|
PubHealth.info®
(a subsidiary of
PakMed) presents scientific information mainly
based on abstracts of articles published on a variety of public health issues/topics,
particularly encompassing
population planning, disease prevention, maternal and child health,
and communicable and
non-communicable diseases (like HIV AIDS, malaria, etc) that are
affecting a significant portion of population in developing and
developed
countries. Here you can find abstracts of articles published on a variety of public health
topics under category "Contraception
(Birth Control) and Family Planning".
Contraception (birth control)
is a regimen of one or more actions, devices, or medications followed in
order to deliberately prevent or reduce the likelihood of a woman
becoming pregnant or giving birth. Therefore contraception is the
utilization of various and sundry surgical procedures, devices,
practices, agents, or drugs with the intention of preventing conception
or impregnation (pregnancy). Methods and intentions typically termed
birth control may be considered a pivotal ingredient to family
planning. Birth control is a controversial political and ethical
issue in many cultures and religions, and although it is generally less
controversial than abortion specifically. |
|
|
| CATEGORY: |
Contraception (Birth Control) and Family Planning |
| A one-sided view of natural family planning. |
| Hong Kong Catholic Marriage Advisory Council |
| International Review of Natural Family Planning. 1983 Spring;7(1):57-68. |
| An issue of Population Reports entitled, "Periodic Abstinence: How well do new approaches work?", is discussed. |
| The Population Reports paper concludes that even the newest approaches to family planning are less effective than |
| any other method of family planning with high pregnancy and discontinuity rates. The following are some criticisms |
| of the report's conclusions: 1) criteria are established for the selection of studies quoted regarding effectiveness and |
| no assessment is made of the validity of the results of whether they are universally applicable; 2) in diagrams |
| comparing the effectiveness of natural family planning (NFP) to that of oral contraceptives and IUDs the old calendar |
| method is used instead of the more modern, more effective methods; 3) in criticizing the temperature method, studies |
| are quoted uncritically and the statement that abstinence is necessary for the entire preovulatory period is incorrect, |
| it is true only of the strict temperature method; 4) regarding the cervical mucus method a study showing of 39.7 |
| pregnancies/100 woman-years in Los Angeles is mentioned as is a study of 500 women in India with a pregnancy |
| rate of 31.7% using this method and these 2 groups are not comparable; 5) the NFP program in India in which 10,000 |
| people enrolled with a dropout rate of under 5% and pregnancy rate of less than 1% is not adequately described; 6) |
| more space is devoted to the difficulties than the benefits of abstinence; 7) it is not mentioned that 1 reason that |
| other methods are more popular is their financial resources; and 8) speculation about complications from NFP are |
| not substantiated. This report is not a reliable and objective account of the state of NFP at this time. (PubHealth.info |
| Document ID: CONT5T 2053-06) |
| PubHealth.info NOTE: The author(s) of this article titled, "A one-sided view of natural family planning.", is(are) Hong |
| Kong Catholic Marriage Advisory Council. The source of this article is "International Review of Natural Family |
| Planning. 1983 Spring;7(1):57-68.". This article was published in 1983 in English language(s). (PubHealth.info® |
| Document ID: CONT5T 2053-06. All rights reserved with PubHealth.info) PIN: 22053 |
|
|
|
© Copyrights PubHealth.info®,
an information portal on public health. All rights
reserved.
This page is optimized to be viewed by
Java script enabled Microsoft®
Internet Explorer 6 or later version, at screen resolution of 800 by 600 pixels. |
