ON THE 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE PILL, WHAT IS AN ADEQUATE ASSESSMENT?

 
 The Editor April 22, 2010
Wall Street Journal
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York, 10036

To the Editor;
I was disappointed, but not altogether surprised, by the omission of a few critical facts in Melinda Beck’s review of contraceptive technology (“The Birth Control Riddle” Tuesday April 20, 2010).

First, while she mentioned a reduced risk of ovarian and cervical cancer with long- term use of hormonal contraceptives, she failed to point out the significant increased risk of the far more common cancer of the breast. This risk is greatest among long- term users who have not yet a child, which is a large segment of consumers of these drugs today. This is not new news. In 2005 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (an arm of the World Health Organization) declared the combined estrogen-progestin oral contraceptive a carcinogen based on the committee’s finding of “substantial evidence of carcinogenicity in humans.” Subsequent carefully controlled studies have continued to document this. Despite this, millions of uninformed women are encouraged to consume these carcinogens every day.

Second, Ms. Beck failed to mention that one mechanism of hormonal contraceptives is to “impede implantation in the endometrium.” Despite the semantic nuances the American College of Obstetrics & Gynecology may employ to obfuscate this by defining the pregnancy as beginning only after implantation, the truth is this mechanism of action is a direct abortion of a 5- to 10-day-old human embryo. For women using progestin-only formulations, FDA labeling indicates this mechanism may be in play in as many as half of all cycles. Women deserve to be told this.

But the larger concern that permeates Ms. Beck’s article is the pervasive approach to treat fertility as a disease or nuisance to be rid of rather than the magnificent gift it truly is. Contraceptives are the only drugs designed to render healthy body systems non-functional. So long as sex is viewed as little more than a mildly aerobic, recreational contact activity instead of the unifying, life-giving act between a husband and wife that reconfirms their unconditional acceptance, support, and commitment to each other exactly as they are, for the rest of their lives, we will continue to be disappointed in our attempts to control our fertility

There is an alternative: contemporary methods of Natural Family Planning are well-documented to be 99% effective, don’t carry the dangers inherent in most artificial methods, and often improve the overall relationship between husband and wife. NFP involves teamwork, and it is common for couples to report better communication, higher respect for each other, and a deeper relationship. Married couples who want to plan their families deserve better than what pharmaceutical companies are dishing out.


Respectfully,


Michael D. Manhart PhD
Executive Director,
Couple to Couple League International



 

 - back to Q & A --