I promised some time ago a follow-up post on the abortifacient properties of oral contraceptives. I think I can get it all out there in just a very few words…a smattering of bullet points:
- Makers of oral contraceptives have claimed in their marketing that their pills create a "hostile endometrium" as a failsafe to prevent the implantation of any "breakthrough ovulation" eggs that might happen to be fertilized. They list this claim for the marketing benefit for those to whom such a feature would be attractive.
- The makers of oral contraceptives have not conducted scientific studies to prove that this "hostile endometrium" has ever actually prevented implantation of a fertilized egg.
- A group of pro-life OB-GYNs have seized upon this lack of proof to suggest that the marketers have overreached—that oral contraceptives do not actually cause the endometrial lining of the uterus to be so "hostile" as to prevent implantation of the newly-conceived human being.
- The defenders of oral contraceptives against the charge of being abortifacient have also not conducted scientific studies to prove that there is no such thing as a "hostile endometrium" effect.
- The fact that oral contraceptives are in existence that prevent women from having menstrual periods at all is evidence that the hormones in the oral contraceptive pills do affect that nature of the endometrium. The items at question are (a) whether the hormonal changes that take place at conception would override the endometrium-thinning effects of the oral contraceptives, and (b) whether the newly conceived human being is hardy enough to implant regardless of a "hostile endometrium."
- The most accurate statement, therefore, that any of us can make is that oral contraceptives promise to prevent the implantation of conceived human beings.
- I incorrectly stated in a comment several posts earlier that IUDs were not abortifacient. I have since learned that they are.
Next will be a post on the value of catechisms, as promised to Chris Bonts, who most correctly predicted the time of John McCain's concession speech. Congratulations, Chris!
8 comments:
Bart:
Thanks for the correction on the IUD and for the info on the "pill."
I am still a bit confused by all of this, except to say that it is still my understanding that the pill is designed to prevent an egg from ever being fertilized.
It sounds like the makers of the pill also say that a fertilized egg, if one were to exist, could not be implanted.
I also think that I hear you saying that the makers of the pill do not have any statistical analysis of how often an egg may be fertilized or whether that would happen at all, just that if it did, it would not implant.
Other than the IUD correction, it all still sounds confusing to me.
This leads me back to my original belief that preachers need to be extremely careful when speaking about things medical and scientific. We have about 30 or so MDs in our church and medical students, as well. Our pastor actually jokes that there is no way he is going to make any medical statements that are beyond universal recognition and agreement because he is likely to mess up and look foolish.
We should all be that careful.
So, is the summary that one should get their medical advice from their own doctor, and spiritual advice from their preacher?
Louis
Louis,
You asked "So, is the summary that one should get their medical advice from their own doctor, and spiritual advice from their preacher?"
I think you slice a bit too neatly between "medical advice" and "spiritual advice." In my experience, there are spiritual dimensions to most things. However, if it be proven that medical matters are not relevant to spiritual advice or pastoral care, then that certainly would free a great deal of time from my schedule previously committed to hospital visits and the like! :-)
I was wondering if you saw my request!
Looking forward to it. Make it good!
Chris
You said:
"The fact that oral contraceptives are in existence that prevent women from having menstrual periods at all is evidence that the hormones in the oral contraceptive pills do affect that nature of the endometrium."
I'm not sure that this is precisely correct. A woman's endometrium builds up in response to ovulation. If a woman is not ovulating, the endometrium does not build up. The "period" a woman has on the pill is a shedding of the uterine lining in response to the withdrawal of hormones from the 21 days of active pills. There are times when a woman's own hormones suppress ovulation and therefore menustration, such as when she is exclusively nursing. Excessive exercise (like marathon running) can also prevent ovulation and a woman's normal cycles. If pills successfully inhibit ovulation, they can also inhibit menustration because the two are linked. So I don't know that its correct to assume the existence of pills that reduce the frequency of a woman's periods is de facto evidence that pills do in fact create a "hostile endometrium." You could also say the fact that "accidental" pregancies occur with all types of hormonal birth control is evidence that the endometrium is not affected.
Bart:
You certainly should make hospital visits. I support that. Just don't starting making diagnoses or prognoses!
The spiritual advice we give that may involve medical issues should be based on sound medicine. And being untrained in medicine, I am uncomfortable making any diagnosis or judgment, but would get that from people who have that expertise. Armed with that knowledge, I would then give spiritual advice.
That will keep us, I think, from making erroneous or confusing statements that we have to take back or explain later.
Louis
Anonymous,
In response to my statement about missed periods you said, "I'm not sure that this is precisely correct."
Well, let's revisit what I said. I said "The fact that oral contraceptives are in existence that prevent women from having menstrual periods at all is evidence that the hormones in the oral contraceptive pills do affect the nature of the endometrium."
So, you're asserting that the elimination of a period by an oral contraceptive pill does not involve any effect upon the nature of the endometrium—that the endometrium that does not give rise to a monthly period is precisely identical to the endometrium that does give rise to a monthly period?
??
???????
Louis,
I agree that I should not make diagnoses or prognoses. But in this case, I am doing neither. Rather, I am examining the claims of different sets of doctors, all of them owning the proper shingle to hang for discussing their evidence. The jargon is not beyond me, and it is a relatively simple thing to recognize the base component of their discourse: "Yes it does!" "No it doesn't!" "Yes it does!" "No it doesn't!"
In the face of that, I have not drawn ANY conclusion about whether it does or doesn't (the pill cause a "hostile endometrium, that is). Rather, I would conclude that the use of the pill is somewhat akin to playing Russian Roulette with a gun that may or may not be loaded and may or may not be working properly. It just might be a perfectly safe thing to do, but you have no way whatsoever of knowing for sure. So the wise thing to do is play it safe.
What are you views about the new "morning after pill"? Specifically when used by an unwed young woman.
Post a Comment