rhythm" methods, i.e. human female fertility displays cyclic characteristics (generally speaking) between puberty and menopause, so methods which employ observation of a woman's fertility signs are tuning into the "rhythm" of her cycle. But, "rhythm method" has become synonymous with Calendar Rhythm Method, the early-modern forms of which date back to the 1920s. The failure rate for typical use of historical rhythm method is higher than, say, the pill or condoms, and since the middle of the last century it has been dismissed as an effective form of birth control. Several NFP methods developed since that time (mid 20th Century) involve more than marking days on a calendar. The woman, or the couple together, track one or more well-researched signs of fertility: basal body temperature, cervical mucus, changes in the cervix. Current and past observations are correlated according to straightforward rules to determine the start and end of a fertile period (i.e. "abstinence days" from vaginal intercourse, for those hoping to avoid pregnancy). So while days do get marked on a calendar, these methods are different enough in practice, and with respect to their effectiveness, that it's incorrect to lump them together with the older rhythm method. To avoid misperception, researchers themselves refer to these methods as FA, FAB, or FAM – "fertility awareness [based] [method/s]" – and not as "rhythm methods". There is a true successor to the old calendar rhythm method. It was developed in the late 1990s and is called the Standard Days Method. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_methods#Standard_Days_Method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_me... http://www.cyclebeads.com/research http://www.cyclebeads.com/research As to the NYT's chart: as I said previously, I am a little dubious that it accurately reflects the worldwide data collected for the effectiveness of modern NFP. Which is not to say that I think the chart's creator is intentionally trying to mislead the Times' readership. I have no comment on the effectiveness of modern IUDs, though I refer you to the German study I linked in a later comment above for additional info on NFP's effectiveness. The larger point, sometimes missed by people who have a knee-jerk reaction to mention of NFP, is that its modern methods offer viable, drug-free, surgery-free, inexpensive approaches to birth control, which can be used effectively by rich and poor alike.
hga 12y ago
It occurs to me that you can divide birth control methods into those that require self-discipline, e.g. rhythm and barrier methods and the pill, vs. ones that don't like IUDs, Norplant and of course surgery. And that there's a population for whom none of the self-discipline methods are going to work in the long term (I've been around women who had an amazing difficultly in taking the pill every day...). Then there's the confounding factor of the backstops, the "morning after" medicines and abortion, with the further confounding factor of cultural acceptance of them. I've read that there's almost no stigma associated with abortion in Japan, which I connect with another thing I've read, that a baby isn't considered to be ... real?, really counted as alive in some sense, until it survives for 3 days. Which helps deal with the high natural mortality rate right after birth. Which needs to be remembered when you e.g. try to compare life expectancy rates between countries, since infant mortality is such a major factor in that, and countries vary wildly in how they score it. E.g. the US tries very hard, much harder than most counties, to save preemies and those with birth defects, whereas the latter are unlikely to ever exit the neonatal unit alive in the PRC (something that came up in discussion of the couple in Armenia where it's claimed the mother gave the father of their newborn son with Downs Syndrome the ultimatum of divorce if he wanted to keep the child, one pretty clear implication being he would be killed if not).

thrownaway2424 12y ago

The charts in this article disagree with your "easy to learn" statement about fertility awareness methods. It is one of the least effective in typical use although theoretically it's not bad. As you say these methods are more useful for getting pregnant than for not.

michaelsbradley 12y ago
Here is the paper presented by Prof. S. Z. Qian in September 2000 regarding a large trial of the Billings Method conducted in China: http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/qia/qia_01nfpchina.html http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/qia/qia_01nfpchina.html "Due to its high efficacy, low expenditure and extreme safety incomparable by any other contraceptive methods, the BOM is well accepted by the Chinese couple of different cultural and economical backgrounds." So, while I do not have enough background information on the chart provided by NYT, it doesn't seem to square with other known data.
- silencio 12y ago
  I don't think it necessarily contradicts the NYT chart. Fertility awareness ~can~ be fairly effective. I think the problem is that the linked paper only studied women for 12 months (try doing NFP for 10 years and saying it's effective) and they cherrypicked them too... normal cycles (!), partnered, specific age range, para 1 (!!!). That is definitely not going to match up with what NYT used and I wouldn't be surprised if any one of those points ends up making a difference. I'm trying to get pregnant for the first time right now with still irregular cycles, and NFP for the purpose of pregnancy (educated, and I spend a LOT of time on a lot of communities about this) is a huge headache. There's no way I'd try this as birth control.
  - michaelsbradley 12y ago
    I'm in my late 30s and have met and know couples who use/d NFP for a decade+. No one I've spoken with has said it's a huge headache, though some have candidly admitted that the self-control factor is sometimes challenging (that aspect is going to vary by couple, of course). I can't speak to your experience, and as you say you have irregular cycles. BOM can actually be quite simple for many couples, STM a little less so since it tracks more fertility signs. Here's a more recent report on a German study: http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.short http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/5/1310.short "The STM is a highly effective family planning method, provided the appropriate guidelines are consistently adhered to."
- mikenuman 12y ago
  It's just another rhythm method, and this is covered by graph 2. The study you quote represents a "perfect use" because of the additional surveillance and support leading to better outcomes, associated with a study. BTW the study also compares with a low efficacy IUD; modern IUDs are much more effective.
  - michaelsbradley 12y ago
    The phrase "just another rhythm method" is potentially quite misleading or indicative of misunderstanding – I don't presume to know your motives for employing the phrase. Now, there is a true sense in which all NFP methods can be described as "rhythm" methods, i.e. human female fertility displays cyclic characteristics (generally speaking) between puberty and menopause, so methods which employ observation of a woman's fertility signs are tuning into the "rhythm" of her cycle. But, "rhythm method" has become synonymous with Calendar Rhythm Method, the early-modern forms of which date back to the 1920s. The failure rate for typical use of historical rhythm method is higher than, say, the pill or condoms, and since the middle of the last century it has been dismissed as an effective form of birth control. Several NFP methods developed since that time (mid 20th Century) involve more than marking days on a calendar. The woman, or the couple together, track one or more well-researched signs of fertility: basal body temperature, cervical mucus, changes in the cervix. Current and past observations are correlated according to straightforward rules to determine the start and end of a fertile period (i.e. "abstinence days" from vaginal intercourse, for those hoping to avoid pregnancy). So while days do get marked on a calendar, these methods are different enough in practice, and with respect to their effectiveness, that it's incorrect to lump them together with the older rhythm method. To avoid misperception, researchers themselves refer to these methods as FA, FAB, or FAM – "fertility awareness [based] [method/s]" – and not as "rhythm methods". There is a true successor to the old calendar rhythm method. It was developed in the late 1990s and is called the Standard Days Method. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_methods#Standard_Days_Method http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_contraceptive_me... http://www.cyclebeads.com/research http://www.cyclebeads.com/research As to the NYT's chart: as I said previously, I am a little dubious that it accurately reflects the worldwide data collected for the effectiveness of modern NFP. Which is not to say that I think the chart's creator is intentionally trying to mislead the Times' readership. I have no comment on the effectiveness of modern IUDs, though I refer you to the German study I linked in a later comment above for additional info on NFP's effectiveness. The larger point, sometimes missed by people who have a knee-jerk reaction to mention of NFP, is that its modern methods offer viable, drug-free, surgery-free, inexpensive approaches to birth control, which can be used effectively by rich and poor alike.

hga 12y ago

It occurs to me that you can divide birth control methods into those that require self-discipline, e.g. rhythm and barrier methods and the pill, vs. ones that don't like IUDs, Norplant and of course surgery. And that there's a population for whom none of the self-discipline methods are going to work in the long term (I've been around women who had an amazing difficultly in taking the pill every day...). Then there's the confounding factor of the backstops, the "morning after" medicines and abortion, with the further confounding factor of cultural acceptance of them. I've read that there's almost no stigma associated with abortion in Japan, which I connect with another thing I've read, that a baby isn't considered to be ... real?, really counted as alive in some sense, until it survives for 3 days. Which helps deal with the high natural mortality rate right after birth. Which needs to be remembered when you e.g. try to compare life expectancy rates between countries, since infant mortality is such a major factor in that, and countries vary wildly in how they score it. E.g. the US tries very hard, much harder than most counties, to save preemies and those with birth defects, whereas the latter are unlikely to ever exit the neonatal unit alive in the PRC (something that came up in discussion of the couple in Armenia where it's claimed the mother gave the father of their newborn son with Downs Syndrome the ultimatum of divorce if he wanted to keep the child, one pretty clear implication being he would be killed if not).