Revision as of 07:54, 12 December 2006 editCyberAnth (talk | contribs)7,558 editsm →Wording of abstinence description← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 02:01, 23 July 2017 edit undoPrimeBOT (talk | contribs)Bots2,048,549 editsm Replace magic links with templates per local RfC - BRFA | ||
(67 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{aan}} | |||
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=B}}{{FAOL|Japanese|ja:避妊}} | |||
{{WPCD}} | |||
{{releaseversion|class=B|category=Socsci}} | |||
==Old Discussion== | |||
I don't think that Abstinence should itself be a top-level topic just to discuss abstaining from intercourse in order to avoid conceiving a child. Abstinence can mean abstaining from about anything: from meat if you're a vegetarian, from alcohol if you're a teetotaler, etc. If we don't want these to be subpages of contraception, perhaps that should be something like 'Abstinence as contraception'... although some opponents to contraception may see abstinence as an <em>alternative</em> to contraception, rather than a <em>form</em> of it. | |||
== Discipline "from both partners" == | |||
:Abstinence is a very important option for many adults but it can be an unpleasent and unnecessary choice for those just wishing to live a healthy life free from std's there are safe ways to enjoy intercourse and we are very impressed with many of them that are described in a wonderful reference about .<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:12:11, 3 December 2006| 12:11, 3 December 2006|}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> | |||
---- | |||
Abstinence can mean the avoidance of many different things , but in ordinary use, I think it almost always means abstinence from sex, with abstinence from alcohol a distant second; see . "Abstinence from alcohol" has other descriptive terms ("sobriety," "teetotalism"), and "sexual abstinence" has one very important synonym: "chastity." But the latter has many religious connotations that the former doesn't have. | |||
I plan to delete the words "from both partners" from the sentence "However, with this method, discipline is required from both partners to prevent the progression to intercourse." in the "Avoiding vaginal intercourse" section, on the grounds that I believe the sentence as it stands is false and it is not supported by a citation. I believe that discipline from both partners may not always be required. In some cases, discipline may only be required by the physically stronger person or by the one in a stronger position (e.g. on top). In some cases, discipline may only be required by the more passionate person. No proof has been provided that discipline from both partners is required. Furthermore: if one partner maintains discipline and maintains the intention not to have intercourse and intercourse nevertheless occurs, then that is rape and should be referred to as such. So, it could say something about "the risk of progressing to either consensual sex or rape," if we can find any citation providing any fact about such risk. Even if the sentence were true I object to the current wording as trivializing rape. --] 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
So, I'd propose the following article titles: | |||
* ] a pointer page, pointing to ], ], and either ] or ] | |||
* ] for a discussion of the sociology of sexual abstinence | |||
* ] for a discussion of religious and moral aspects of sexual abstinence | |||
* either ] or ] for a discussion of anti-alcoholism | |||
I went ahead and made the change described above. --] 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
-- | |||
---- | |||
Thanks for putting my abstinence comment up on the main page. I also like the article titles you proposed. In my experience, chastity is used to refer to 'sexual purity,' which would be sexual abstinence for those unmarried, and sexual faithfulness to one's spouse for those married. I think that was the second entry for chastity at dictionary.com. But it still seems very appropriate to link to the topic from the Abstinence page. | |||
== "pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" == | |||
A related topic might be ], as in temporary abstinence from food, or just from certain types of food, for a limited period of time, whether for religious or medical reasons. | |||
I plan to edit the article to say "pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" throughout. "Pregancy rate" is more courteous to people whose lives happened to begin while their parents were trying to prevent pregnancy; it's more neutral, less negative. I'm giving an opportunity for discussion here first before making the change. --] 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
--Wesley | |||
:"Pregnancy rate" is more clear, also. "Failure rate" with respect to barrier methods doesn't necessarily mean the woman got pregnant - a "lost" condom or a diaphragm that came out in the middle of coitus would be described as "failures" regardless of pregnancy outcome. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
Can I suggest the first sentence of the intro be changed to read "'''Birth control''' is the practice of reducing probability of ] or ending an unwanted pregnancy." Birth control is not a method, technique, device or drug. ] 03:08, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
I like the synopsis of the Catholic Church's position that is given, but I think other religions should be covered as well, particularly the other major ones (Islam, Hinduism, etc). | |||
Coppertwig please do not open identical debates on multiple pages at once. I'll copy over your additonal points from ] and my responses: | |||
I did not include specific references in my explanation of the history of birth control but plan to put them in later. I've seen reference to the things I wrote in several written sources, but it probably isn't authoritative. The history of the condom is a particular favorite for manipulation. | |||
] 01:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC) | |||
<blockquote>I would like to edit this infobox to change "failure rate" to "pregnancy rate". This is the usage in some birth control literature e.g. and I believe this usage is growing and that it will become standard. The phrase "pregnancy rate" is much more courteous towards those people whose lives happened to begin while their parents were trying to prevent pregnancy. "Failure rate" can be perceived as very negative towards those people; "pregnancy rate" is neutral and its meaning is quite clear -- even slightly clearer than "failure rate", perhaps, which could possibly be misinterpreted in some contexts as a failure to achieve pregnancy. I'm also planning to similarly edit the wording on the ] and ] pages and perhaps other pages. I'm leaving an opportunity for discussion before making the change. --] 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)</blockquote> | |||
Some numbers... | |||
<table width="100%"> | |||
<tr><td><font class="bodytext" size="3"><b>Table 1</b><br><hr> | |||
</font></td></tr> | |||
<tr><td><font class="bodytext" size="3"><b>Perfect and typical first-year failure rates of currently available male contraceptive methods</b><br><hr> | |||
</font></td></tr> | |||
<tr><td><font class="bodytext" size="3"> | |||
<table width="100%"> | |||
<tr valign=""> | |||
<td> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">Method<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">Perfect use failure rate, <i>%</i><br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">Typical use failure rate, <i>%</i><br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr valign=""> | |||
<td> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">None<sup>†</sup><br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">80-90<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">80-90<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr valign=""> | |||
<td> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">Abstinence<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">0<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">Unknown<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr valign=""> | |||
<td> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">Coitus interruptus<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">4<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">20<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr valign=""> | |||
<td> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">Male condoms (latex)<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">3<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">14<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
<tr valign=""> | |||
<td> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">Vasectomy<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">0.10<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
<td align="center"> | |||
<font class="bodytext" size="3">0.15<br></font> | |||
</td> | |||
</tr> | |||
</table> | |||
</font></td></tr> | |||
<tr><td><font class="smalltext" size="2"> | |||
<hr>First-year rate. <sup>†</sup>Unlimited, unprotected intercourse in otherwise fertile women. (<i>Data from</i> Trussell .)</font></td></tr> | |||
</table> | |||
:I disagree: ''"which could possibly be misinterpreted in some contexts as a failure to achieve pregnancy"'' – but the whole point of contraception is NOT to "achieve pregnancy". A pregnancy despite use of contraception is therefore not what is being sought and not a "success" as far as the method goes, indeed it is a negative reflection on the particular method. Terminology usage in the UK is still to describe failure rates. The view that "usage in some birth control literature ... and I believe this usage is growing and that it will become standard" is a personal opinion and thus excluded from article space by ], unless you can cite an authorative source explaining that the terminology is to change. The reference given is for a US webpage in 1997, which is hardly indicative of a changing use of terminology (just that this one paper in 1997 so phrased). | |||
== Consider the addition of a natural method. == | |||
: Of course I agree none of this implies any judgement on those people so borne, but we do use terms such as "planned pregnancy" or "unplanned pregnancy" when making antenatal referals or supporting people in making a decission on how they wish to proceed (continue with pregnancy or not to) - see current UK FPA's . ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Further, and from 2006, example of terminology usage comes from ], which describes ''"Typical failure rates among pill users are as high as 12% to 20% in some surveys."'' So I am not convinced of a changing international use of terms. ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
I like your enthusiasm, but calling it the "pregnancy rate" is just inaccurate. It's not duplicated anywhere else of which I'm aware. Like Lyrl said, a failure of a method does not necessarily mean pregnancy, it could just mean that the condom broke, etc. A method can fail without a pregnancy occurring. Also, I don't see this usage as any more "courteous" - what about women who chose abortion? Would they appreciate being included in the "pregnancy rate"? This, of course, isn't as relevant as what I mentioned initially. ] 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
'''Temporary Sterilization''' | |||
:While some people might inaccurately believe that every time birth control fails they'd get pregnant (really the fault of the pro-birth control crowd in the first place) I don't think that we should change every single article from failure rate to pregnancy rate. It seems impractical, especially since, if the original source doesn't include the pregnancy rate, it would make it more difficult to compare findings. Or at least that is what I believe. What would we do in those cases where a study simply lists the failure rate? Use a conversion method devised by another study? ] 04:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Sterilization is commonly associated with Surgical sterilization, and yet, other methods of sterilization exist which should be listed. | |||
In the context of ] (where this debate is linked), the term failure rate is an applicable term - as the procedure is a surgical sterilization of the male reproductive system, therefore any conception that results is due to a failure in this procedure. To state POV/NPOV in either direction for this sepcific discussion could lead to a long and complex argument, with little gained by any but in the case vasectomies specifically, then it's innaccurate to not descibe it as such. --] 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Temporary male sterilization by radiant heat. (ie. Hot Tub, Iron Radiator, etc.) | |||
:I apologize for opening the same discussion in different places. Thanks, David Ruben, for helping straighten this out. I've just now put notes on multiple other birth control pages alerting people to this discussion, indicating a desire to make the same change on those pages too, and directing them to comment here; I hope I did that right this time. | |||
Additional research with regard to ideological inversion of medical/traditional fertility advice. | |||
:In reply to David Ruben: I agree that the point of contraception is to avoid pregnancy, but I fail to see how this fact prevents misunderstandings occurring. The writer could be talking about contraceptive methods and the reader could wrongly think that methods to achieve pregnancy were being discussed -- especially on a page such as Natural Family Planning where both types of technique are likely to be discussed on the same page, but also on other pages where a reader might for some reason think both types of technique were being discussed. I don't think we're necessarily constrained to stay with any particular terminology for example the terminology of a particular country; I think we're free to choose another terminology, for example if some of us find it to be more courteous and/or less ambiguous and if others have no strong objections. ''The view that "usage in some birth control literature ..."'' True, this is a personal opinion; but since I'm not proposing to make such a statement in the article, it's irrelevant whether it's excluded from article space. It's not excluded here, where the goal is to find a consensus among Wikipedian editors as to what the article should say. | |||
lin: | |||
:I did Google searches for ''"failure rate" "birth control"'' and for ''"pregnancy rate" "birth control"'' and got a larger number of pages for the latter. I've also given an example above of a web page using the "pregnancy rate" usage; I've also seen it other places, as well as seen the idea expressed that it's more respectful of people who were born under such circumstances. | |||
don't you think every indivudual should have a fair chance of living their life just how they want it? in china a family can only concider one child, in africa aids and hiv are very big concernings, so why aren't the contraceptions for free? I think it should be, that you can choose if you want children yes or no and that it isn't based on your money or government. | |||
:''"Of course I agree none of this implies any judgement on those people so borne..."'' Maybe you're missing my point. I think that if someone has been born in spite of birth control (as many people have been), and knows or suspects it, and if that person is depressed, (as many people are), and if that person reads these articles, it may be very difficult for that person to avoid thinking that there ''is'' an implication here of a negative judgement on them, such as the idea that that person is a failure. So I'm saying it ''does'' imply judgement (at least in the minds of some such people). So, I'm not sure who you're agreeing with here. | |||
== Appellations of Birth Control == | |||
:I'm OK with the terms "planned pregnancy" and "unplanned pregnancy"; they don't seem too negative to me. It's the term "failure rate" that I would like to eliminate as much as possible in this context. | |||
I am refining the reference to '''family planning'''; birth control designates a subset of the activities of constituent of those termed family planning. Specifically, family planning often involves efforts to effect a pregnancy, not avoid one. | |||
:In reply to Joie de Vivre: So, is it your understanding that when it says in the birth control infobox, for example on the page about the Diaphragm, "failure rates (per year, with spermicide)/Perfect use: 6%/Typical use 10-39%" is it your understanding that this does ''not'' mean that there is a pregnancy rate of 6% and of 10-39%, but that those include a rate of something else happening (e.g. diaphragm falling out or something)? I think you've misinterpreted the phrase "failure rate" in the birth control infobox, and that changing it from "failure rate" to "pregnancy rate" will help prevent people misunderstanding it just as you have just misunderstood it. What do other people think? Does it actually mean a pregnancy rate of 6% or is it talking about some other definition of "failure"? This phrase "failure rate" occurs in the birth control infobox which is on many birth control pages; it would be good if the term were clearly defined and understood by everyone. | |||
Furthermore, the statement that abortion is not birth control may be POV. ''Humanae Vitae'', the Catholic encyclical which state's the Churches' position on birth control, applicable today to 1.3 billion persons, lumps abortion right in there with everything else under the heading ''Unlawful Birth Control Methods''. The Church would seem to differentiate then between '''contraception''' and '''birth control''', and this would be a POV which demands to be addressed. | |||
:In reply to Joie de Vivre saying ''Also, I don't see this usage as any more "courteous" - what about women who chose abortion? Would they appreciate being included in the "pregnancy rate"?'' I think I don't follow your point here. Maybe you could explain more fully what you're getting at. I suppose different people who have chosen abortions will have different opinions. I think some people may feel a little depressed or belittled or offended on reading "failure rate"; I don't see any reason why anyone would feel particularly bad on reading "pregnancy rate". I think a woman who has chosen an abortion and who herself was born when her parents were using birth control may feel depressed or belittled or offended on reading "failure rate", just as someone who has not had an abortion may also feel on reading that. Actually, I think having had an abortion would tend to make the feeling even worse, even stronger -- the depressed thought that might tend to intrude might be "I'm a failure; I'm worthless, just like the fetus I aborted." It can be difficult or impossible to push such negative thoughts out of one's mind if one is depressed. --] 05:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:It is not "POV" to say that abortion is not birth control, depending on what definition of birth control were working with. As mentioned in a comment below, the words contraception and birth control have been muddied, and further so by the implantatio/fertilization argument. It is made quite clear in the FIRST paragraph of the article, however, that this article uses the definition of preventing preganancy (thus equating contraception and birth control together). Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy that is already implanted and has begun gestation. No "birth control" option can terminate a pregnancy that is already in gestation, though they can possibly cause problems or induce a miscarriage, albeit rarely. But they are neither effective enough nor primarily used for that purpose, so they are labelled as birth control methods. Abortion (and chemical abortion) are terminations of pregnancies, and in no way "prevents" them in the medical sense of the word.] 17:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:In reply to RedHillian: I don't quite follow. I agree that the term "failure rate" is logically applicable and accurate. However, the term "pregnancy rate" is also logically applicable and accurate (and clearer, less ambiguous, and more respectful). Do you agree that the term "pregnancy rate" is also applicable? If not, why not? Why do you say it would be inaccurate ''not'' to say "failure rate"? I don't see how ''not'' saying something can be inaccurate. | |||
== Major Ban on Use of Contraceptives == | |||
::I'll rephrase - the single purpose of a vasectomy is to prevent pregnancy. It is a complex procedure requiring work that is only entrusted to a few highly trained and skilled professionals. Barring surgical reversal (where conception is the specific desired result), there is the intention of creating a sterile male, unable to reproduce, therefore any pregnancy resulting afterwards is as a result of the operations failure rather than any other choice. Regardless of personal feelings (which require a ]), the terming of this (at least withing the page ] as anything other than failure is Un-encyclopedic. As has also been noted elsewhere in this thread, failure does not always mean conception either, failure in the case of a vasectomy could mean that viable spermatoza were detected in a semen sample from a patient, well after the sample should have been clear, a clear failure but no pregnancy. --] 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:In reply to Chooserr: Please see my reply to Joie de Vivre. --] 05:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
On 27 July 2005, the Wisconsin legislature — in a midnight session — banned all contraceptives and their uses from all state universities with bill . I seriously believe this totally unconstitutional attack should be noted prominently on the main page, but leave that discretion to others. ''— ] (]) 15:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)'' | |||
::Please read ] before any wholesale changes are made to multiple articles. Understanding of the studies and terminology is paramount before any change is made. Personal feelings aside when one reads ''failure rate'', this is an encyclopaedic project, not personal opinion portrayed as fact. Unless you can find citations from reputable studies that state ''pregnancy rate'', any change from ''failure rate'' would be ] and original research. We should not be going down that path, no matter how we feel. --] 06:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
One does not want Misplaced Pages to be too USA/UK/English-centric, but this is a clear example of the continuing controversy mentioned by the article's opening paragraphs and, if others agree, I suggest the addition of the following: | |||
:---- | |||
:<nowiki>A recent example is the USA Wisconsin legislature in a midnight session on 27 July 2005, banning contraceptives and their uses from all state universities with bill ; this is being challanged.</nowiki> | |||
] 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
::But ... this is apparently the largest successful attack against "choice" in decades! In fact, the Pro-Life group who promoted it so vociferously finally fessed up: It's leadership came out this week proclaiming that they weren't concerned so much with the killing of fetuses as in limiting a woman's ability to get out of pregnancy in any instance (whether defensively or actively). It came down to them wanting to — and this is sickeningly scary ... in the Taliban sense! — reduce ''prolifency''!!! They were more concerned with stopping sexual expression of women than saving what they claimed were the lives of fetuses. (this is '''very''' hard to semantically discuss in a NPOV :-//). Basically it all comes back to the Puritanical (and patriarchal religions in general) desire to keep women totally underdeveloped servants of men, something a heathilly expressed sexuality thoroughly thrashes. ''— ] (]) 20:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)'' | |||
:I think regardless how good our personal arguments are for or against the usage of these terms, what matters most is ]. What term do our sources use? A quick google search finds that the FDA and the ACOG use the term 'failure rate'. Who exactly uses the other term in regards to birth control? --] 21:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
I think this is a case of misrepresentation by a few leaders, it certainly doesnt not represent the view at the grass roots. Certainly the catholic position sees the anticontraception movement as re-establishing the dignity of women. See the writings of George Weigel for a decent overview. | |||
::Here are a few examples of "pregnancy rate" in the literature (there are more): | |||
== How is an abortificient birth control? == | |||
::*''Cumulative pregnancy rates during lactational amenorrhoea were 2.9 and 5.9 per 100 women at 6 and 12 months, compared with 0.7 at 6 months for the LAM.'' | |||
Doesn't a pregnancy occur? --] 16:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
::*:1: ''Lancet''. 1992 Jan 25;339(8787):227-30. Links Contraceptive efficacy of lactational amenorrhoea. Kennedy KI, Visness CM. | |||
:I suppose that technically, anything that prevents a birth is, etymologically speaking, birth control. The confusion is because "birth control" and "contraception" are often used interchangeably. Any effect that takes place after conception is not contraception. (This is further complicated by both the existence of methods that can work either before or after fertilization, and the fertilization vs. implantation debate, which I'm not even going to get into here!) --] 06:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
::*''Breakage and slippage rates were determined, and typical-use and consistent-use pregnancy rates were calculated using life-table analysis, adjusted for use of emergency contraception.'' | |||
Should we merge it with the real ] page, which is lacking this information? I am pretty sure anything that causes an abortion is not medically considered birth control. --] 16:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC) | |||
::*:Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Polyurethane Condom: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Ron G. Frezieres, Terri L. Walsh, Anita L. Nelson, Virginia A. Clark, Anne H. Coulson ''Family Planning Perspectives'', Vol. 31, No. 2(Mar. - Apr., 1999), pp. 81-87 | |||
::*''Progestogen-only contraceptive implants are highly effective. In most studies, 5-year cumulative pregnancy rates are less than 1.5/100 women for Norplant and Norplant II.'' | |||
That's true. Abortion is not birth control at all. That is just as wrong as saying if you have an irritated cut on your hand, you should chop off your arm so an infection doesn't spread to the rest of your body. | |||
::*:''Contraception.'' 2002 Jan;65(1):29-37. Implantable contraceptives for women: effectiveness, discontinuation rates, return of fertility, and outcome of pregnancies. Glasier A. | |||
::"Pregnancy rate" and "failure rate" do not always refer to the same quantity. Where they refer to the same quantity, I prefer the term "pregnancy rate" for reasons I've mentioned above. Where they refer to different quantities, a distinction needs to be made. Another alternative is to cite the "effectiveness rate" -- this term is also frequently used outside Misplaced Pages; for example a method may have a pregnancy rate of 1% which means an effectiveness rate of 99%. | |||
Actually, people DO cut off their arms so the infection doesn't go to the whole body. Or are you unawareof gangrene, cancer, or other forms diseases that require either amputation or biopsys to remove the possibility of infection.] 17:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
::Maybe the Birth Control infobox does not report pregnancy rates. I consider the method and use pregnancy rates to be important quantities that people want to know and that should be in the infobox. Here's another idea: modify the Birth Control Infobox so that editors can easily list either "pregnancy rate", "failure rate" or "effectiveness rate", (or more than one of these), depending on which is most appropriate to the given method. Also, modify the infobox so that "pregnancy rate" (or "failure rate") becomes a link which goes to a definition of the term, a different definition for each method if necessary, (usually in a subsection of one of the birth control method pages or this page), or to say for example on the Condom page "pregnancy rate (per year, latex; definition)" with "definition" being a link to the definition. (Or similarly for "effectiveness" or "failure" rate.) Clearly (based on this discussion) it is not adequate to simply say "failure rate" and assume that everybody understands what it means. | |||
== Percentages for different contraception methods == | |||
::I think the meaning is clearer if "pregnancy rate" is stated. Everybody knows what a pregnancy is. But who knows what a writer or editor meant to include in "failure rate", unless the definition is stated? For example, if a vasectomy does not reduce the fertility of a man but he does not get anyone pregnant because he knows he's still fertile and continues to use other methods of contraception, is that a "failure" or not? It could easily be considered a "failure" by some people but not by others. Perhaps the man considers it a "success" because his primary objective of not getting anyone pregnant was achieved. So, if we say "failure rate" some readers may think they know what we mean but be wrong. This is to be avoided. | |||
Could we have some percentages of failure for the different contraception methods? ] 01:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Because I felt this, in a summarized form, along with an accessible list for various contraception methods would be useful, I made this article: ]. Of course, feel free to add on more information or improve it as necessary. :-) The percentages came from the publication listed under the article's "references" header. -- ] 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Some of the citations used in these Misplaced Pages articles say "failure rate," but they generally define what they mean, which can vary from one article to another. Here on Misplaced Pages we're supposed to be writing concise summaries, not copying the literature word-for-word. If they give a long, complex definition that includes a description of which cases they excluded and why, we don't have to copy the entire definition. But we do have to provide accurate reporting. Just saying "failure rate" because the original article did, without providing a summary of their definition, may be very misleading. Saying "pregnancy rate" or "percent who continue to be fertile 12 months after a vasectomy" has a clear meaning in English. Just saying "failure rate" without supplying a definition does not. --] 00:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Great job on the table - I corrected the values for IUS and renamed some of terms used to reflect common usage and how terms used in wikipedia (hence 'Perfect-use' rather than "Lowest possible" rates, progesterone rather than progestin (old arguement - yes I'll accept that synthetic progesterones are used called progestins, but that is not term used in clinical textbooks or (UK) drug formularies - so used term 'synthetic progesterone'). Also I converted the mathematical notation for range of values into prose (ie 'X<1%' to 'under 1%' and '1% < X < 5%' to 'under 5%'). | |||
::More importantly, I wonder (having added a link to ]) whether this tabe should not be merged to the incomplete table at Pearl index - that said, the Pearl index article discusses what the index is and only needs examples of index values, ] then lists a large number of methods, some of which did not even exist when the Pearl index was formulated. ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
:If one takes a driving test, and does not meet the required standard of competence then it is not termed as continued pedestrian activities, but as a failure. By your own arguments, we are supposed to be writing a conscie summary for an encyclopedic article, hence ]. In your hypothectical question of the gentleman with then non successful vasectomy; then yes, it is still a failure as he has not become permanantly sterilised despite the cost and discomfort of the operation. --] 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Birth control in the Bible? == | |||
::In the case of vasectomies, then, failure rate can mean either 1)the portion of men whose semen analysis comes back "fertile" after the vasectomy or 2)the portion of men whose semen analysis comes back "infertile" after the vasectomy but go on to impregnate their partner anyway (perfect-use failure rate). The meaning is not clear. Changing the term to "pregnancy rate" would specify that 2) was meant. | |||
On the subject of Chrisitan attitudes towards birth control, I would like to know: Where in the ] does it say that contraceptives are bad? Can anyone give some quotes to support this? (It might be relevant to have these in the article.) ] 17:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not enthusiastic about the term "effectiveness rate" because ''nothing/no birth control'' has an "effectiveness" of 10-15% per year in ''preventing'' pregnancy. The infertility rate (at 10-15% of the population) has an impact on the number of pregnancies, and just subtracting the pregnancy rate from 100 does not take that into account. | |||
:Story of Onan and spilling of the seed. -- ] 05:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
::As far as what the term in the infobox ''currently'' refers to, on the pages on which I've been involved (a large majority) it currently refers to "pregnancy rate". I don't think I've seen anyone so far argue that that field should be used to refer to something else. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 02:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
This is not the sin of onan, onan is struck down because he is dishonouring his brother by refusing to father children who will bear his brothers name. At least that is what i was always taught. You could check out the catholic commentaries, they tend to have a more coherent interpretation of these passages that are so heavily Tradition dependant.... | |||
Birth Control is seen to be implicity wrong on the genisis quote "be fruitful and multiply" wherever it amounts to limiting the family for reasons of he convience of the parents, without reference to he well being of the potential child, ie if you will be unable to care for it in an absolute sense, and i doubt that that applies very often in the west..... | |||
For further reasoning check out John Paul II's Theology of the body. Also Anticontraception teaching is not new, and is mentioned in the writings of many of the early fathers.....I wish i could remember the references...... | |||
In fact it was always seen to be wrong, and is part of the living tradition of morality, it was just never wide spread enough to get enough attention for lots of formal teaching/theology until this century. | |||
:::I remembered, though, for ], the failure rate has a rather complex definition that does ''not'' lend itself to expression as a pregnancy rate. If a change to "pregnancy rate" were accepted, there would have to be an opt-out option for EC. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Nuva Ring == | |||
::::If the infobox ''means'' "pregnancy rate", then I submit that it would be a good idea to edit it to ''say'' "pregnancy rate". Two people in this discussion (Joie de Vivre and Chooserr, see above) have claimed that it does not mean "pregnancy rate" but means something else. If they have misunderstood it, then I guess many other readers of the pages have also misunderstood. This is a serious problem. | |||
Id like to see some info added about NuvaRing, a birth control method which consists of inserting a ring into the vagina which releases hormones directly. It uses combination horomones (etonogestrel and ethinyl estradiol). Information regarding it can be found at nuvaring.com and plannedparenthood.org. | |||
::::Look at the ] page, for example. It already uses all of the terms "pregnancy rate", "failure rate" and "effectiveness". In some cases, the meaning is clear, and in some cases it is not. It says ''The method failure rate of condoms is 2% per year. The actual pregnancy rates among condoms users vary depending on the population being studied, with rates of 10-18% per year being reported''. (Note that the phrase "pregnancy rate" was already being used here before I came along.) Without actually going and looking at the citation it is not 100% clear whether "method failure rate" could mean that there was a certain rate of condoms breaking (but not usually leading to pregnancy). Note that the citation for the 2% "failure rate" gives a URL to a page which does not use the word "failure" anywhere on it. Therefore, this instance of the word "failure" should be changed. The citation says ''Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy during the first year of typical use and the first year of perfect use of contraception and the percentage continuing use at the end of the first year.'' To my mind, "pregnancy rate" is a much better concise summary of this long phrase than is "failure rate". | |||
== Abstinence and AIDs == | |||
::::I hereby clarify or modify my original intention: I don't intend to change the phrase "failure rate" everywhere it appears. I only wish to change it when another phrase such as "pregnancy rate" is equally clear and accurate (but more courteous) or more clear and accurate in the context. For example, in the section "causes of failure" on the ] page, I might not edit "fail", "failure" or "failure rate" because it seems to be talking about condoms breaking, not pregnancy. (Or is it?) But the Condom page gives a use "pregnancy rate" in the main text and a similar number for "failure rate" in the infobox; I would like to change the infobox to say "pregnancy rate" at least in this instance, which would only be making it agree with the text. --] 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
"Recent research shows that abstinence-only strategies may deter contraceptive use among sexually active teenagers, increasing their risk of unintended pregnancy and STDs." | |||
www.agi-usa.org/pubs/fb_sex_ed02.html | |||
::::In reply to RedHillian re driving test etc.: I don't disagree with your first two sentences but by themselves they don't disprove anything I've said; you might want to try explaining your arguments more fully. Re vasectomy, I see that in your opinion it (what precisely? see below) would be a failure; this confirms my opinion that to some people it would be a failure, and doesn't change the idea that there are likely also people who would not consider it a "failure". Personally, I would look at it like this: The overall goal is to prevent pregnancy. As a step towards this goal, sterilization is attempted. The attempted sterilization doesn't work and can therefore be referred to as "an attempted sterilization that didn't work" or as "a failure" or as "continuing fertility after vasectomy" or by any of a number of other phrases (it is not necessary to use the word "failure"). In the example I give, the attempt to prevent pregnancy did nevertheless work, so the attempt to prevent pregnancy can be referred to as "an attempt to prevent pregnancy, which worked" or as "a success" or as "managing to avoid pregnancy" or by any of a number of other phrases. So if we ask, "was it a failure?" I would say the answer to this question depends on what exactly is referred to as "it". In the Birth Control infobox, "it" is not defined so the meaning is not clear. --] 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
If youth receive abstinence-only sex-ed, they will be less likely to use condoms if they have sex. | |||
:::::OK, summing up - are you agreed with me that in the specific case of page ], the term failure rate is applicable as an encycolpedic and neutral entry? I fully appreciate that in the case of some of the other pages on this topic, the termong may not be so clear? If so, I'm quite happy to get back in my box and leave this discussion before it gets too messy! --] 04:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
It's a moot point, considering there's no research indicating that abstinence-only sex-ed prevents AIDs transmission. | |||
::::::Other issues that have been discussed above and are not yet resolved: The proposal to change many instances of "failure rate" in many birth control articles with "pregnancy rate"; the proposal to modify the Birth Control infobox to allow "pregnancy rate" to be displayed (instead of or in addition to "failure rate" and perhaps "effectiveness"); and specificially the proposal to change this sentence on the Condom page: "The method failure rate of condoms is 2% per year" to say "pregnancy" rather than "failure" on the grounds that the citation given for this statement says "pregancy" and does not say "failure". (The pages on which I put notes directing people to this discussion are this page, the Birth Control infobox, and many but not all of the articles that can be reached by the Birth Control navigation template. I didn't put such notices on pages that don't use the word "failure" or that use the word "failure" but where it was apparent to me at the time that it likely didn't mean "pregnancy rate" in that context.) | |||
:I'm sorry, using someone who has a vested interested in selling contraception and abortion is hardly considered a viable source. People are making unsupported claims, it should be stated as such. And quite frankly, when people have sex responsibly, AIDS well go away. Provide another source, or I'll put the perfectly fair NPOV statement back. -- ] 05:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::::In reply to RedHillian re the vasectomy page: I am not happy with the vasectomy page and I think it definitely needs to be modified. The problem, which IMO is much more serious than the courtesy issue I originally raised here, is that it provides a summary "infobox" which displays a "failure rate" with no link to any definition of "failure rate", and also mentions "failure rate" in the text without defining it. It's clear from the above discussion that some people (e.g. myself and Lyrl, apparently), on first encountering this wording in the article, assume that "failure rate" obviously and certainly means the rate of pregnancies, while other people (e.g. Joie de Vivre and Chooserr), encountering the same wording, assume that it obviously and certainly refers to a quantity which can be quite different both numerically and semantically from the rate of pregnancies. Assuming that the general readership of the page also contains many people who react similarly, this is a dangerous situation which can easily lead to people believing they have received certain information when in fact the information they have is false and is based on a misunderstanding of the intent of what was written. (Of course, it's not possible to avoid all misunderstandings, but when it seems likely that large numbers of people are going to misunderstand, as in this case, the article needs to be edited.) Because of the profound effects of birth control on individual peoples' lives, it's urgent that such major ambiguities be corrected. | |||
::First off, The Guttmacher Institute doesn't manufacture or sell contraceptives. It's a non-profit organization. Secondly, WikiPedia doesn't exist to judge peoples' viewpoints. Since there's no research that I can find indicating that abstinence-only sex-ed prevents HIV, if we're going to accuse one side making unsupported claims, we have to accuse the other of the same, if we're to remain unbiased. | |||
::::::One thing that would help: Note that on the Condom page, after "failure rate" in the infobox it says "(per year, latex)". So obviously it's possible to add information to this line in the infobox. On each page that uses this infobox, a couple of words can therefore be added clarifying what "failure rate" means in each case. For example, for ], it can be edited to say in the infobox "failure rate (pregnancies per year, latex)". For ], it can say "failure rate (return of fertility, per year)" if that is what it means, or "failure rate (pregnancies per year)" if that is what it means. (This would clarify it, which is the more urgent and important thing; later I would also like to change "failure rate (pregnancies per year)" to "pregnancy rate (per year)" for reasons of courtesy and conciseness.) --] 13:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::First off, The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. There is no judgement needed here, you wouldn't ask Howard Dean to write an article on the GOP, would you? It's NPOV, not APOV (antagonistic). Find an unbiased source or it goes back up. -- ] 06:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::::I think we may be beginning to head towards a consensus here. David Ruben, you said "I disagree" above, but it's not clear to me exactly what you disagree with. If you disagree with any of the edits that have been proposed in this discussion, and if you still disagree with them in light of the rest of the discussion, please state clearly which proposed edits exactly you disagree with. | |||
::::Check out wikipedia's entry on sex-ed, en.wikipedia.org/Sex_education#Scientific_study_of_sex_education. It links to and summarizes the results of a study printed in the British Medical Journal, which states that abstinence-only sex-ed fails to reduce teen pregnancy, and may in fact contribute to it. | |||
::::::If I don't see any objections to this specifically, I'll edit the Condom page to change the sentence I mentioned above to say "pregnancy" rather than "failure" as its citation does. Many other similar edits are also still under discussion. | |||
:::::Which is an entirely different issue all together. We aren't talking about teen pregnancy, and the study was flawed regardless. -- ] 15:33, 19 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
::::::I've made two test versions of the ]. I have a version with a bugfix (]) and a version which also has a default of "Pregnancy rates" and option to fill in "Failure" or other word as a "rate_type" parameter value to give "Failure rates" (]). The bugfix allows the default values (usually question marks) to be displayed as they should when blank or null parameter values are set. I can put "rate_type = Failure" into the infobox call on most pages and then install the new version of the infobox, and "Failure rates" will still appear the same as it does now on those pages with "rate_type = Failure". I propose to have "Pregnancy rates" appear on the Condom page, though, on the grounds that the numbers displayed apparently come from a citation that does not use the word "failure" and for reasons discussed above. Later I intend to look more closely at some of the other pages and comment on which words are most appropriate on those pages. | |||
Abstinence is the only strategy that has ever been shown to work, cf uganda and the ABC program, vs everywhere else and more condoms and more aids. | |||
Also aids transmission stats are often misleading, as they should be cumulative. so if they say 90% protection, that normally means over one year, which would mean 81% over two years etc...... | |||
] | |||
Stats on std prevention can be found here:http://www.premaritalsex.info/docs/condomreport.pdf this is a USA fed gov report. | |||
Summary here:Summary of the 2001 NIH Reporton Condom Effectiveness | |||
::::::RedHillian: to answer your question slightly more directly: I don't believe we're restricted to any list of "encyclopedic" terms. We're free to use the English language including occasional words from other languages if appropriate, and in each specific context we can choose words based on clarity, style and other considerations within a consensus-building process. Because I don't think in terms of a restricted list of allowed words here (as opposed to the ] projects) I don't see how I can give a yes or no answer to your question. However, I hope the paragraph directed to you about the vasectomy page above is a sufficient answer. --] 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
STD Incidence(est. number of new cases every year) Prevalence(est. number of people currently infected) Condom Effectiveness | |||
- Coppertwig I do not see consensus in the above for this change (either for all BC articles or various rephrasing in specific articles). to Essure therefore seemed a little premature. Absence of people responding back to your replies is not evidence of their change of view & agreement; although I agree you do discuss well :-) We could perhaps do with some additional editor views, but before perhaps adding a request at ], are there any points/issues/framework for further discussion that we wish to agree upon first (eg set up outline for a straw poll on various aspects of the above discussions) ? ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
HIV/AIDS 63,900** 900,000** 85% risk reduction* | |||
:First, let me clarify what I'm doing here. Note that the first three changes listed below make little or no difference to how any of the articles display and do not in themselves change "failure rate" to "pregnancy rate" anywhere. | |||
Gonorrhea 650,000*** 359,000*** Women: No clinical proof of effectivenessMen: Some risk reduction* | |||
:*Default values: the current version of the template Infobox Birth control has one behaviour if a parameter is not specified at all (usually displaying a question mark), and a different behaviour if a parameter is assigned a blank value. The version ] modifies this so that the default value (usually a question mark) is displayed whether the calling page does not mention the parameter or assigns it a blank value. I think that most or all pages using this template do assign values, so it will make little or no difference now, but will I hope be a convenience for future users and maintainers of the template. This modification has nothing to do with whether the infobox says "Failure" or "Pregnancy" and perhaps should be in a separate discussion; I mention it here because I propose to make both changes to the infobox simultaneously. | |||
:*Adding "rate_type = Failure" to various pages: This change by itself, which I did a few hours ago, makes no difference to how the articles look. As long as this line is left as-is, then going from version infobox1 to version infobox2 will make no difference to how the articles look. However, if this line is deleted or changed, then the articles can be modified to say something else instead of Failure: perhaps Pregnancy as in "Pregnancy rate", or Failure with a footnote attached and the footnote can explain the definition of Failure, or some other text. | |||
:*Installing version ] at ]: I haven't done this yet but am proposing to if there is no objection. As explained above, this change should have no effect on the phrase "Failure rate" in the infobox as long as the rate_type line is left as-is. I plan to modify the documentation for the infobox too, so that people using it on new pages would tend to copy in a rate_type line. This modification is not intended to have any immediate effect on how the articles look, but it adds flexibility allowing the following changes to be made. I propose to skip version infobox1 and just install version infobox2. | |||
:*Changing "Failure rate" to "Pregnancy rate" in the infobox on the Condom page: I propose to make this change, which as I pointed out above will make the wording of the infobox conform more closely to the citation its information is based on, since the citation says "pregnancy" but does not say "failure". I put a note some time ago on the Condom talk page about this, directing discussion to take place here. The above changes, which do not in themselves change the way the pages look, allow this change to be made. | |||
:*On the Vasectomy page, I think it would be good to attach a footnote to the word "Failure" in the infobox, with an explanation of what is meant by "Failure". I would have to read the references to see what is meant (pregnancy rate? rate of continuing fertility?). Again, the version infobox2 allows such a footnote to be added. For an example of what this looks like, see ]. | |||
:The change I made, adding "rate_type = Failure" does not in itself change the way the articles look. The next change, installing the version infobox2, should make no change to how the "Failure rate" header displays. The change from "Failure rate" to "Pregancy rate" in the infobox on the Condom page has already been discussed above and I don't see any objection to it after I pointed out that this brings the wording closer to what is in the citation. Related changes on the Vasectomy page and other pages may require further discussion. People are welcome to comment here on any of these changes. --] 13:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
:If you want to ask for more opinions from ] that's fine. What question were you thinking of asking? The question could be whether to change the heading in the birth control infobox specificially on the Condom page from "Failure rate" to "Pregnancy rate". It seems unnecesary to me to seek a lot of opinions about internal changes to the template that won't affect the display, but you can if you want. | |||
Chlamydia 3 million*** 2 million*** No clinical proof of effectiveness* | |||
:I oppose having a vote covering wording in multiple pages at the same time. I think each page needs to be considered individually, without having to deal with constraints imposed by people who were voting about birth control in general, possibly without having considered the specifics of particular pages: for example, some methods are single-use; some might have purposes other than just avoiding pregnancy, such as the vasectomy page where the purpose may also be avoiding having to use other forms of birth control, some might have specific wording used in the citations, etc. There may be other things one would discover one has to consider when editing a particular page. I don't think the editors of each page should be constrained by an overall vote. --] 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Trichomoniasis 5 million*** Not Available No clinical proof of effectiveness* | |||
:Re the vasectomy page: In the infobox I see failure rates of 0.1% and 0.15%, but I don't see any supporting citation anywhere on the page. We need (a) a supporting citation, and (b) the definition of "failure", which will depend on what definition is used in the citation (which could be pregnancy rate, or rate of continuing fertility, or something else.) --] 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Chancroid 1,000*** Not Available No clinical proof of effectiveness* | |||
:Here's a citation re vasectomy: Here's another one: " How reliable is a vasectomy? Long-term follow-up of vasectomised men. The Lancet, Volume 356, Issue 9223, Pages 43-44 N. Haldar, D. Cranston, E. Turner, I. MacKenzie, J. Guillebaud" --] 17:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Syphilis 70,000*** 6,000**** No clinical proof of effectiveness* | |||
:And I also propose to make the following change, as I suggested earlier and I don't think anyone has objected: on the Condom page, changing "failure" to "pregnancy" in "''The method failure rate of condoms is 2% per year. The actual pregnancy rates...''" (near the end of the section on effectiveness in preventing pregnancy), which will also make this part conform more closely to the citation, which as I mention above says "pregnancy" and does not say "failure". --] 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Genital Herpes 1 million*** 45 million*** No clinical proof of effectiveness* | |||
:I don't have immediate easy access to the text of the vasectomy studies I mentioned above, so I'm hoping maybe someone else will pull the relevant information out of them. (Or find other citations.) The abstract of the first one is available online but I don't think the full text is -- I could be wrong. --] 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
Human Papillomavirus (HPV) 5.5 million*** 20 million*** No clinical proof of effectiveness* | |||
:David, I do not see opposition to the changes I propose in the list immediately after "First, let me clarify what I'm doing" above. Someone may hold a vote if they wish provided case-by-case editing of each page is one of the options. Someone may seek to involve more people in this discussion if they wish. I've already made edits on many pages with a link to here in the edit summary, and put two notes each on the Condom and Vasectomy talk pages as well as the original notes on a number of other talk pages, directing discussion here. If someone thinks I should follow some procedure before proceeding, that one will need to tell me specifically what that one thinks I should do. Anyone is welcome to comment here on the proposed changes, stating reasons for any opposition. II don't think I've assumed that anyone has changed their views; I think the proposed edits are consistent with most or all of the views that have been expressed in this discussion. In particular, David, although you've asked me to wait, it isn't at all clear to me that you've expressed opposition to any of the proposed edits; if you do oppose them, please clarify that and give reasons. --] 01:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
] 20:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
:: Coppertwig, thanks for pausing :-) I only requested this as there did not seem a "positive consensus" to so proceed and there had been almost a month since the last posting in this discussion. Whilst I personally would prefer the term "failure rate" to apply across the contraception articles (both for being a better term, in my opinion, and for the consistency), it is equally true that there was no clear "negative consensus" either, and in particular no one has sought to post additional comments this month. So in the best tradition of wikipedia, Coppertwig ] and tryout your proposed changes on the selected pages you mention above :-) ] <sup> ] </sup> 03:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
::The only way to get "clinical proof of effectiveness" is to do a randomized trial with couples where one had a known STI and the other was known to be uninfected. Half the participants are told to use condoms when having sex with their infected partners, and the other half is told to have unprotected sex with infected partners. The circumstantial proof of condom's effectiveness (nothing like 100%, mind, but still a significant reduction in risk) against STIs is so overwhelming that it is considered unethical to even suggest such clinical proof trials be conducted. | |||
:::It's hard to sift through the above conversation because there is a lot to read. It seems like almost every editors initial concern was over unanimously changing failure rate to pregnancy rate due to Coppertwig's concerns of the former having negative connotations. Other editors said that we should follow our cited sources, and that one user not likeing the word "failure" is not enough to change medically acceptable language. However, it seems like Coppertwig's proposal has changes. It appears that a handful of articles' cited sources use pregnancy rate instead of failure rate, and that it is more accurate to use one term over the other in specific, case by case, situations. This make a lot more sense than the initial proposal to change the phrasing unanimously. One thing that may help engage other users would be to try and make posts a lot more concise. It's hard to follow a discussion when one user is taking up a lot more space than everyone else. Good luck.-] 17:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Secondly, the widely touted Uganda ABC program has turned out only to be effective in reducing number of AIDs-infected people NOT because of A, B, or C but rather because of D. Death. So many people are dying of AIDs in Uganda that even though sexual behavoirs have not changed (there has been no measurable increase in abstinence, faithfullness, and condom usage has go up only slightly) the number of AIDs-infected people is going down. ] 00:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Methods== | |||
Absentence is not having sex, that is not a form of birth control anymore than saying Riding a bike is a form of birth control because if you're busy peddling a bike you can't be having intercourse. It should be removed. Absentence is a form of SEX education not birth control. | |||
] 05:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)nick | |||
Indeed, noone said that they do not provided risk reduction, but the question is and has always been, how much. Condoms are commonly touted as providing (near) total safetly from HIV, but 85% (presuabley over 1 year?) is a long way from totally safe. that would be 72% over two years etc..... With this level of 'safety' encourageing 'safe sex' will likely lead to more promiscuity and more infections. Besides, I do not think Death can be usd to explain it, as the population has not declined, and as 30% were infected in the 90's there must be a reason why rates have declines soo much more than in other african countries, and the only difference in approach is the ABC program. Thirdly, the link one refers to new data, it does not reference the study itself, and thus is of doubtful use. ] 23:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
The article uses the term sexual abstinence. This is to say that the a person re frames from having any sexual relations. This is not so much a method of contraception but a method restraining from sexual contact. I suggest putting avoiding vaginal intercourse under abstinence (as it can be seen as a sexual abstinence) and calling it Abstinence of Vaginal Intercourse and changing the title "Abstinence" to "Sexual Abstinence Methods". | |||
::The study was presented at the 12th Annual Retrovirus Conference in Boston by Maria Wawer. More details of the study are . The NPR clip I linked to first also has commentary by Ted Green of Harvard who believes abstinence and faithfullness did increase when the ABC program first started, but the Rachai study began after those two components had stopped changing (though the study actually documents a significant increase in promiscuous behavoir over the past decade).] 00:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
] 11:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Ancient IUDs == | |||
:While there are organizations that group abstinence as a similar method to outercourse (), it seems more common to treat them as completely separate methods (, , ). All of these sites list abstinence as a birth control option - Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia, does not decide on the categorization of methods. It only reports on how methods are categorized by others. A Google search for "" yields '''3''' hits. This is not an established category of birth control. Absent some compelling reason, I believe Misplaced Pages should follow the most common practice and list "avoiding vaginal intercourse"/"outercourse" under a different heading than "abstinence". ]<sup>] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
''There are references in Arabic history to traders inserting a small stone into the uterus of a camel in order to prevent it from conceiving, a concept very similar to the modern IUD, but it seems unlikely that this was used as a contraceptive method for humans since knowledge of the female reproductive tract was very limited until the 20th century, and surgical techniques were poor.'' | |||
"Abstinence is not having sex, that is not a form of birth control anymore than saying Riding a bike is a form of birth control because if you're busy peddling a bike you can't be having intercourse... Abstinence is a form of sex education not birth control." | |||
Could someone point me to a cite for what follows "it seems unlikely"? Who says it seems unlikely? And what's the relevance of surgical techniques? Does the author of this sentence believe, perhaps, that surgery is involved in either human or camel birth control? What's more, I somewhat doubt that knowledge of the female reproductive tract -- at least, those parts of it into which something could be inserted and extracted -- was in any way limited prior to the 20th century. I suspect people have been inserting and extracting objects thusly for a very long time. --]] 07:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
:seems to me that it is worth adding this after the word "Abstinence": ("some organizations group abstinence as a similar method to outercourse ). This should satisfy everyone. ] (]) 05:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
==External links== | |||
:Inserting something into the vaginal canal is one thing. Forcing the cervical os open in order to insert something into the uterus is another thing entirely, and is considered surgery. Trans-vaginal surgery is less invasive than abdominal surgery, but it is surgery nonetheless. There is no written record of inserting birth control devices into the human uterus prior to about 1900. The early devices all had very high rates of infection. Seeing someone die of sepsis from a birth control method is likely to discourage use of that method, so I agree with the statement "it seems unlikely". | |||
* (eCards website to limit human population growth) | |||
* (On-line artistic slideshow about limiting human population growth) | |||
Hallo Joyous! I have a question about your message: You ask me not to add inappropriate external links to wikipedia. | |||
:Actually, it appears the camel story itself is a myth | |||
When I compare the 2 links I added to other existing external links on certain webpages, I see that the 'appropriate' links (i.e the ones you leave alone), are also links to external -third party- organisations, such as our European organisation (STHOPD) is too. Our non-profit organisation works with volunteers and stands for certain principles which are similar to the 'appropriate' organisations on the webpages concerned, such as: Decreasing human overpopulation in an ethical way, having no children, warnings about the worldwide consequences of overpopulation such as the destruction of ecosystems. | |||
Please explain to me what would make our links appropriate. Friendly regards, ] 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) MetaMouse. | |||
:The other external links provide information about birth control methods. Your external links advocate for birth control to be used in a certain way. I don't feel this is on-topic to the subject of birth control. They ''might'' be appropriate in an article on a different topic such as ] or ]. Although they appear to be off-line now so I cannot view the sites, if they solicit for monetary donations or sell items to raise money, that is generally against Misplaced Pages policy for external links. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
==US centric?== | |||
:''Legend has it that Arab camel drivers inspired the modern IUD. According to the story, tiny stones were inserted into the uterus of each female camel to prevent pregnancy during long caravan journeys across the desert (Bullough & Bullough, 1990). The story was a tall tale told to entertain delegates at a scientific conference on family planning, but it was repeated so many times that many people have assumed it is true (Thomsen, 1988).'' ] 22:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
**Perhaps, then, the article might be edited by someone knowledgeable to make this clear. --]] 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Women's rights == | |||
After a quick look on this article, there's nothing about social issues, women's rights or feminism... ] 21:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== RISUG == | |||
Imagine a 100% effective, 100% reversible, minimally invasive method of ]. Well, it seems it exists: http://www.malecontraceptives.org/methods/risug.htm ] 22:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
Many drugs are mentioned in the article as "available" or "withdrawn", but without mention of whether this is international availability or USA only. | |||
: ] — ] 22:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Fertility awareness - primary signs and specific methods == | |||
==Blacksmith's water== | |||
From the "History of birth control" paragraph: | |||
''The Greek gynaecologist Soranus in the second century AD suggested that women drink water that blacksmiths had used to cool metal.'' | |||
made a couple of changes I'm unsure of: | |||
Is this sentence supposed to be refering to a kind of folk abortifacient or rather a contraceptive? Does anyone have a source to verify this? I've only managed to find two references to such a practice (one a remedy for anemia/spleenic disorders?): | |||
*It changed from three primary signs to two. Weschler's book, the Kippley's book, and Singer's book (the only major FA publications I am aware of) all say there are ''three'' primary signs, the third one being cervical position. The Kippley's book even offers rules for using it as the ''only'' sign, which can not be done for secondary signs like mittelschmerz. I'm confused about where the statement that there are only two primary signs comes from. | |||
*While there are significant differences between the CM-only methods of Billings and Creighton, there are also many significant differences between the Couple to Couple League's STM rules and Weschler's STM rules. | |||
**CCL draws two coverlines, Weschler only draws one - in a different spot. | |||
**CCL allows 'shaving' (a math formula to lower one or more temps that are much higher than the ones around them), Weschler offers the 'rule of thumb' (completely ignore one temp that is much higher than the ones around it). | |||
**CCL offers six options for pre-o rules; Weschler offers three. | |||
**CCL offers five options for combinations of temps and CM to determine post-o infertility; Weschler offers one rule for temps and one rule for CM and leaves it completely up to the user whether to follow one, the other, or both. | |||
*So I'm uncomfortable about separating out the two largest CM-only methods, but not separating out the two largest STM methods. I'm also uncomfortable about separating methods out at all outside of the FA article - because of the international scope of (and thus possibly unrepresentative amount of English-language publications) newer methods like Marquette and the Two-Day Method, I'm not confident in judgments of their size. For all I know, they could be just as large as (and thus just as deserving of a mention) Creighton and Billings. | |||
Others' thoughts? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 03:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Billings deserves a mention, in my opinion. Whenever we become aware of something sufficiently well-known or widespread to deserve a mention, let's mention it. If we're not sure whether something deserves a mention, don't worry about it. Don't not mention something just because there *might* be something else equally worthy of mention; if all of Misplaced Pages did that, we would never write any articles about anything. By "separating out" I suppose you mean mentioning (not writing a separate Misplaced Pages article about)? You can address your concerns by mentioning the Weschler and CCL methods. I'm guessing CCL at least is notable. Incidentally, it's my understanding that "shaving" is actually mathematically equivalent to ignoring one (or more) of the numbers, i.e. the same as the "rule of thumb". I could be wrong on that. --] 04:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
* : page 149, "Drinking blacksmith’s water to prevent pregnancy persisted from Ancient Greece (Himes 1963)." | |||
::Shaving lowers the temperature by a certain amount. The adjusted temperature is still used in determining the coverline. | |||
*: "Celsus (tr. 1960) made one reference to a rural method of reducing splenomegaly which was the taking of water in which the blacksmith from time to time had dipped his red hot iron (? treatment of the splenomegaly that may on occasion accompany iron deficiency)." | |||
::I've done some Google searches and found that "couple to couple league", "billings ovulation method", "fertility awareness method" (what Weschler calls her symtpo-thermo system), and "creighton model" all get well over 10,000 hits. "Marquette model" gets slightly over 10,000 hits, but many of them are unrelated to the NFP system. "Two day method" gets less than 1,000 hits. If my search terms were correct, this somewhat reassures me that Billings, Creighton, FAM, and CCL are the big four that should be specified. Though my worries that the newer methods have foreign language or non-web presences that are large still exist. | |||
-] (]) 10:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::If there are a small number of method types, it makes sense to list them all out - this article lists both types of condoms (male and female) and all four types of cervical barriers (sponge, cap, shield, diaphragm). If there are a large number of method types, it does not. This article does not list the five different types of cap (Prentif, FemCap, Dumas, Vimule, Oves) - the ] article does that. This article also does not list every formulation of birth control pill. The article ] does that. | |||
::The way the article was written when I first saw it, I assumed that information was from the John Riddle book in the references. Before modern understanding of reproduction, people had no way of distinguishing between contraceptives and early-acting abortifacients - they were all just methods of birth control.] 14:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I'm not sure at what point the number of FA methods become numerous enough to leave the listing to the FA article. Four seems to have precedence (per the cervical barriers example), but five might be too many (per the cervical cap example). | |||
:::Thanks for the clarification. -] (]) 11:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Per Coppertwig's comment, I'm leaning towards just adding the FAM and CCL brands of symptothermo to the article. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 15:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Pre-ejaculate fluid and pregnancy == | |||
== Condom image == | |||
While the citations and recent changes are helpful, I believe it is not telling the whole story. Please see the first few hits and also the article on ]. We should at least state that the effectiveness of coitus interruptus is not as high as other methods.--] 23:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
The "three colored condoms" image was deleted on Commons as a copyright violation. Commons has some , but I'm not sure which one to use to replace the deleted image. Do others have a preference? Or some other source of a GNU-released picture? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
::The method effectiveness of withdrawal is comparable to barrier methods such as the condom (male and female) and diaphragm. The typical effectiveness of withdrawal is comparable to the female condom and to spermicide. | |||
::I do agree the current edit doesn't "tell the whole story" as it doesn't have warnings about disease transmission or picking up sperm from a previous ejaculation. I'm not sure how in detail a general article on birth control should go on a specific method, or even that my edit is appropriate. I was just tired of reverting edits saying that pre-e was always full of viable sperm. ] 01:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The best one, IMO, on the commons is ]. -] 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I see now, looking through the page history, you were just correcting a fairly poor addition. Perhaps this article would be best without the sentence in question (all this information and more can already be found at the ] page). (also, in regards to effectiveness, there is the matter of perfect use vs. typical use)--] 01:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Wouldn't an unrolled condom be useful? <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::See also edits on 9-May-2006, 15-April-2006, and 22-February-2006. This is a common problem. I agree the article is better without that sentence - I actually removed a paragraph going into the effectiveness of withdrawal on 15-February-2006. There has to be some way to avoid all the inaccurate edits without having a mini-article on withdrawal, right?] 02:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
== im taking a minipill since january and my period was become abnormal it is possible to mke me pregnant? == | |||
== Effectiveness of birth control section == | |||
im taking a minipill since january and my period was become abnormal? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
The section has been edited in such a way that it is biased against fertility awareness and withdrawal. I suspect such edits will be common if that section is left. I do not want to leave such biased edits there, but I also do not want to be continually "guarding" that section. I would like to simply delete that section from this article, and leave effectiveness discussions to the individual articles. What do others think of this proposal? ] 00:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
:You should contact your pharmacist or prescribing physician for matters of medical importance. Misplaced Pages should not be the place to go for personal medical advice. If you believe your primary method of birth control (the minipill) is failing and you are concerned about becoming pregnant, the best thing to do is to use a back of method of contraception (or two) to lower your chances of pregnancy (or stop having sex). However, please seek the advice of a medical professional in this matter.-] 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
* I suspect you will end up "guarding" against edits to effectiveness values on multiple pages. | |||
* Also whilst each method's article can discuss details and benefits/risks/special points, this article would be the ideal method to compare and contrast some of the more important features, of which effectiveness is one aspect (so poorer levels with condoms may be suitable for separating further pregnancies as further children are not unwanted, IUCDs/hormonal perhaps higher levels). Also: | |||
** if permanent/reversible | |||
** time for return to fertility after use (e.g. 0-4 weeks for combined pill, 6-9 months for Depo-provera) | |||
** "hassle factors" (for pills the COCP 12hr window to take, POP 3hrs, IUD to check thread can be felt needs be done after each period) | |||
** frequency of review visits to doctor or nurse (in UK generally 6monthly for pills, annually for IUDs) | |||
** whether they provide any protection against STDs (we need not argue over minutiae, but generally abstinence, condoms & femidom yes and everything else no) | |||
** possibility of weight gain (no for IUD, possible but mild not uncommon for pills) | |||
** effect on heaviness of periods (pills & IUS generally lighter, IUD generally slightly heavier) | |||
** risks - e.g. DVT for combined pills, PID for IUDs. Combined pills small incr. risk breast cancer, but probably greater reduction in endometrial cancer. | |||
** secondary benefits - e.g. most combined pills help to some extent for acne (some more than others), IUS best of options for heavy periods as also used for menorrhagia. IUS/IUD best option for those on enzyme inducing drugs (anticonvulsants) when hormonal methods less effective | |||
*Currently much of this article is to do with religious & cultural aspects rather than discussing/comparing methods, which is really good, but a comparative table it might make the article rather too long. So: | |||
** ? split all such comparative specifics (including the effectiveness rates) to a new page such as ], ], ], ] ? | |||
* Looks like I may have thought of too many options to fit into a table on a screen (allowing for those with monitors set at 800x600 resolution), so perhaps: | |||
*# A standard-format bullet-point list - i.e. each method forms a section with a set sequence of bullet-point items OR | |||
*# A standardising template box that can be completed on each method's article page - e.g. see how the Drugbox template gives a consistant look and organisation of data on say ] & ] - If this has wide support, I'm happy to create such a basis for such a template where discussion can be held on which parameters we wish to include. | |||
] <sup> ] </sup> 01:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Fertility awareness - specific methods == | |||
:I'd love to code either a table or template for this, or help out in that regard, once we can decide on the right course of action. I feel like a basic comparison table could work for the main article, and perhaps have a more detailed template for the individual articles. And to address Lyrl's concerns, I think users would be less likely to edit war over the numbers in a table, especially if each and every figure is backed up with reliable sources. --] 01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
In the current version of the fertility awareness section, the Weschler symptothermo method is mentioned specifically in the first paragraph. The Billings and Creighton methods are mentioned specifically in the second paragraph. In opposition to the consensus reached in ], the mention of Couple to Couple League has been deleted altogether, with the edit summary that CCL does not currently have an article on Misplaced Pages. Per my comments in the previous discussion, I support adding the CCL method as an example of symptothermo alongside Weschler's method. | |||
The actual articles ] and ] only rarely get those edits, whether because of the more extensive information provided there, or because of their lower visibility I do not know. I do not believe they are any better sourced. It concerned me to see the current POV edit happen just three days after creation of the new section. Anything others could do to reduce the frequency of such occurences I would be happy to see. ] 23:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
If the section is going to link to specific methods, I believe it would be better to list them all together. Both Billings and Creighton have significantly sized non-Catholic target audiences (Billings is widely used in China, for example, not exactly a Catholic stronghold) and the Couple to Couple League's method, while it is not targeted to non-Catholics, is certainly picked up and used by non-Catholics: provides instruction in both Weschler's and the CCL methods and recommends ''both'' books, despite being a thoroughly secular group. I do not understand why these methods have to be segregated away from Weschler's method. | |||
:Lyrl - I have not really peviously watched this article, and it is not immediately apparant from the history, but whom do you feel you have been "guarding" against - anons or registered users. If the former and this has been systemtic, then I believe articles can be made 'restricted status' by admins (allows only registered users to edit) - but I'm not sure what the criteria are for this to be felt an appropriate restriction on wikipedia's "the 💕". ] <sup> ] </sup> 01:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
Instead of presenting methods in either the first or second paragraph, perhaps they could all be listed at the end of the FA section in their own paragraph? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles == | |||
:Just because something doesn't have a Misplaced Pages article isn't a reason not to mention it. I support mentioning the CCL method. Maybe at a later date there will be a Misplaced Pages article on it. Any of the ways you've suggested of handling it sound OK to me. | |||
Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the ] page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. ] (]/]) 12:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
:By the way, I question the statement that NFP refers specifically to methods approved by the Catholic church. I've used the term and that is not what I meant and it didn't occur to me that anybody might think that. Who uses it like that? I think it might be more accurate to say that NFP refers specifically to practices such as breastfeeding and periodic abstinence, while FA can involve practices some might not think of as "natural" such as using FA to schedule the use of barrier methods. The fact that the RCC approves of certain methods doesn't seem to me to be fundamental to the definition of NFP; if the RCC were to change their mind and start saying that periodic abstinence is sinful, (or less implausibly that certain practices such as using a thermometer for FA purposes is sinful) would the term "NFP" still refer to whatever the RCC then approves of? --] 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
::The definition of NFP varies depending on the source. It is very widely used interchangeably with FA. However, Toni Weschler in her book defines NFP as excluding the use of barrier methods, relying only on abstinence during fertile times to avoid pregnancy. The Couple to Couple League specifies that couples who engage in non-intercourse sexual acts are ''not'' practicing NFP. The website of the Canadian organization says "''Using condoms, diaphragms, spermicides or withdrawal during the fertile time is not natural family planning,"'' and also appears to be strongly . From an ] with an editor familiar with the Billings organization, I gather that their position is that non-intercourse sexual acts are "incompatible with correct use" but not strictly prohibited. The founders of the organization, John and Evelyn Billings, are Catholic and developed the method while working for the Catholic Church. Regarding the definition of NFP, I am unaware of the position of Creighton, but it is based from the Pope Paul IV Institute (so strong Catholic connections). | |||
:Quick call for final viewing of infobox before I turn it live with active coding (for the optional parameters). Also please confirm suggested name of ] . Thanks ] <sup> ] </sup> 02:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Despite the fact that the term is most commonly used interchangably with FA (Misplaced Pages's normal guideline), I have tended to use this "religiously motivated" definition because of Misplaced Pages's ] "''Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use.''" Organizations that call their method NFP all appear to be associated with the Catholic Church and to associate religiously-based restrictions on its use. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Opposition to Catholic teaching on birth control == | |||
::Methods that are widely considered "natural" but that the RCC does not approve of (such as withdrawal) are already excluded from the definition of NFP. (Also see ].) I imagine that if RCC teaching changed, the Church would attempt to drag popular definition of the term NFP along with their change. It might be unsuccessful, but that's another issue. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
This section was expanded, I moved the information to the main article ]. But then the information was re-added to this article. Is the expansion necessary for the summary on this page? There is an entire article dedicated to the subject of Christianity and contraception that readers could go to if they wanted to read more. ] 01:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I'd say keep it on the subpage, as long as there is a tag directing to it. But let's give anon a chance to defend the position.--] 02:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
It's fine to list various methods, but it is important to state which are taught as NFP/abstinence-only, and which are taught as a standalone method of FA. The simplest way to do that is to list the NFP-taught methods in the NFP paragraph. However I think it is important to draw the line somewhere: if you look at the ] article, there are many, many "methods" being taught by various organizations, and I don't think it's appropriate or necessary to list every single one. I think the ones we have listed as of now are sufficient. ] 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Content removed from ] == | |||
::I propose that the line be drawn at methods that are used by large numbers of people, preferably internationally. The Couple to Couple League is an international organization (24 countries) and is the largest NFP organization in the United States, teaching their version of the symptothermal method to almost 8,000 couples in 2004 alone . The only other international organization in the NFP article is Family of the Americas, which teaches the Billings method (already listed in this article). So to my understanding, drawing the line at international methods used by large numbers of people does not have a danger of overwhelming the FA section with a list of methods. I propose including Ms. Weschler's system, even though it has limited international scope, because her book has been so overwhelmingly popular. The Marquette and Two-Day Methods are the only other international methods I am aware of - see my analysis at ] for why I concluded they should not be included in this article. | |||
::To me, it seems much more continuous to list all the methods together. I find it awkward to have them in two separate lists. A note along the lines of ''"some organizations include religious content in their fertility awareness classes"'' I would be fine with. However, I object to singling out methods as "these methods are only taught as NFP". Firstly, saying Billings and Creighton are taught as abstinence-only systems is like saying ] only builds houses for people who convert to Christianity. The fact that these organizations have leadership that is devoutly Christian in no way means they enforce that upon the people they train as leaders or the people they provide services to. Secondly, while the organization of the Couple to Couple League does include religious content in their programs (unlike Billings or Creighton), the ''method itself'' - that explained by the - is just a set of rules that has no religious connotations about abstinence or anything else. The method can be learned without ever encountering religious material, so the method itself should not be identified as NFP-only.] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
An editor removed the following from ] with the statement that it would belong better here. Opinions on how to integrate the material would be welcome. | |||
:''<nowiki>A ] such as a ] is among the most effective methods of birth control short of sterilization or abstinence, with the ] stating that with "typical" condom use (in which condoms were sometimes incorrectly or inconsistently used), they have a failure rate of only 10-14% (with "ideal" use, they are 97% effective).<ref>World Health Organization, "Effectiveness of male latex condoms in protecting against pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections" Fact Sheet #243 (June 2000), online at http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs243/en/.</ref> ] (] for women or ] for men) is considered permanent birth control, though it can sometimes ], or, rarely, the body can repair itself. ], and other sexual contact (such as ] or ]), in which there is sexual activity without penis insertion, can be performed without resulting in pregnancy provided that semen does not come in contact with the ].</nowiki>'' | |||
Cheers, ] 02:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I think it's good to list the BOM and the CM here, because there is no religious content in the classes. However, someone wants to learn about specifically NFP methods they can click on the NFP article. It's not necessary to include the CCL method here because it includes religious content and is more specifically Catholic NFP. "Including the CCL method" should not be used as a pretext to blur the distinction between those methods developed without any background in Catholicism, those developed by Catholics but taught fairly secularly, and those taught with religious intent. The paragraph does a good job of that, and I think the distinction should be maintained. ] 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Modern folklore clarification == | |||
::::I prefer working through issues exclusively on Talk pages. Part of our conversation is now only in our edit summaries, so others who would like to express their opinion can't see the full background. I do appreciate ] coming back to the Talk page, though. | |||
The Modern folklore section refers to "the myth that a woman cannot get pregnant if she has sex during her period" | |||
::::I'm not understanding why a large (at least within the FA/NFP community), international organization with a distinct set of symptothermal rules should not be included in a list of prominent FA methods. I am having trouble understanding ]'s reason for excluding them. <small></small> I certainly agree they should not be characterized as a secular organization. But surely we can find a way to acknowledge their religious attitude without discounting their importance? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
This has a kernal of truth to it, though. Studies have shown that the intercourse on the first 5-6 days of a menstrual cycle has a less-than-1% per-year chance of pregnancy (Weshler says five days, Kippley says six). | |||
Exceptions are annovulatory bleeding (which someone not tracking fertility signs would be unable to recognize) and women who tend to unusually early ovulations (common during perimenopause). And many women have periods that last longer than five or six days. | |||
:::::I feel compelled to remind you of ]: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." It should not be included in the list of FA methods because it is not taught as an FA method. BOM, CM, Weschler's methods are taught without religious content and can be categorized as FA. CCL method includes religious content and can only be considered NFP. Wikilink to the NFP article takes care of that. You destroyed the distinction between pure FA methods and the NFP paragraph. See you in 24 hours. ] 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Sex during menstruation is certainly not effective birth control (absent other fertility awareness practices/knowledge). However, I'm reluctant to leave in that sentence that dismisses the entire idea of the first few days of a cycle being infertile. I'm not sure how to modify it to both be more accurate and still discourage uneducated attempts at unprotected intercourse. Any suggestions? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 01:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::I think the source of our disagreement is that I view NFP as a ''practice'' — actions done by a specific couple on a day-by-day basis — rather than a ''method'', or rule set. The rule set that a couple uses - Billings, CCL, FAM, etc. - is independent of their decision to follow or not follow the restrictions associated with NFP. Whether or not they follow those restrictions, the fact that they are observing fertility signs and using a rule set to interpret them means they are practicing FA. So a couple can be using FA ''and'' NFP - NFP is not a method by itself. | |||
::::::Does that make sense? <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC).</small><!-- HagermanBot Auto-Unsigned --> | |||
::::::] did not personally attack anyone here. Please review ] before making such a bold statement. "When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." Just because they referred to you does not mean they were attacking you. "The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy." --] 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
:How about something like "While women are commonly significantly less fertile during the first few days of a menstrual cycle, it is still false to say that a woman can never get pregnant if she has sex during her period...." Sound ok? something along those line..--] 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Lyrl and I are discussing this on our own and as far as I can see there is no real conflict. Thanks for the link, I will remember it in the future. Sorry for the reverting disturbance. ] 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Since you can't seem to figure out what to do with the article, I requested to get this page fully protected until you stop fighting about what should and should not be on this page. What's worse about this whole thing is that you continue to edit the article in your favor before even coming to a consensus! That doesn't help solve anything and it only infuriates the other side and makes them less likely to change their position on the issue. Please, figure something out here, on this talk page, or take it over to ] and have a mediator/arbitrator step in and help. Thank you. --] 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
== External links to NFP sites == | |||
These links have been deleted several times, with no explanation in the edit summary. Do other editors have opinions on whether they should be included? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 13:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
(Undent) Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Lyrl, that is an excellent observation, one I had not quite discerned. You are absolutely right that the different methods are separate rule sets, and that individuals may incorporate those rule sets into a practice of NFP, or on their own, for birth control or for other reasons such as health monitoring. You are right that NFP is not a "method" of FA, I see it more as a behavioral system informed by religious beliefs. | |||
:The editor who removed them had been posting an affiliate link site to several articles, and I removed them all since I deemed the URL to be of no benefit. I assume the removal of the other sites, which seem to be correctly placed in this article is a reaction to the revert of his previous postings. If you agree with my analysis, then IMO, that would be considered deliberate removal of content. --] 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC) | |||
It is true that the different methods are indeed rule sets which may be used either in conjunction with religious beliefs or without them. The problem I see is in the way they are taught. The CCL is taught specifically as a method of NFP, and if you are learning the CCL method, you are being exposed to religious teachings. I feel that in this article, it is important to make it clear which are taught in a religious context and which are not. I feel that this serves two purposes: to empower people to avoid such teaching if they find it offensive, and to maintain a distinction between the meanings of FA and NFP. | |||
I think it would be fine to include mention of the CCL method. It is indeed well-known and used by many people. However I feel it would be best to specify that this particular method includes religious content. I found this easiest to do by creating an FA paragraph and a NFP paragraph, and listing the NFP methods therein. I found that the sections became too bulky and repetetive if they were mixed together. Could we reinstate the previous version, and include a sentence at the end of the second paragraph about the CCL method, perhaps? ] 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Quiverfull Movement == | |||
:I support tying CCL in as an NFP organization or otherwise mentioning the religious content of their classes. However, I'm unsure about classifying Billings and Creighton as NFP, because they are promoted to non-Catholics. But I don't want to imply they're secular, either, because of the Catholic leadership. I was trying to find a way to be ambiguous about their religious connections. Would you be willing to work along that line? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 01:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I appreciate the sentiment, but the ambiguity about the religious connections was what prompted me to make the change. The BOM website bills the method as NFP outright. The CM goes further, stating that "it is a system that it firmly based in a respect for... the integrity of marriage", with prominent links to the Pope Paul Institute. The CCL method includes Catholic content and is certainly NFP. My feeling is that it is important to differentiate between those with a Catholic background and those without, particularly since they all have varying levels of religious content. I think the paragraph explaining the term NFP is the best place for these. ] 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Unlike Catholic Opposition to the Church's teaching on contraception, which includes a majority of Catholics in Western countries, the Quiverfull movement is a tiny movement within Protestantism and is not notable. It shouldn't be in a general article on contraception. | |||
:::Regarding "billing the method as NFP", Katie Singer recently published a book ''Honoring Our Cycles: A Natural Family Planning Workbook'' , yet Singer is unconnected to the Catholic Church. | |||
-Alexeditor. | |||
:::As far as people seeking FA information, and unexpectedly encountering religious information - I'm not convinced that's a danger. Classes from Billings and Creighton certified teachers are unlikely to contain ''any'' religious content - , for example, is a Billings teacher, but obviously does not follow Catholic teachings (she fits diaphragms). For the websites, if the name of a Pope, and a statement implying Creighton is marriage-strengthening are the most religious comments to be found, I'm not impressed. Both Toni Weschler and Katie Singer in their books talk about how periodic abstinence can strengthen a relationship; I don't believe the idea is religious in nature. Weschler specifically recommends that FA only be used by couples in a long-term committed relationship; while it's not cutting-edge PC to assume this kind of relationship involves a piece of paper issued by the government, I don't find targeting FA at married couples to be overtly religious, either. I'm also not impressed by a link to a site that contains some religious content - both Weshler's and Singer's books list places like CCL in their "Resources" sections, which are ''not'' segregated into FAM vs. NFP lists, but placed in simple alphabetical order by organization name. | |||
:There are different definitions of "notable" used on Misplaced Pages. One I've seen is that something that results in 50-100 Google hits might be considered notable. A of "quiverfull" generates 49,500 hits. Browsing through the first several pages, they all seem to be about the religious movement, and in the first five pages, only one Misplaced Pages article. By that measure, the movement would seem to be notable. | |||
: |
:::As far as I am aware, people looking into Billings and Creighton either through the website or a local teacher are no more likely to come across religious content than people looking into Weschler's FAM. Following from this, I don't understand why these methods should be specifically categorized as NFP. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
::::They should be categorized as NFP, primarily because ''that is what they bill themselves as''. End of story. ] 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
:That's a good enough argument for the Quiverfull movement having it's own page, but not it's own mention on a page like this one. This article would be endless if you were to include the views of every group imaginable on something such as Birth Control. Note that everything else in this section refers to the major religious views on Birth Control, even large groups such as the Mormons and the Orthodox Christians receive no mention as to their religious views on Birth Control. It's not appropriate to give space only to the most well known religions, and then a specific mention to a small group such as the Quiverfull movement. The mention of Catholic opposition to Birth Control is notable only because it is so widespread that a discussion on Catholic views regarding contraception would be incomplete without it. | |||
They are not using the definition of NFP described in the FA section. If Misplaced Pages is going to go with the "popular use" definition of NFP, and the definition Billings and Creighton (and now, apparently, Katie Singer) use in their outreach efforts, it does not include religious restrictions. In that case (a change of Misplaced Pages's definition of NFP to remove religious restrictions), I would have no objection to calling Billings and Creighton NFP. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::I am so tired of arguing about this with you. Can't we just explain that the term NFP was coined by Catholics, that others have adopted its use, but that the term FA is more frequently used to mean non-religious, condom-OK-unmarried-OK, and NFP more frequently means Catholic, no-condom,-must-be-married,-penile-vaginal-only? Can't we explain that the CM and the CCL methods are religious in background and that the BOM, Weschler and Singer methods are more open? I honestly see a big difference between someone who teaches it as "this is a wonderful way to avoid pregnancy naturally", and someone who teaches it as "God said that everything else is forbidden." ] 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
-Alexeditor | |||
::::::There are certainly things we agree on - that NFP is more commonly used by Catholic groups, that FA has no religious connotations, that CCL teaches "God said that everything else is forbidden" and article references to CCL should make that clear. I agree this kind of strung-out debate is onerous, but I'm not sure how else to handle it. I'm open to ideas if others have dispute resolution suggestions. | |||
:::The Mormons and Orthodox Christians are certain notable as groups. But is their position on birth control notable? I was under the impression they had the same views as Protestant Christians. | |||
::::::For me, I see a big difference between an organization that outright states "sexual morality education" and "God's great gift of sexuality" are part of their "ministry" and an organization whose founders apparently believe in Catholic morality, but whose fertility information pages contain no religious content (Billings, Creighton). I can agree to specifying secular organizations as secular, and "morality education" groups as religious. I do not agree with categorizing the "morality education" groups like CCL together with the "no religious commentary" groups like Billings and Creighton. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::Quiverfull as a religious movement is small, and as a group it may not be notable. But its position on birth control is odd enough to merit mention when discussing "religious and cultural views" about fertility regulation. It seems incomplete to discuss Christian views on family planning without any mention at all that some Christian groups believe all family planning is wrong. | |||
:::There are other Christian groups opposed to family planning (such as the Amish). Would Alexeditor (or other editors) be opposed to a sentence such as "''some Christian groups oppose all forms of family planning, including NFP''"? So that the viewpoint is mentioned, but specific sects are not? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 00:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
Since you still can't seem to come to a mutual decision (though not much dicussion has taken place here recently so I'm not sure if you're talking elsewhere or just not talking at all), I will, once again, bring up the page for ]. It can help you make your case and have an unbaised third party person help you work through things. --] 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::The Mormons do allow Contracpetion; the various Orthodox Churches of the world are divided on the matter as to the acceptability of contraception. Some teach that any contraceptive method that doesn't hurt an already concieved foetus is acceptable, other believe that contraception is unacceptable. Orthodoxy is a major world faith which is not even receiving a mention. | |||
::::You raise a good point regarding the amish, and I could see some mention there under Protestantism. However, I wouldn't put it as it was in the old version where it was described as opposition to the movement's official teaching; as there is no one official "Protestant Teaching" on this issue as there is in the Catholic Church. | |||
::::The main issue I had with the previous version was the mention of Catholic and Protestant disagreement side by side without any mention of scale, as you have on one hand near uniformity(as with Protestantism), whereas on the Catholic side you likely have a majority disagreeging with the official position. An equivalent thing would be if it were written in an article on the Israeli-Arab conflict: "Some Arabs believe Israel should give up control of East Jerusalem. Some Jews also believe this". That would be technically true, but without any mention of scale it would also be horribly misleading.... | |||
::::- Alexeditor | |||
:I am starting to wonder why the NFP methods need be listed at all. ] 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
I would argue that the Quiverfull movement is larger than one might think. Here are dedicated books on the subject. | |||
::I would support not mentioning any specific methods, just leaving that to the FA article. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 00:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::How would not mentioning FA methods in the FA section improve the article? NFP and FA are not conjoined twins. Excluding the methods which are explicitly geared towards married Catholics does not necessitate excluding standalone FA methods that carry no religious or behavioral expectations in their teaching. ] 19:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
* Campbell, Nancy. ''Be Fruitful and Multiply.'' Vision Forum, San Antonio, TX: 2003. ISBN 097241735 | |||
* Hess, Rick and Jan. ''A Full Quiver: Family Planning and the Lordship of Christ.'' Wolgemuth & Hyatt Publishers, Brentwood, TN: 1990. ISBN 0943497833 | |||
* Owen, Jr., Samuel A. ''Letting God Plan Your Family.'' Crossway Books, Wheaton, IL: 1990. ISBN 0891075852 | |||
* Provan, Charles D. ''The Bible and Birth Control.'' Zimmer Printing, Monongahela, PA: 1989. ISBN 9991799834 | |||
* Scott, Rachel. ''Birthing God's Mighty Warriors.'' Xulon Press, Longwood, FL: 2004. ISBN 1594674655 | |||
:Teaching a method to atheist Chinese populations without including religious content (as Billings does) is not exactly "geared toward married Catholics". | |||
] 03:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Not mentioning FA methods would resolve our conflict, and would not affect the article significantly. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I wouldn't have any problem with including Billings. I also wouldn't have a problem including CCL and CM and the other NFP methods if we were just to briefly note which ones include Catholic messages in their teaching. Why can't we do that? FA in general is so little-known (and so useful) that I think it'd be a real shame to remove their mention from the article. More people will read the Birth control article, and fewer people will bother to click through onto the ] or ] articles. I think increasing public knowledge of FA could be achieved here by including the most popular systems. | |||
:I added an inline link in the Religious views section: "...while ] maintain a wide range of views from ] to very lenient." ] 06:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::What if it went like this: | |||
== Sex education and birth control == | |||
:::Fertility awareness (FA) methods involve a woman's observation and charting of one or more of her body's primary fertility signs, to determine the fertile and infertile phases of her cycle. Unprotected sex is restricted to the least fertile period. During the most fertile period, barrier methods may be availed, or she may abstain from intercourse. Different methods track one or more of the three primary fertility signs: changes in basal body temperature, in cervical mucus, and in cervical position, though cervical position is most frequently used as a cross-reference with one or both of the others. If a woman tracks both basal body temperature and another primary sign, the method is referred to as symptothermal, one such method is taught by ]. Other bodily cues such as mittelschmerz are considered secondary indicators. A woman may chart these events on paper or with software. | |||
Thanks, Lyrl. That's a much better revision, and my complaints are put to rest. | |||
:::The term '']'' (NFP) is sometimes used to refer to any use of FA methods. However, this term specifically refers to the practices which are permitted by the ] — ], and periodic ] during fertile times. FA methods may be used by NFP users to identify these fertile times. Various systems are taught as NFP: the Couple to Couple League teaches a symptothermal method, while the ] and the ] are based on mucus observation alone. Some NFP teachers and organizations include religious content in their classes. | |||
As an aside, is anyone else having trouble saving revisions? I've lost two saves--including this one--in two days. May just be a Mac thing or something else specific to me, but I'm asking anyway. --] 03:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Pretty please? Have I misunderstood any of your concerns? Does this address them? I too would love to get this resolved. ] 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Ease of using NFP == | |||
===Subheader for navigation=== | |||
I moved this section here from the article:''Many Catholic couples praise the ease, convenience, and low cost of NFP, noting that the woman's period of fertilization is never more than five days a month at the very worst. Such couples often note further that even during those five days of fertilization, couples are free (even by church teaching) to enjoy each other's bodies without sexual intercourse.'' | |||
It's better, because it does not outright say Billings and Creighton include religious content. However, I still object to presenting them separately from Weschler's system. My objections to specifying Billings and Creighton as NFP are twofold: 1)they do not use the definition of NFP that Misplaced Pages is using, and 2)the ''methods themselves'' can be (and sometimes are) taught outside of an NFP context. | |||
The term NFP is defined differently by different organizations. Some organizations, such as CCL, include the Catholic behavior restrictions as part of NFP. Other organizations, such as Billings and Creighton, appear to define NFP as the observational method itself, and to consider the behavior restrictions as separate aspects of the Catholic faith not integral to NFP. It is misleading to define NFP with the CCL definition and then say Billings and Creighton are "taught as NFP". It falsely implies they use the same definition that CCL does. | |||
I am a practitioner of ] (NFP for non-Catholics, basically), and while I love the method, that "five days a month at the very worst" is absolutely false. ''Normal'' is eight to ten days fertile days per cycle. Stress, premenopause, breastfeeding, and certain hormonal disorders can greatly increase that number. If a woman practicing NFP is only identifying five fertile days a cycle, she is at high risk of unplanned pregnancy. This is further discussed (with references) in the fertility awareness and ] articles. | |||
Saying the methods are "taught as NFP" also misleadingly excludes teaching of the methods outside of their original organizations. Examples include the promotion of the CCL method on , and Billing's practice of giving official teaching licenses to all comers, resulting in . These avenues are certainly not teaching these methods as NFP. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 01:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
:What about adding to the end of the current section: ''The Roman Catholic Church has dominated the development of fertility awareness methods. While numbers of secular teachers such as Toni Weschler are increasing, currently even organizations that do not include religious content in their classes may have connections to this Church.''] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 01:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I like the general idea of identifying the RCC's involvement with the research and development of FA methods. I am not pleased I feel uncomfortable with the wording "has dominated", also "numbers of secular teachers... are increasing" is somewhat speculative. How about this: | |||
:As a practicing Catholic, I can say that you are absolutely correct. I tagged it with {fact} in case anyone wanted to contest my eventual deletion. So I agree with your removal. --] 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::''Some NFP organizations include religious content in their classes. Those that do not may still be run by practicing Catholics.'' | |||
::The phrase "connections to this Church" is really vague. Can't we be more specific about the nature of those "connections"? ] 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
::::Just add that on to the end of the current last paragraph of the FA section (that lists all the methods, including Weschler's)? That would work for me. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Religious discussion in main article == | |||
:::::I am fine with adding the sentence but not with including something that is definitely 100% an FA method in with all the NFP methods. ] 15:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
As the main article size was 36K and growing, I have created a new article titled ]. As suggested in ], I have created a summary in this article of what the section held. Lengthy religious viewpoints are not appropriate for this page; this article exists primarily to provide descriptions of different types of birth control. Please discuss. ] 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::Look, I can't talk about this any more. We should just get rid of the last paragraph in the current version and leave it at that. ] 15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
] has not responded to my above comment, but has now reinstated the long-winded discussion of religious (mainly Christian) views on birth control (article size now 36K), has removed the mention of US officials blocking access to birth control on the grounds of their religious beliefs, and has reinstated the inclusion of Natural Family Planning as a distinct birth control method (when in fact it can better be described as a Catholic stamp of approval on methods that were already mentioned in the article). These revisions are NPOV. Please discuss. ] 21:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::::::I wish I knew more about what you were talking about so I could help out with this issue more, but, unfortunately, I do not. However, my suggestion would be to not include whatever is trying to be included. If it causes this much controversy, indecision, and argument between established Misplaced Pages editors, it probably doesn't belong or need to belong in this article. This is just my take on things and I hope some sort of consensus can be reached about this issue soon so we can unprotect the article. --] 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I feel the discussion on NFP is important, but I admit where to include it is problematic. It isn't a specific method of birth control, but a collection of methods. But FA isn't one specific method either, but a class of methods. Maybe we can find a better way to include the info, but reducing the content to one sentence is not helpful at all. I'm not sure how I feel about all this content forking. It was proposed that the Christian views on contraception page be split up (even though there is no size warning), and now we are forking off the religious views into its own article. I just don't think we are at the point where we need a dozen different articles covering the same topic from different POVs. Maybe having one article on the religious views can work, and possibly also keeping the Christian views article, but I'd strongly suggest working on those two before creating any more forks (and to address the relevent concern, a summary needs to take the place of the longer content that has been forked out, per policy, if we decide to keep the forks).--] 21:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::::Getting rid of the last paragraph (that lists the individual methods) is good by me. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
::The article size guideline is only for readability, not for precise size, and should be considered on a case by case basis. The guideline also only applies to the main body of the text, not references, external links, infoboxes, etc. - excluding those things brings this article below the old technical limit of 32K. Size alone is not a reason to move content from this article. See the ] article, for example, at 56K - and no one there is suggesting content needs to be forked. | |||
== Birth Control equivalent to contraception? == | |||
::I also feel NFP needs to be discussed on this page. The current single sentence misrepresents the use of the term, by implying anyone who uses FA is also an NFP user - when in fact the abstinence requirement of NFP is very important. The single sentence also fails to let readers know that LAM is also included in the NFP umbrella. And it implies that the Rhythm Method is considered a type of FA - a classification that is highly controversial, as teachers of highly effective observational FA methods want nothing to do with the notorious Rhythm. | |||
Why does Contraception redirect to Birth Control? Isn't contraception a specific subset of birth control? --] 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
::The topic of this article is not limited to descriptions of methods - it also includes history of the concept of birth regulation, for example. I view religious attitudes toward birth control as a valid topic. As Andrew pointed out, there needs to be a summary of any content that is forked. Shortening the summary is fine, but removing it altogether does not help the article. | |||
:The overlap is fuzzy because of the does-hormonal-contraception-prevent-implantation-and-if-so-is-that-abortion debate. Where to put hormonal methods, and also IUDs, if a contraception article was created would be a mess. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I think it would be safe to put hormonal methods and IUDs in contraception... Contraception covers the means and methods to prevent conception. Contra - against (i.e. contrary to). Ception - as in "conception"... The hormonal pill acts PRIOR to conception thus it is "contra-conceptive"... Conception does not occur until the zygote has formed and implanted. Birth control includes such things as laws disallowing multiple offspring (such as in many parts of China). I think that is definitely FAR BROADER than the issue of condoms, pills, femidoms and IUDs! Cultural mandates should not come into this... <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
== SILCS device == | |||
::The section on US government officials is highly POV - it implies that a majority of pro-life politicians oppose birth control and all forms of sex education. Opposition to all birth control is actually a tiny minority in the pro-life movement. The sex ed debate is also much more complex than a yes/no question as presented in this paragraph, and besides, should be addressed in the main article and the specific "Birth control education" subsection, not in a section on government officials. The paragraph also fails to mention that pro-choice activists work not only against government regulation, but also for government ''support'', in the form of paying for abortions for destitute women, for example. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 22:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
According to the , SILCS '''is''' a diaphragm. To my understanding, its unique characteristics are that it is one-size-fits-all, and has a hook in the rim for easier removal. If this is correct, I'm uncertain about listing it as a separate kind of birth control. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 03:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I request that you respond to my comments in this and the "Inclusion of term NFP" sections, before making future revisions. ] 23:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I also feel that ] should be merged with ]. The former does not seem foreseeably expandable, and the latter contains specific brands/styles that do not have their own article. That said, I wouldn't mind having a line or two (maybe a little less than what we have now) about this specific brand in development in this article. (I wouldn't mind if it was completely removed, either way works). -] 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
I'd hardly say that Mr. de Vivre's waiting a mere five hours for a response--''after'' deleting a large section without a consensus in a relatively controversial article--is fair to Lyrl. I motion that the previous content be reinstated until a positive consensus is established ''against'' the NFP passage. Further comment from me will come later... ''not'' on Mr. de Vivre's tight timetable. --] 01:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Regardless of what it is called, I think its design is different enough to warrant its own mention; just as the ] has. ] 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I second BCSWowbagger's motion. ] 02:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
: Fair enough. I am fairly new to Misplaced Pages editing (<1 month) and should have made more effort towards discussion before enacting a large change. I didn't realize it would cause trouble, as I was the user who split the list of BC methods into Physical, Behavioral and In Development categories -- a major change which was received well. I became a bit overconfident afterwards. I now understand the importance of consensus, and do beg everyone's pardon. Let's continue the discussion. ] 11:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::I think the Lea's shield article should be merged into ], but that's not something I'm motivated to pursue at this time. A mention of SILCS is fine, in the barriers section with the diaphragm. I oppose SILCS having its very own section. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Inclusion of term NFP == | |||
::::I agree that it does not need its very own section. The SILCS diaphragm is mentioned briefly under Barrier methods, with an internal link to its listing in the "Methods in development" section. ] 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
''Fertility awareness'' is a relatively new, feminist-associated term used by a few small organizations in the US and Canada . ''Natural family planning'' is a term that has been in use for over fifty years, and is used by large, worldwide organizations . While I feel FA is the more technically accurate term, NFP is certainly the more popular and recognized one. For better understanding of what is being discussed, then, I support the mention of NFP alongside all mentions of FA. | |||
I question that SILCS should be listed under "methods in development". It is a diaphragm, and diaphragms are not "in development". My current knowledge of the SILCS is that its only unique characteristics are the finger cup (whoop-de-doo) and its '''marketing''' as a one-size-fits-most. Distributing only one size of diaphragm has been advocated before, though the first formal study suggested it was a bad idea ({{PMID|12279800}}). But with the push for diaphragm use in developing countries, and the barrier posed by the currently-required fitting session, interest in the topic has picked up ({{PMID|15033398}}). The effectiveness trials of the SILCS are groundbreaking, certainly, in that good effectiveness studies of a single-size diaphragm have never before been conducted in the over one hundred years the device has been on the market. However, I don't see any reason the results of the study would not be applicable to '''''all'' arcing-spring diaphragms'''. Should someone have information on some unique aspect of SILCS I am not aware of, I would be interested. But currently, I believe the SILCS should not be listed as a "method in development" and that its ''only'' listing in this article should be in the "barriers" section. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Confusion between the terms NFP and FA is also very common. The U.K. government uses the terms interchangeably . Another British website using the terms interchangeably: . There are also many American websites that use the terms interchangeably . Because actual teachers and users of the methods distinguish between the two terms, combined with the widespread conflation of them, I feel it is important for this Misplaced Pages article to clarify the differences. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 22:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:Your comment about diaphragms not being in development is an ]. The SILCS diaphraghm is still in testing. Your suggestion that the results of the SILCS study should be be applied to all diaphragms is not shared by any medical or statistical authority that I am aware of. There is no onus on me to prove why such associations should not be made. The SILCS device has not been approved by medical authorities. My guess is that if the SILCS device was the same as other diaphragms it would have already been approved on the grounds that it is no different from other diaphragms. Even if the reason the SILCS device is not yet approved is unrelated to any differences from other diaphragms, we can return to the fact that '''the SILCS diaphragm is still in testing'''. Thus it is categorized and described appropriately. ] 03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:The confusion between the terms is what got me started editing articles on specific methods. I think it's not only important to describe the technical differences between the terms, but also to explain that they are used (whether inaccurately or not) interchangably. Maybe the text from either NFP or FA's main article that discusses both terms could be of use to us here?--] 23:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::On the "still in testing" argument: Condoms were studied for effectiveness as recently as 2004 ({{PMID|15504381}}). Does that mean they were "in development" until then? On the "medical authority" argument: implies that testing of the SILCS is primarily because of its one-size nature: ''"One randomized, controlled trial now in the late planning stages at Ibis Reproductive Health intends to test the need for fitting the Ortho All-Flex, the diaphragm market leader. If the device performs well without clinician fitting, that diaphragm and perhaps others could be offered in a standard size. Participants at the 2002 meeting also placed priority on evaluating the effectiveness of new one-size or two-size devices such as Lea’s Shield, BufferGel Cup, and the SILCS diaphragm."'' ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: The references you used in making your case for the use of the term NFP are flimsy. For instance, you mentioned that the term NFP is used by "large, worldwide organizations" such as the Couple to Couple League . A summary of this organization's bio: "John and Sheila Kippley founded the Couple to Couple League in response to Pope Paul VI's recommendation that married couples help other married couples with Natural Family Planning." In this case, the term is used by a worldwide organization run by Catholics. You also claimed that "the UK government" uses the terms interchangably, but the so-called "UK government" site you mentioned has no discernable ties to any governmental organization. | |||
:::If condoms were not yet on the market, such an argument about continued testing might be relevant. The SILCS diaphragm is not yet available and thus the "still in development" categorization is appropriate. I don't really care to discuss implications regarding the reasons behind the continued testing; I don't see the relevance. The placement of the description of the SILCS device, under "Methods in development", is appropriate. ] 03:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: And as for the "American websites that use the terms interchangably"; the first, Epigee has a distinct anti-abortion slant. The site was created by a woman who spent 15 years working at anti-abortion "pregnancy crisis centers" , which are known for deliberately providing false information to dissuade women from abortion . The creator of the site refers to the fetus (during an abortion) as a "child" -- see "late abortion". The site also uses the term "unborn child" and "preborn baby" , as well as the term 'abortionist' on a page dotted with the word "beware" , all of which are anti-abortion terms. Besides all this, there is a page entitled "God's Word For Singles" . We can be fairly certain that the site's creator is not using the term NFP to describe anything but Natural Family Planning with the Christian restrictions. Including a link to this site does not constitute proof that the terms are used interchangably by anyone but Christians. | |||
::::"''if the SILCS device was the same as other diaphragms it would have already been approved on the grounds that it is no different from other diaphragms.''" Its only difference in every document I have read is the lack of sizing. No diaphragm anywhere in the world is approved for use without a clinician fitting. We're not going to agree with each other on this. As a second choice position, I have added other currently researched but so far unapproved methods (like new brands of spermicide, and the new rim type of the Duet diaphragm) so SILCS won't be the only thing in that section. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 11:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: The other American website you mentioned to support your claim is called "The American Pregnancy Association". It has no information about birth control, but has forums for expecting mothers, and says that one of the first things a woman should do in the event of unexpected pregnancy is get a sonogram , a tactic championed by anti-abortion activists for deterring women from getting abortions . | |||
:::::The other difference, other than the lack of sizing, is that the device has not been approved. It is still in development; there is nothing that changes the fact. I find your choice, to add a string of other items as a reaction to the inclusion of the SILCS device, to be unsavory. ] 13:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
: The only groups which I have seen using the terms NFP and FA interchangably are those run by Christians, who undoubtedly are thinking of the term NFP in a religious context. You have demonstrated that the term NFP has undeniable Christian connotations. As I detailed more thoroughly in my comment below, there is no good reason to include religious classification of methods that have already been mentioned in the article, nor is there good reason to include the term NFP with each mention of fertility awareness. The people who use the terms "fertility awareness" and "natural family planning" interchangably are usually Christian. It's misleading and confusing to mention ], a term that is best used to describe an array of Catholic-sanctioned BC methods, each time ] is mentioned. ] 23:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Morality objections mention in lede moved here== | |||
::I think Lyrl's version is more accurate in that it mentions methods that are not FA that are part of NFP (and it'd be even more accurate if it mentioned periodic abstinence during fertile periods). But I agree that we don't need to put the term NFP early in that section, right next to FA. Having the one paragraph by itself is good enough. As for the interchangability of these terms: etc. --] 00:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
The following statements are unsourced. I find it inappropriate to make vague statements about cultural and religious opposition to birth control, especially when such statements are unsourced. I feel that these statements, if sourced, do not belong in the lede. They should be placed under ] or perhaps ]. | |||
Here's the content: ] 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
I support clarifying that "natural family planning" is sometimes used interchangably with "fertility awareness". It must also be made clear that the term NFP has strong Catholic connotations. "Fertility awareness" should remain as the title of the section, as this term is more neutral: women can use FA with no intention of ever becoming pregnant or "planning a family". These clarifications are important. This said, there is not a good reason to include a thorough description of the religious restrictions involved in practicing fertility awareness techniques in ways that qualify as Catholic-approved 'natural family planning'. | |||
:Contraception differs from ] in that the former prevents fertilization, while the latter terminates an already established pregnancy. Methods of birth control which may prevent the implantation of an ] ''if'' fertilization occurs are medically considered to be contraception but characterized by some opponents as ]s. | |||
The abstinence requirement of NFP is significant only in a theological sense. So are the requirements that Catholic couples practicing NFP not participate in any orgasmic act outside of intercourse, that they both be Catholic, that they be married. These restrictions have nothing to do with birth control, they involve obeying the decree of religious leaders. All NFP-related methods (FA, Rhythm, and lactational amenorrhea) are already mentioned in the article. Apart from the religious restrictions, NFP methods do not differ from these. Thus, NFP need not be given its own section. | |||
:Birth control is a controversial political and ethical issue in many ]s and ]s, and although it is generally less controversial than abortion specifically, it is still opposed by many. There are various degrees of opposition, including those who oppose all forms of birth control short of ]; those who oppose forms of birth control they deem "unnatural", while allowing ]; and those who support most forms of birth control that prevent fertilisation, but oppose any method of birth control which prevents a fertilized embryo from attaching to the ] and initiating a pregnancy. | |||
The only reason that NFP need be mentioned is in clarification of the term. Mention of the dual usage of the term NFP should not act as a segue to the details of the ways in which the methods must be practiced in order to follow the rules of the Catholic church. These details are already well-described in the ] main article. Religiously-backed behavior systems do not belong in the list of birth control methods. Also, it is not appropriate to include the indication that certain methods are approved by certain religions. The existing disambiguation of the term "natural family planning", under the Fertility Awareness section of this article, is sufficient. ] 19:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== New category required for NFP/FA related articles == | |||
:::Both myself and Andrew made statements about discussing FA and NFP together. Joie said, "''I support clarifying that "natural family planning" is sometimes used interchangably with "fertility awareness".''" I then implemented that change (to me, it seemed to be supported by everyone on the Talk page), in the history section. Then, Joie reverted my change, stating that I had ignored the Talk page discussion. I hope my frustration at this sequence of events is understandable. | |||
'''NOTICE:''' The old discussion at ] is now located at ]. ] 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
'''Note: The centralized location for discussing categorization of NFP/FA articles is at ]. Please discuss there, not here.''' ] 18:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I believe it is confusing to only use a relatively new, not commonly recognized term (FA) (172,000 hits on Google) when a more widely-known similar term (NFP) (654,000 hits on Google) is available to use as clarification. I do not believe the religious affiliation of people using the terms is relevant; only how easily recognized the terms are by the general population. Although Andrew has provided a number of good links for usage. | |||
The previous category was ], however a recent CfD result was "delete". This new category effects the following articles: Rhythm method, Fertility awareness, Natural family planning, Basal body temperature, Billings ovulation method, Creighton Model FertilityCare System. ] is a category that was created earlier this month, and is intended to house these articles, plus Coitus interruptus and Lactational Amenorrhea Method. Should we create a new subcat to house the categories that used to be in periodic abstinence? If so, what should it be called? I'm not sure, for categorization purposes, we need to have such a specific category, especially when we've had difficulty trying to come up with a name that everyone can agree with, however, I feel that we should raise a new consensus for whatever we do before recreating deleted content without going through the undeletion process of ].-] 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::I also do not understand the objection to stating that the term NFP can include FA, statistical, and LAM. 0.2% of the U.S. population uses a diaphragm. 0.9% - four times as many - of the population uses NFP. ( - see Table 7) Doesn't NFP deserve as much space as the diaphragm in this article? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 01:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:The pebble in my shoe here is ]. The Rhythm Method involves noting the date that menstruation begins, using an algorithm to estimate the date of ovulation, and bracketing a no-sex zone around that date. ''All'' of the other methods involve getting up-close-and-personal with cervical mucus, cervical position (with a speculum), or basal body temperature, which for most women exhibits a noticable shift at ovulation. These methods are called ]. (They are called ] if used by Catholics for religious reasons.) I would be fine with grouping the fertility awareness methods together and leaving Rhythm out. I don't see how it's grammatically possible to group them together without error. I did try to group them together by suggesting ], but Lyrl argued that all FA methods "estimate" and that we shouldn't differentiate even in the title. I disagree, I think we ''should'' make it clear that FA methods involve bodily signals, and Rhythm involves a calendar and a pen. | |||
:::: Your first paragraph is an oversimplification of events. Did you even read the rest of my comment? I said that I supported clarifying the dual usage of the term (with "natural family planning" sometimes being used to describe non-religious use of fertility awareness methods), and then immediately went on to say that I did NOT support using that word-use clarification as a springboard to describe the specifics of the belief-based set of methods. As I had been clear that I would not support that addition, in no way was my revision contradictory; your implication is baseless. That said, I have gone into great detail about the use of the term, below. ] 21:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I still really like ], particularly because then the category can be cross-linked with ], which is good because many women use these methods to help them conceive. Ideas? ] 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Regarding periodic abstience being off topic. I couldn't disagree more. The thing that makes NFP a form of birth control is that these couples do not have sex during the period established by FA methods to be more fertile. Tracking fertility does not prevent babies. Not having sex prevents babies. The KEY thing that makes NFP a form of controlling births is not having sex. Furthermore, this is a very interesting thing that seperates NFP from FAM because it is a theological requirement. Mentioning this in half a clause in one sentence is not giving it undue weight. It is very interesting to note that with FAM, you can use any number of barrier methods of birth control during fertile periods, and that is what prevents babies, but with NFP, it is ALWAYS abstinence.--] 01:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::Of course, then the category is open to things like ], so maybe we should narrow the scope to ]. But then we are back to excluding rhythm, and even ]. I am having trouble finding a good solution. ] 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
Andrew c is correct; the term "natural family planning" is in use in non-religious settings. This strengthens the argument that a sentence should be included to indicate that the term is mainly used as a Catholic term, as evidenced in the first sentence of the ] main article. The uses Andrew c cited have nothing to do with "sin" or any aspect of Catholicism. They describe fertility awareness methods in detail, but refer to them as "natural family planning", with no mention of Catholic restrictions. In these instances, so called "natural family planning" methods may be used by unmarried couples, or with condoms during the fertile period, for example, all of which violate the Catholic meaning of the term. If this is an appropriate usage of the term, there is no need to denote that 'natural family planning' is specifically Catholic, or that any Catholic-decreed restrictions must be upheld in order to use the term. | |||
:::As explained at ], I believe the recreation was the correct thing to do in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. Discussion on a renaming had already started there. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 14:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
It is especially important to remember this, if we look at how Lyrl included a mention of natural family planning at the bottom of the History section. The "modern fertility awareness methods" that were developed in the mid-20th century were not only available to those who agreed with certain religious beliefs, they were brought about through scientific discoveries about the function of the female reproductive organs. Adding a reference to the <i>term</i> "natural family planning" may be appropriate, but adding a <i>link</i> to a page that refers to "sin" and the proclamations of the Vatican in this instance is completely inappropriate. | |||
Please disregard my post above, the centralized discussion for this topic is ongoing at ]. Sorry.-] 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC) | |||
In any case, if the term "natural family planning" is determined to be used appropriately in both religious and non-religious settings, it is misleading to add a pointer to the religious usage with each use of the term. You can't have it both ways, either it's a religious term and must only be used to describe the Catholic usage, or it's not specifically religious, and it can be used without any special mention of (or linking to pages detailing) the Catholic restrictions. | |||
'''NOTICE:''' The old discussion at ] is now located at ]. ] 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
In accordance with the meaning described in the ] main article, I support a division between the two, with NFP always referring to Catholic methods, and with FA referring to any usage of the fertility awareness methods. This would eliminate much confusion. A necessary clarification of the non-religious usage of the term 'natural family planning' has been made in the FA section. Other uses of the term 'Natural Family Planning' should refer to the Catholic meaning. ] 01:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Population control in fiction == | |||
===Mention in "History" section=== | |||
First, several decades of research into biphasic temperature patterns and cervical mucus was done by Catholics, for religious purposes, with the Catholic Church and Catholic organizations as the main source of funding. The ] article has a partial history. These methods were only promoted by Catholics, and almost all users were Catholic. Not until the 1970s did a few feminists become interested in the method, ''rename'' it fertility awareness, and begin promoting it secularly. Natural family planning is the original, historical, Catholic term. This information is outside the scope of the current History section, but I believe it supports inclusion of the term NFP in that section. | |||
In fiction, population control has appeared in TV-series as ], and movies as ]. | |||
Second, FA as a term is not as widely recognized as NFP, in part because it is more recent. A parenthetical mention that FA is sometimes called NFP adds clarity. A wikilink to both the FA and NFP articles provides further disambiguation of the terms than only wikilinking to the FA article. Joie has objected to a wikilink of NFP because the article describes the Vatican's definition of particular behavoirs as sins. (S)He has also objected to describing the "''specifics of the belief-based set of methods''", which I initially interpreted as meaning the restrictions on birth control use and orgasmic acts outside of intercourse. Now I'm wondering if what was meant included wikilinks to the NFP article? I am not following this line of logic at all, and would appreciate clarification. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 23:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
] by ] is worth mentioning as all Women are required to take birth control pills and encourageed to engage in sexual play. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: Once again, the parenthetical mention of NFP is misleading when, as in this instance, the term is Wikilinked to the Catholic methods. As Andrew c has demonstrated, not all uses of the term NFP refer to the Catholic restrictions, so it is inappropriate to Wikilink to them indiscriminately, with every use of the term. | |||
== "Typical use" first-year failure rate for Depo-Provera == | |||
:In this instance, a mention of the practice of ] would be as appropriate as the mention of the term ], but both would clutter the sentence unnecessarily. Mention of FA is sufficient to describe the method, as NFP is a form of FA. I am researching the history of FA and will return with more info on this. ] 17:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
The ] uses a contraceptive efficacy table based on: | |||
::The sentence "cluttering" of mentioning NFP serves a purpose - it greatly increases comprehension of the subject matter amoung readers who have heard of NFP, but not FA. | |||
:James Trussell's "Contraceptive Efficacy" chapter in the '''17th''' edition (1998) of Hatcher et al. (eds.) ''Contraceptive Technology'' | |||
'''not''': | |||
:James Trussell's "Contraceptive Efficacy" chapter in the '''18th''' edition (2004) of Hatcher et al. (eds.) ''Contraceptive Technology'' | |||
for consistency in current FDA-approved labeling for all contraceptives (e.g. , ). | |||
In his 18th edition of ''Contraceptive Technology'' contraceptive efficacy table, among other changes, Trussell ''' ''changed'' ''' his "typical use" first-year failure rate for ] from 0.3% to 3% based on: | |||
::The correct use of the term NFP is described in the Misplaced Pages article. I do not believe linking to a description of the correct use of the term is misleading in any way. | |||
:Trussell J, Vaughan B (1999). ''Fam Plann Perspect.'' '''31'''(2):64-72,93 {{PMID|10224544}} | |||
::In this diff of the emergency contraception article the editor claims that ''menstrual cycle'' is usually interpreted to mean ''period'', so using it to mean the entire cycle is misleading. Similar to the NFP linking under discussion here, I do not feel that linking to the correct use of the term (]) would have been misleading, even though some people - incorrectly - use the term to mean something else. | |||
which reported ''(Table 1)'' 12-month failure rates from the 1995 NSFG of: | |||
: 2.3% Implant (Norplant) | |||
: 3.2% Injectable (Depo-Provera) | |||
: 3.7% IUD | |||
For his 18th edition of ''Contraceptive Technology'' contraceptive efficacy table, Trussell: | |||
* ''' ''rejected'' ''' the NSFG failure rate of 2.3% for Norplant as ''' ''absurd'' ''' and set his Norplant typical use failure rate equal to its first-year perfect use failure rate of 0.05% derived from clinical trials (which he had used in his 17th edition of ''Contraceptive Technology'' contraceptive efficacy table). | |||
* ''' ''accepted'' ''' the NSFG failure rate of 3.2% for Depo-Provera ''' ''instead of'' ''' using Depo-Provera's first-year perfect use and typical use failure rate of 0.3% from the largest clinical trial of Depo-Provera (which he had used in his 17th edition of ''Contraceptive Technology'' contraceptive efficacy table). | |||
* ''' ''rejected'' ''' the NSFG failure rate of 3.7% for IUDs as ''' ''absurd'' ''' and set his ParaGard typical use failure rate equal to its first-year typical use failure rate of 0.8% in the largest ParaGard clinical trial, and set his Mirena typical use failure rate equal to the average of its first-year perfect use and typical use failure rate of 0.1% in two large clinical trials (which he had used in his 17th edition of ''Contraceptive Technology'' contraceptive efficacy table). | |||
The FDA's published for comment in March 2004 has a simplified contraceptive efficacy table based on clinical trial data reviewed by the FDA—and omits dubious "typical use" failure rates derived from NSFG survey data. | |||
::Furthermore, despite the common incorrect use of NFP as a secular term, many people (those who have not heard of FA) ''are'' still under the impression that NFP is "only for Catholics". This is associated with the negative opinion of the Rhythm Method, association of Rhythm with NFP, and the belief that only devout religious people would use something so ineffective. Linking to both the FA and NFP articles offers readers the opportunity to dispell these false beliefs and learn the correct usage of both terms. | |||
] 03:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::On the history, you might also be interested in what I've been able to scrounge up and put in the ] article. It looks like interest in calendar methods was mainly secular, and actually condemned by Christianity for a long time. After the advent of condoms, diaphragms, and then hormonal contraception, secular interest in improving upon Rhythm ended. Catholic scientists did the twentieth century work of developing the physiological methods. | |||
:The FDA uses the 1997 edition in its labeling because its guidelines were ''''''. Lacking an actual statement from the FDA that it has rejected the most recent edition of ''Contraceptive Technology'', the most reasonable conclusion is the the ''FDA'' is out of date, not that it has actively rejected Trussel's most recent analysis. While the FDA may "''omit dubious "typical use" failure rates derived from NSFG survey data''" for ''hormonal contraceptives'', they certainly don't have a problem using those rates for fertility awareness. In the "choosing a regular method of birth control" section of , the FDA says fertility awareness has a first-year failure rate of 25% - the NSFG number (based on 217 women using calendar-based methods and 33 women using symptoms-based methods). This despite numerous recent clinical studies demonstrating significantly lower typical failure rates ({{PMID|8478373}}, {{PMID|1755469}}, , {{PMID|8147240}}, {{PMID|9288336}}). Neither source is "consistent" in using clinical trial data above survey data. | |||
I will repeat once again: the ] main article clearly maintains the Catholic meaning of the term. Adding a Wikilink is appropriate only when referring to the Catholic meaning of the term, not to any use of the phrase. This is especially true because a disambiguation of the term (NFP) is at the top of the ] article, so there is no need to wikilink to NFP at every mention of FA. I am too busy to say more at this time, perhaps soon. ] 17:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::* The current FDA contraceptive labeling guidelines were adopted in 1998 and include a contraceptive efficacy table based on Trussell's table from ''Contraceptive Technology, 17th ed.'' (1998). | |||
:I feel strongly about including the term NFP, to increase recognition of what that sentence is talking about. I'm not tied to linking to the NFP article, it just seems a very odd place to not have some sort of wikilink. What about a section link to the FA section in this article? That way clicking on NFP would link to a disambiguation of the term? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::* The FDA has explicitly rejected use of Trussell's table from ''Contraceptive Technology, 18th ed.'' (2004) -- see page 9 of : | |||
:::"The Applicant replaced the 18th Edition of the Trussell table with the 17th edition of the Trussell Table as requested by the Division of Reproductive and Urologic Products (DRUP) in order to be consistent with presently approved labeling for Plan B and non-emergency contraceptive products." | |||
::* The FDA (March 2004) does ''NOT'' use Trussell's table from ''any'' edition of ''Contraceptive Technology''. | |||
::** Aside from the 10X jump in typical use failure rate for Depo-Provera from 0.3% to 3% between the 17th and 18th editions of Trussell's table, the next biggest change has been the 2.67X increase in typical use failure rate for the Pill in Trussell's table from 3% (16th ed. 1994) to 5% (17th ed. 1998) to 8% (18th ed. 2004). | |||
::** Notably, the only significant differences between the 2004 FDA Draft Guidance efficacy table (based on clinical trial data reviewed by the FDA) and the 2004 18th edition Trussell table is: | |||
::*** a failure rate of <1% versus 3% for injectables | |||
::*** a failure rate of 1% versus 8% for COCPs (and the patch and the vaginal ring) | |||
::*** a failure rate of 2% versus 8% for POPs (very-low-dose norethindrone or norgestrel POPs) | |||
::*** behavioral methods (withdrawal, periodic abstinence) are not listed in the 2004 FDA Draft Guidance table | |||
::*** perfect use failure rates are not listed in the 2004 FDA Draft Guidance table | |||
::** The 2004 FDA Draft Guidance efficacy table ''' ''IS'' ''' consistent in using clinical trial data (except for sterilization and spermicide): | |||
::*** "The estimates for drugs, condoms, diaphragms, and IUDs are derived from clinical trial data reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration. The estimates for sterilization and spermicides come from the medical literature." | |||
::** "Choosing a regular method of birth control" in is a section of a Patient Package Insert ''' ''proposed by'' ''' Women's Capital Corporation (owner of Plan B before it was sold to the Duramed Pharmaceuticals subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals) ''' ''to'' ''' the FDA and included as Appendix 7 of a briefing document for the 16 December 2003 FDA advisory committee meeting about the proposed Rx-to-OTC switch for Plan B. | |||
::*** The FDA did ''' ''not'' ''' approve a "Choosing a regular method of birth control" in the OTC patient package insert for Plan B. | |||
::*** The FDA ''' ''did'' ''' insist, as noted above, that Duramed Pharmaceuticals use the 17th edition instead of the 18th edition of Trussell's table in the physician prescribing information for Plan B. | |||
::* Trussell's chapter "Contraceptive Efficacy"" in ''Contraceptive Technology, 18th ed.'', page 774 says: | |||
::** "Our estimates of the probability of pregnancy during the first year of typical use of spermicides, withdrawal, periodic abstinence, the diaphragm, the male condom, the pill, and Depo-Provera are taken from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) corrected for underreporting of abortion." | |||
::*** Fu H, Darroch JE, Haas T, Ranjit N (1999). ] ''Fam Plann Perspect.'' Mar-Apr; '''31'''(2):56-63. {{PMID|10224543}} | |||
::** "Moreover, women in personal interviews for the NSFG also might overreport use of a contraceptive method at the time of a conception leading to a live birth. Evidence for this suspicion is provided by the uncorrected first-year probabilities of pregnancy of 3.7% for the IUD and 2.3% for Norplant (methods with little or no scope for user error) in the 1995 NSFG; the probabilities are much higher than rates observed in clinical trials of these methods, and for this reason we did not base the typical-use estimates for these two methods on the NSFG." | |||
::*** Trussell J, Vaughan B (1999). ''Fam Plann Perspect.'' '''31'''(2):64-72,93 {{PMID|10224544}} | |||
::**** "Overreporting use of a contraceptive method at the time of a conception leading to a live birth" may be a reason for 1995 NSFG failure rates of 2.3% instead of 0.05% for implants and 3.7% instead of 0.8% for IUDs -- so why couldn't that also be a reason for 1995 NSFG failure rates of 3.2% instead of 0.3% for injectables? | |||
::**** If "overreporting use of a contraceptive method at the time of a conception leading to a live birth" resulted in a (false) background 1995 NSFG failure rate of 2-3%, this would dramatically affect reported failure rates of methods like implants, IUDs and injectables and significantly affect reported failure rates of pills, but only slightly affect reported less effective methods like spermicide, rhythm, withdrawal, etc. | |||
::**** None of the failure rates based on the 1995 NSFG are very precise, but the 95% confidence intervals for implants (0.6% - 8.6%), injectables (0.6% - 14.4%), and IUDs (0.5% - 22.5%) are especially wide, spanning ranges of 14x, 24x, and 45x vs. ranges of ~1.5x for pills or condoms and ~2x for withdrawal or periodic abstinence. Another good reason for Trussell not to use failure rates based on the 1995 NSFG for implants and IUDs (or injectables). | |||
::** Using failure rates based on the 1995 NSFG, instead of an average of 1976, 1982, and 1988 NSFG failure rates, resulted in these changes of typical use failure rates in Trussell's table from the 17th to the 18th edition of ''Contraceptive Technology'': | |||
:The disambiguation in the FA article does no good to any readers who do not click through. And the readers I am concerned about - the ones who have never heard of FA, but recognize the term NFP - are unlikely to click through. I also feel that the term NFP deserves mention in the ''history'' section because it is the ''historical'' term for these methods. These two concerns have '''not''' been addressed by the responses of Joie, despite what he implied in his recent edit summary. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 01:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::*** spermicides: 26% -> 29% | |||
::*** withdrawal: 19% -> 27% | |||
::*** periodic abstinence: 25% -> 25% | |||
::*** diaphragm: 20% -> 16% | |||
::*** cap (nulliparous): 20% -> 16% (1995 NSFG diaphragm failure rate) | |||
::*** sponge (nulliparous): 20% -> 16% (1995 NSFG diaphragm failure rate) | |||
::*** male condom: 14% -> 15% | |||
::*** pill and minipill: 5% -> 8% | |||
::** Using failure rates based on the 1995 NSFG, instead of the Depo-Provera clinical trial typical use failure rate, resulted in this typical use failure rate change in Trussell's table from the 17th to the 18th edition of ''Contraceptive Technology'': | |||
::*** Depo-Provera: 0.3% -> 3% '''!''' | |||
::] 17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:If I am reading Trussell's 1999 paper correctly, his reasoning for not using the typical failure rate from the clinical trials of Depo-Provera is as follows: | |||
===Description in "Methods" section=== | |||
::''Note that discontinuation among users of '''the injectable has been measured differently from''' discontinuation among users of '''other methods in clinical trials'''. As in the NSFG, '''a woman in a clinical trial is usually considered to be a user of a method as long as she considers herself to be using that method. However, in clinical studies of the injectable, a woman is considered to have discontinued use if she does not re-turn for her next shot within 14 weeks''' (15 weeks in some studies), even though contraceptive protection probably extends well beyond that period, and even if she returns thereafter and receives another injection. '''This convention''' of classifying such women as discontinuing but not pregnant at 14 (or 15) weeks '''leads to''' an overestimate of the discontinuation rate and to '''an underestimate of the pregnancy rate''' if women miss an injection and become pregnant after 14 weeks but still consider themselves to be using the injectable.'' | |||
] has objected to including the "''specifics of the belief-based set of methods''" and to inclusion of "''a thorough description of the religious restrictions involved''". I initially interpreted this as meaning the Catholic Church's restrictions on birth control use and orgasmic acts outside of intercourse. I think these are interesting and mention of them adds depth to the Birth control article. I also feel mention of these restrictions helps dispell the common misuse of the term NFP as simply another name for FA. It is a misuse per ] which says "''Where known, use terminology that subjects use for themselves''". Although conflation between NFP and FA is common in the general population, people who actually use the methods distinguish them. That said, I am not devoutly attached to including these aspects of NFP. | |||
:The average woman on Depo does not ovulate until ten months after her last shot , so it is not unreasonable for her to still consider herself a "Depo-Provera user" even if she forgets or delays a scheduled shot for several weeks. Rather than rejecting the trial data outright, he seems to have weighed the problems with the survey data against this problem with the clinical trial, and decided the inaccuracies in the NSFG were less problematic. The clinical trials of IUDs and Norplant apparently did not have this issue - the definition of "user" for those products is much more clear-cut. | |||
::*"''Seems to have weighed'' the problems with the survey data" = did not discuss the problems with the survey data for Depo-Provera. | |||
::*What "''problem'' with the clinical trial"? | |||
::**In a clinical trial of a contraceptive pill, or patch, or ring -- a woman would ''NOT'' consider herself to still be using them after stopping for more than two weeks. | |||
::**In a clinical trial of an implant or an IUD -- a woman would ''NOT'' consider herself to still be using them after they were removed. | |||
::] 17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:Also on the topic of consistency, the 18th edition of ''Contraceptive Technology'' is used throughout the "effectiveness" section of this article (except for the one modification under discussion) and in many other birth control articles (], ], ], ], ], ], ], ]). I previously had a ] about this very issue of 17th vs. 18th. If we're going to deem a source reliable, we should be willing to cite its most recent findings on all relevant topics. If it's not reliable, then it shouldn't be anywhere - alternative sources should be found for all these articles. Picking and choosing outdated sources and using them as if they are authoritative is not right. | |||
However, Joie has twice reverted my edits to the section that clarified that NFP includes FA, statistical methods, and LAM. Not including this very basic definition of NFP, to me, is misleading and implicitly perpetuates the common misunderstanding that NFP and FA are interchangable terms. I feel including this definition is important to the accuracy of the article. I currently do not understand Joie's objection to including this definition, and am requesting clarification. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 23:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::* The 18th edition of ''Contraceptive Technology'' ''' ''IS NOT'' ''' used consistently throughout the ] articles nor used consistently throughout the ] -- picking and choosing sources (or providing no source at all) may not be right, but ''' ''IS'' ''' what is currently done: | |||
::* Source of typical use failure rate: | |||
::** ''Contraceptive Technology'' 18th ed. table: | |||
::*** ''']''' | |||
::*** ] | |||
::** ''Contraceptive Technology'' 17th ed. table: | |||
::*** ] | |||
::*** ] | |||
::*** ] | |||
::** ''Contraceptive Technology'' 16th = 17th = 18th = 19th eds. tables: | |||
::*** ''']''' | |||
::*** ''']''' | |||
::*** ] | |||
::*** ] | |||
::*** ] | |||
::*** ] | |||
::*** ] | |||
::** '''not''' ''Contraceptive Technology'' table: | |||
::*** ''']''' | |||
::*** ''']''' | |||
::*** ''']''' | |||
::*** ''']''' | |||
::*** ] | |||
::*** ] | |||
::*** ] | |||
::** not in ''Contraceptive Technology'' table | |||
::*** ''']''' | |||
::*** ] | |||
::*** ] | |||
::*** ] | |||
::* The ] was about 17th vs. 18th ed. perfect use failure rates of 3% vs. 2%. | |||
::* This discussion is about 17th vs. 18th ed. Depo-Provera typical use failure rates of 0.3% vs. 3%. | |||
::] 17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
:If it's not a question of reliability of the source, but rather disagreement between reliable sources, then the best solution would seem to be citing ''both'' sources. While this overview article isn't the place to get into details, we could simply say something along the lines of "''the typical failure rate of Depo Provera is disagreed upon, with figures ranging from less than one percent up to three percent''" and cite both Trussell (18th) and the original Depo study. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
: As we seem to agree that interchangable use of the terms FA and NFP is misleading (though common), I feel that my current revision is appropriate. It includes the phrase <i>"... the term 'natural family planning' is sometimes used to refer to the use of fertility awareness methods..."</i>, with 'nfp' not Wikilinked or capitalized. It then has a Wikilinked, capitalized version of the term, which specifically refers to the Catholic method. The reasoning behind this edit is applied with my current revision in the History section. I have made this compromise, including the mention, pending my research of NFP and FA. ] 17:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
::* It is not a question of the overall reliability of the sources. The FDA and the medical reference textbook ''Contraceptive Technology'' are both reliable sources. | |||
::* It is a question of a large (10-fold) disagreement between reliable sources: | |||
::** the 16th (1994) and 17th (1998) editions of ''Contraceptive Technology'', | |||
::** the FDA's current (1998) contraceptive labeling guidelines, | |||
::** the FDA's draft (2004) contraceptive labeling guidelines | |||
::*** say Depo-Provera's typical failure rate is 0.3% (or less than 1%) based on: | |||
::**** the largest (3,857 users) clinical trial of Depo-Provera {{PMID|4698589}} | |||
::** the 18th (2004) and 19th (2007) editions of ''Contraceptive Technology'' | |||
::*** say Depo-Provera's typical failure rate is 3% based on: | |||
::**** a 2.6% failure rate from 1995 NSFG retrospective survey data (from 209 users) {{PMID|10224543}}. | |||
::] 17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::Good work, Lyrl! --] 15:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
::I believe the capitalization/no capitalization has no basis and is confusing. Just looking through the previously linked websites, WOOMB (a Catholic organization) does not capitalize NFP , while the Couple to Couple League does use all capitals . Among organizations without Catholic ties, it is equally easy to find both all capitals and all lower case . Because none of the groups who use the term display any consistent meaning with use of caps/lower case, I do not believe the usage is meaningful in this article. It does, however, make that paragraph more difficult to read. | |||
:::The FDA does not want to change all the labels it has approved since 1998, and so is sticking to the 1997 edition. This seems to me an administrative decision regarding clerical difficulties, not in any way a judgment of the 2004 edition's numbers. Because Misplaced Pages does not have these same bureaucratic concerns, I stand by my assertion that Misplaced Pages should only use the most recently available edition. The "comparisons" table is problematic in that its format allows only one number - so a ''discussion'' of available evidence as is done ] or ] is not possible. For the outdated numbers, all I can say is ]. | |||
::As stated in the previous section, I do not believe that linking to a description of the correct use of a term is misleading just because a number of readers use the term incorrectly. Rather, I feel the educational opportunity for such readers is a benefit. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 22:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
:::Anyway, my current proposal is to modify the sentence in this article to read along the lines of ''the typical failure rate of Depo Provera is disagreed upon, with figures ranging from less than one percent up to three percent'' and citing both Trussell (18th) (I wouldn't cite the NSFG directly - to me, Trussell is more authoritative on effectiveness numbers) and the large clinical trial the FDA has proposed using ({{PMID|4698589}} - I'd rather cite the FDA directly, but considering the document is still in the draft stage, I suggest going directly to the clinical trial data for now). How does that sound? ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
===As long as we're discussing method comparison=== | |||
== NFP description - is it just FA? == | |||
... would folks mind stepping in to review my question about the sorting of the ] at ]? Please see my question ]. Thank you. (Very nice work on the above, Lyrl!) ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 02:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Urine hormone tests as contraception? == | |||
My edits to the NFP section to clarified that NFP includes not just FA, but also statistical methods and LAM, have been reverted. Not including this very basic definition of NFP, to me, is misleading and implicitly perpetuates the common misunderstanding that NFP and FA are interchangable terms. I feel including this definition is important to the accuracy of the article. I currently do not understand Joie's objection to including this definition, and am requesting clarification. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 22:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Perhaps urine hormone testing (most famously Persona) should be included as a method of birth control - possibly included within Fertility Awareness methods. This method seems to be relatively common in the UK, I'm not sure about elsewhere. | |||
:Please use my full handle, ]; as someone else could register the handle 'Joie'. | |||
:Not every use of the term "NFP" is in reference to the umbrella term; NFP can be used to describe the Catholic-affiliated FA practice. However, in order to be perfectly clear, I have added mention of the fact that NFP is an umbrella term, and clarified that FA practices are only one type of NFP. ] 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Edits to introduction == | |||
::Someone edited this section to remove the longstanding sentence. This confused the matter, because it is a fact that NFP sometimes is used interchangeably with FA. I think it is our duty to instead of taking sides and saying that some definitions are right, and others are wrong, instead simply say that both are used. I have posted links in the past to illustrate the use of the term NFP to refer to non-religious FA methods. Whether we personally believe this is an incorrect usage is besides the point. We don't report the Truth, or our opinions. We have cited soures using the term in this manner, and to avoid confusion and disambiugation issues, I find it helpful to mention the term is sometimes used in this manner. I have restored the longstanding sentence in two different articles.--] 16:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
I've modified the recently rewritten introduction in several ways: | |||
::: Andrew c, you only partially restored the paragraph to what it was before. Your edit didn't make sense grammatically. It went from speaking about "these methods" in one sentence, to referring to "this" method in the next, without indicating which method. It was a frankenparagraph of the first half of the old paragraph and the second half of the new one, the meaning wasn't contiguous. | |||
*I removed the references to Ancient Greece and Rome - these civilizations did not even begin to exist for many centuries after the ] was written. | |||
*I listed the two ancient contraceptive methods (withdrawal and pessaries) together, followed by the possibly abortifacient herbal methods. | |||
*I removed the reference to absorbents - I believe the description "pessary" includes things like pieces of wool soaked in (supposed) spermicide, which like modern contraceptive sponges work both spermicidally and also by absorbing semen. | |||
*I removed the references to the earliest hormonal contraceptive and earliest condoms. Condoms were a comparatively unpopular method of birth control prior to the development of modern manufacturing techniques by ] - I think the 16th century date for a linen condom implies an undue level of importance to these early devices. Hormonal contraceptives and condoms are the most widely used methods ''today'', but in a historical context the development of spermicides, the female barriers of diaphragms (more important in the U.S.) and cervical caps (more important in Europe), and IUDs were also significant developments. I believe it's better to leave this discussion to the history section, rather than selectively mentioning these two methods in the introduction. | |||
*I removed the discussion focused on effectiveness and just straight linked to the "comparisons" article. In addition to being false (the IUS has a lower failure rate than sterilization) and misleading (LAM and strict forms of fertility awareness also have pregnancy rates lower than 1% per year), it completely ignored other factors people use in choosing their birth control method such as ease of use and level of side effects. | |||
*I also shortened the paragraph on religious and cultural attitudes and added a section link. The introduction was almost going into more detail on this topic than the section did - for example, attitudes concerning open discussions of sex are not currently mentioned in the "attitudes" section at all. | |||
]<sup>] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
:I wrote the introduction to help comply with ]; I'm fine with what you've done. I have a tendency to ramble. I was basing the birth control effectiveness off of typical (rather than perfect) use ranges. I also completely forgot to distinguish between IUS and IUD- I would qualify the IUS as "hormonal" but that's probably unnecessarily pedantic.-] 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
::: I have made an effort to address everyone's concerns with my most recent edit, specifically, as Andrew c voiced concern about it, this edit restores mention of the usage of the term NFP as an alternate meaning for any use of FA. | |||
::: The other types of NFP are not listed, for several reasons. The heading of the section is "fertility awareness". Right now, everything in that section is relevant to fertility awareness. It clarifies the meaning of the term 'NFP' as it directly relates to the practice of FA, both in the Catholic context of the religiously motivated practice of FA as NFP, and on its own as FA itself. This edit is careful to refer to this practice as only one form of NFP, and clearly specifies that 'NFP' can refer to "a set of several" methods. This is sufficient and maintains relevance to the title. Listing the other things to which the term NFP can refer brings the paragraph outside of the title of the section. Hopefully, this will satisfy everyone. ] 19:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
::I'm sorry for being a little harsh describing my reasons for the changes - I've gotten into disputes over several of these issues in the past and let my emotional reaction get away with me. You're right about the IUS being hormonal, too, I hadn't really thought that statement through. Thank you for explaining your edits, also - despite my being nitpicky on some issues, I believe they improved the lead significantly. ]<sup>] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
==Abstinence not 'infallible'== | |||
Abstinence supporters claim that abstinence is the 'only infallible method' of birth control -- a Google search of the terms "abstinence, infallible" retrieves over 130,000 results. Even the U.S. Surgeon General makes this claim . However, this is simply not true, because it is possible for a man to rape a woman and cause her to become pregnant. A woman, practicing abstinence, cannot choose to maintain her abstinence if she is raped. Therefore, abstinence is not an 'infallible' method of birth control. | |||
Lyrl mentioned in a recent edit summary that men can be raped, when she changed the sentence to read "Non-consensual sex can also result in pregnancy". This, while true, is not enough. This claim is true of any otherwise fertile woman whose fertility is not suppressed within her body (by HBC or an IUD, for instance). We don't mention that rape can result in pregnancy if the woman relies on condoms, barrier methods, etc, because no one claims these methods are perfect. The reason that rape is mentioned in this specific section (and not others) is to counter the widespread idea that abstinence is 'infallibile'. No birth control method is 100% perfect, and the current sentence reflects an important reason that abstinence is imperfect. ] 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
== sti's, std's == | |||
:A man, practicing abstinence, cannot choose to maintain his abstinence if he is raped. A fertile woman can rape a man and become pregnant. This is discussed ] (see especially the fourth paragraph). The current wording of the abstinence section does not acknowledge this possibility. | |||
I think in section (i think) 26, about birth control education, it says std's, i think it shuld say STI's, isn't that the proper term? | |||
:Intention to remain abstinent does not mean a person cannot become pregnant (a person intending to remain abstinent may be carried away by passion, or raped). But a person who has not engaged in any kind of sexual activity cannot become pregnant. Surely we can find wording to express this. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
--] 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
:The Misplaced Pages article is currently located at ], so I think it's currently fine to use STD. I suspect eventually the Misplaced Pages article will be moved to ] (which is currently a redirect), and at that point I would support changing other articles to use STI instead. (You could suggest that at ], if you're interested - it looks like the last time this was discussed was in March 2006, although at that time the move was rejected because STD is the more commonly used term.) ]<sup>] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
::"Barring exceptional circumstances such as rape, abstinence is the only infallible method of birth control." ] 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Plants or other natural products used as contraceptives? == | |||
:::Saying that a female being raped is only one of the ways abstinence can fail does not remove the implication in the text that rape is only a "female" problem. | |||
:::I also feel strongly that some mention needs to be made that a person who has not had any sexual activity cannot have become pregnant. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Just added to the '']'' article about the nuts and seeds used as a contraceptive in South Sudan. What about a paragraphe listing whatever plant (or other) turns up? | |||
::::Neither suggested change makes sense. The sentence says "<i>one of</i> the ways" because that wording allows for every possible scenario that could lead to pregnancy. Example: a single lesbian who has never had intercourse could visit a sperm bank in order to become pregnant. She is completely abstinent, but she is pregnant. This scenario has nothing to do with abstinence as birth control; it need not be mentioned, but it disproves the idea that a complete absence of sexual activity will always prevent pregnancy. And in regards to the other types of rape: considering that hundreds of thousands of women are raped by men each year, the current wording is appropriate. It concisely describes a statistically probable way that abstinence could fail, while leaving the door open for other, more remote possibilities. ] 18:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Adding at beginning of paragraph (written in red and bold, possibly, or some other way of alert) a ''serious'' warning, mini skull-and-bones sign in front of each plant maybe also, and whatever else in that line. | |||
:::::A person who does not intend to cause pregnancy cannot do so without engaging in sexual activity (forcible insemination would be considered rape). The current wording ''abstinence cannot be considered perfect or infallible'' implies this is not true. There is no need to have this statement in the text. The only reason to include it is to bring the U.S.-specific sex-ed controversy into a description of the practice of abstinence; this is inappropriate. It is entirely possible to describe all of the ways (failure of discipline and rape) in which abstinence can fail without such U.S.-controversy-inspired language as "abstinence cannot be considered infallible". ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Could be a table, with columns for 1-the '''name(s)''' of the product; 2- '''reference(s)''' of where it is said to be used as such; 3-'''side-effects known'''; if we don't know of any, make it clear what is meant exactly, by writing "side-effects unknown - caution is required" (or similar) by default, or changing that into "no known side-effects" when we are absolutely sure that it has none (probably not that many if not very few). 4 - anything else that may be thought of. | |||
:::::There are only two ways abstinence can fail: failure of discipline, and rape (intentionally using ART is not a failure of abstinence - such issues as what to do with frozen embryos when a couple divorces are not related to abstinence as a birth control method). | |||
Made a link to here, but the feed-back from here to the plant is amiss. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 06:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:::::Rape could be of a man or woman. Listing out failure of discipline, and only one relevent kind of rape, but omitting the other relevant kind of rape seriously minimalizes the act. The fact that "only" thousands of men are annually raped by women is not justification for implying that it isn't an issue that needs to be taken seriously. Inclusion of both kinds of rape can be done simply by making the language gender-neutral. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 19:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::::Have you any statistics to support the claim that "thousands" of men are raped by women each year? I am well aware that rape victims can be male or female, but everything I have read on the subject has stated that, regardless of the sex of their victims, the perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. This supports my claim that the most likely way that abstinence could fail is through a man raping a woman, and that this instance should be mentioned primarily, using language inclusive of more remote possibilities. | |||
==Stats on usage== | |||
::::::There is, absolutely, a need to include the statement that abstinence is not infallible. As I said, even the United States Surgeon General has made this erroneous claim. What, if not an idea proposed by a first-world, national government is globally significant enough for comment or critique? I am frustrated that you seek to delete mention of a major flaw in a method which is widely promoted by a first-world national government as "infallible", as well as seeking to delete mention of the claim, itself. It is entirely appropriate to offer points that counter widespread misinformation, especially when that misinformation, left unaddressed, could cause serious harm. | |||
This article could really benefit from some stats on how many women use which method. If I missed that info, would someone mind pointing it out - thanks! --] (]) 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
:A number of the sub-articles have a "prevalence" section which discusses how popular the method is: ], ], ], for example. ] does not have a section like that, but there is the related ]. The ] and ] articles discuss popularity in their "history" sections, and the ] article touches on it in the introductory paragraph. If you think it would benefit this article, feel free to incorporate some of the information from the sub-articles. ]<sup>] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::As I said at the very beginning, the only reason that rape should be mentioned in reference to this specific method, is because of the widely-promoted claim that this method is infallible. Yet, you want to remove mention of this claim, citing that you want to use language inclusive of male victims. In that case, why should rape be mentioned in this section only? If you're genuinely concerned with rape victims, why not insist on mentioning rape when speaking of any birth control method that must be used at the time of intercourse? Are abstinent folks special in some way? | |||
:Although it primarily covers United States, this article <ref>{{cite journal | journal = Contraception | title = Reducing unintended pregnancy in the United States | url = http://www.arhp.org/Publications-and-Resources/Contraception-Journal/January-2008 | date = January 2008}}</ref> might also give some useful data. ] (]) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::It seems that your intention is not to be truly inclusive of male rape victims, but to use their plight to as a reason to block critical content. ] 00:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Douching== | |||
:::::There is no reason to list anyone's views of abstinence, positive or negative, in the abstinence section. Neither opposition nor promotion of condoms is discussed in the "condom" section. The "methods" subsection should be strictly limited to description, not controversies. Those have their very own section - "Religious and cultural attitudes". ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
I think it should be clarified that while douching with water, juice, milk, soda, etc. does not prevent pregnancy, it is inappropriate to clam douching with ANY liquid will not be effective. | |||
::::::I'm not really certain what you mean when you refer to a 'controversy' surrounding the content. Certainly, the idea of sex outside of marriage is a controversial topic, but there no content included that refers to either side of a belief-based controversy in regards to sexual behavior. There can be no controversy over the fact that abstinence is not perfect, due to the possibility of rape. | |||
Douching with rubbing alcohol for instance will not only prevent pregnancy (as well as being very painful), but it can also make a woman sterile. And don't think no one is stupid enough to try it, I know that is not true. ] (]) 02:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
:During the 1930s, women attempted to avoid pregnancy by douching with toxic mercury compounds, or with Lysol. Medical estimates at the time were that 70% of these women got pregnant each year. . While this may be a reduction from the pregnancy rate from doing nothing at all, I would hardly call a method with a 70% failure rate "effective". ]<sup>] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 01:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
== Scope of see also section == | |||
::::::Furthermore, I will repeat that I am not seeking to describe every possible, circumstantial way that abstinence or any of the other methods can fail. I am seeking to correct a common piece of misinformation. I disagree with your intention to sanitize and censor this content. ] 00:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
The introduction of this article defines birth control as actions taken to prevent pregnancy. | |||
I am going to throw a wrench in here and say that | |||
Recently introduced to the "See also" section were links to the lifestyle choice of ] (though oddly the actual link is a redirect to that page), and the social philosophy of ]. I propose that both of these links would be more appropriate for a "see also" section in the ] article, not here. Neither a discussion of a lifestyle or a social philosophy is directly related to the methods of birth control. (This article should probably link to family planning, however, as it is a subset of that topic.) | |||
:...abstinence cannot be considered perfect or infallible; one reason is that a fertile woman who practices abstinence alone can still become pregnant if she is raped"... | |||
What do others think? | |||
nor any gender neutral variant of the above, does not even belong in the article. Why? | |||
]<sup>] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Common thread seems to be employing contraception (or its opposite). They seem at least as relevant to contraception as Population control and One-child policy (which are both social concepts that often employ contraception), which are also in the see also section. I added childless by choice as a balance to these links. Pop control and one child policy have some connotations of externally imposed restrictions, so for balance offering link that relates to personal freedom and choice enabled by contraception. (Sorry about linking to redirect - that is the name I am most familiar with, so what I remember.) If want to move Pop control and one-child policy to family planning (childfree and natalism already there) and remove them all here, that's fine by me. If going to keep some and not others here, we probably need to formulate some guidelines to clarify what goes where. ] (]) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | |||
Because it is an editor-drawn conclusion, and hence ], editor-given in response to the cited United States Surgeon General statement. | |||
== Task force proposal == | |||
But it is unsupported by the source. If you want to include a statement along these lines, find a reliable secondary source and state what it says. Otherwise, leave the editorializing out. | |||
Interested in improving birth control articles? I've proposed a task force to help coordinate work in this category: ] | |||
] 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
I do not anticipate this being a high-workload task force. Just having a few people to bounce ideas off of every once in a while would be great! Please add your name to the proposal description if you're interested. ]<sup>] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Are you saying that I must produce a published statement that rape can lead to pregnancy, in order to include that content in the article? is one. I can also produce an article declaring the Pope a Catholic if necessary. ] 01:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
::::This task force has been created. The task force's page is ] and all interested editors are welcome. You don't have to be a medical expert -- just willing to put the talk page on your watchlist or to take a look at it every now and again. ] (]) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
Item #1: It is common knowledge that rape occurs and can lead to pregnancy. | |||
== Delete this run-on sentence? == | |||
Item #2: A Surgeon General has claimed abstinence is the only "infallible" method of birth control. | |||
In a non-random, Internet survey of 1,400 women who found and completed a 10-minute multiple-choice online questionnaire listed in one of several popular search engines, women who received sex education from schools providing primarily abstinence information, or contraception and abstinence information equally, reported fewer unplanned pregnancies than those who received primarily contraceptive information, who in turn reported fewer unplanned pregnancies than those who received no information. | |||
Item #3: <U>A Misplaced Pages '''editor'''</U> has synthesized the two and stated "abstinence cannot be considered perfect or infallible; one reason is that a fertile woman who practices abstinence alone can still become pregnant if she is raped". | |||
This sentence is very wordy. What is the popular search engine? What questionnaire did they complete? It is my understanding that women, specifically teen girls who receive abstinence-only education have higher rates of teen pregnancy and STD's than those who receive medically accurate information regarding sexual intercourse. This sentence makes absolutely no sense. It states that women who received information about contraception, (i.e. they use it), are having more babies than those who don't use contraception? With no method of birth control at all, 80% of women become pregnant within the first year of sexual intercourse with a partner/partners. | |||
That is ] and cannot be included. ] 02:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
The pill(contraceptive) is 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy. A woman who takes the pill is much less likely to have a baby than a woman who relies on condoms or nothing at all. | |||
:On 22:32, 10 December 2006, ] removed the wikilink ] from the above entry. See . ] 03:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
It's like a complicated story problem from math class in which you are asked to determine which group of women has had the fewest babies. It is also very vague. Fix it please. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 04:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::Well, CyberAnth, you seem to be pretty knowledgable about Misplaced Pages policies. I am sure that any attempts on my part to edit this will be struck down by you because of your greater knowledge of Misplaced Pages. However, I would like to learn how best to go about including mention of rape as event that can lead to pregnancy, defying the 'infallibility' of sexual abstinence. As a friend of over a dozen people who have been raped, both male and female, adults and teenagers, some as small children, I feel very strongly that this issue should not be glossed over. Please educate me or point me towards what I need to know in order in order to appropriately include this content. ] 02:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Probability of pregnancy from single unprotected intercourse == | |||
:::I am sorry to hear how this issue has touched your life. | |||
According to it's "about .014 (i.e., the odds are 1 in 70)." Could be mentioned somewhere in this article. ] (]) 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::I venture the issue has been addressed in a reliable secondary source. Find it and cite away! This is one way Misplaced Pages becomes better as to ]. | |||
:It's not a static number, though. On the most fertile day of the menstrual cycle, odds are 2 in 3 ( odds ratio of .667 on peak day of cervical mucus). Starting several days into the ], odds are more like 1 in 100,000. The .014 average seems very useful for population and fertility studies, but given the wide day-to-day variation in female fertility, I'm not sure it would be helpful for those trying to learn about birth control. ]<sup>] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::Cheers, | |||
== Hindu attitude == | |||
:::] 02:21, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
There is a major error within the religious section in the article, specifically the part that talks about Hindus. Hindus may NOT, per scripture, use contraception, nor may they perform abortion. I attempted to access the link that is supposedly given as a reference that says it is acceptable, and the webpage could not be accessed. Please fix, thank you. I would fix it, but the article is protected. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
:Also I understand that a couple of recent prominent Hindus have suggested that it may be okay, and perhaps there are some Hindus (as there are with every religion) that do use contraception instead of abstinence, but per the accepted scriptures, it is unacceptable to use contraception. Please fix, thanks. | |||
{{talkarchive}} | |||
:::: Find and cite what? Evidence that rape can lead to pregnancy? I did that, despite the fact that you, yourself said that it was 'common knowledge' that rape can lead to pregnancy. I really don't understand what is missing. Before you claimed it was 'original research', now you're saying it's 'synthesis'. How is it against the rules to include a piece of 'common knowledge'? I'm not surprised if it would be very difficult to find a piece of work that details this, because it is common knowledge and thus wastes print space to spell it out. How exacting are you saying that this published work must be? What are you saying that it must include? ] 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
First off, you are appearing like someone who is engaging in ], as indicated by the fact that you removed the link to ] from my earlier post, plus your unexplained removal of the Surgeon General source on the article a few minutes ago. | |||
Second, read thoroughly ], ], and ]. Synthesizing ''is'' a form of ], per its section ]. Read that and you will see that what you are attempting to do is covered there and not permissible. If you wish to include the viewpoint you are trying to advance it MUST be sourced to a reliable source. | |||
] 02:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
Since there is some contention over this, I thought there might be a better way of framing this discussion that would satisfy everyone. | |||
Clearly any discussion of the fallibility or infallibility of abstinence ought to be treated the same way it is for the other methods of birth control, to establish objectivity. The other sections detailing the types of birth control do not mention their success rate - that is reserved for the "Effectiveness" section. Thus, the mentions of the fallibility or infallibilty of abstinence should be moved from its general section to the "effectiveness" section. | |||
Furthermore, it is noted in the Effectiveness section that condoms and other forms of birth control have failure rates, due to the breaking of the condom. Logically, abstinence's failure in the situation of rape deserves equal mention here - while ideally this does not occur, condoms don't ideally break, either. They are the same situation, and mention of this is requisite for fairness. This should clear the definitional section where abstinence is described of any subjective argumentation, as well as point out the limitations of the approach, exactly the same way it has been done for the other birth control methods. If no logical issues with this approach are brought up, I will post those changes. ] 04:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Xenikos | |||
:So long as they are referenced per the preceding discussion, I'm cool. ] 04:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
== Wording of abstinence description == | |||
In response to Xenikos, a few other sections do mention factors relevant to success rate: ''The Rhythm Method is much less accurate than fertility awareness method''; ''coitus interruptus... Although concern has been raised about the risk of pregnancy from sperm in pre-ejaculate, several small studies have failed to find any viable sperm in the fluid.''; ''The risk of pregnancy from non-vaginal sex is low''. | |||
I think it is interesting that abstinence - i.e. no sexual activity - has the unique characteristic of having no risk of unplanned pregnancy. Joie de Vivre (if I understand his position correctly) believes that any statement in this article that "unintended pregnancy cannot occur without sexual activity" - ''could cause serious harm''. The nature of said harm has remained unspecified. Despite initial disagreement, I thought we could come to agreement on a way to include the unique effectiveness of abstinence, and thought that including a mention of rape-caused pregnancy was a necessary part of any compromise on Joie de Vivre's part. I did not have any objection to including all two ways in which a person who intended to use abstinence to avoid pregnancy could have a "birth control failure", and believe wording is possible to avoid violation of WP#SYNTHESIS (one example would be ). If no such agreement is possible, however, then I support removing all reference to effectiveness in the abstinence section. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 00:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
:I agree that your wording in ] avoids violating ]. "Non-consensual sexual activity (]) may also result in pregnancy" is a statement of common knowledge (thus not requiring referencing) and avoids the problematic synthesis stemming off of and attacking the Surgeon General's comment where no secondary source has done so. ] 07:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC) | |||
I definitely object to mention of "abstinence supporters" in the abstinence ''description''. I can only think this is shorthand for "supporters of abstinence-only education for teenagers" which is getting into a sex-ed debate. The sex-ed debate has its very own section "Birth control education" which is formatted to be a longer section covering both sides of the debate. There is no reason to include this debate in the ''description'' of abstinence. ] <sup> ] </sup> <sub> ] </sub> 00:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 02:01, 23 July 2017
This is an archive of past discussions about Birth control. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Discipline "from both partners"
I plan to delete the words "from both partners" from the sentence "However, with this method, discipline is required from both partners to prevent the progression to intercourse." in the "Avoiding vaginal intercourse" section, on the grounds that I believe the sentence as it stands is false and it is not supported by a citation. I believe that discipline from both partners may not always be required. In some cases, discipline may only be required by the physically stronger person or by the one in a stronger position (e.g. on top). In some cases, discipline may only be required by the more passionate person. No proof has been provided that discipline from both partners is required. Furthermore: if one partner maintains discipline and maintains the intention not to have intercourse and intercourse nevertheless occurs, then that is rape and should be referred to as such. So, it could say something about "the risk of progressing to either consensual sex or rape," if we can find any citation providing any fact about such risk. Even if the sentence were true I object to the current wording as trivializing rape. --Coppertwig 17:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the change described above. --Coppertwig 03:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
"pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate"
I plan to edit the article to say "pregnancy rate" rather than "failure rate" throughout. "Pregancy rate" is more courteous to people whose lives happened to begin while their parents were trying to prevent pregnancy; it's more neutral, less negative. I'm giving an opportunity for discussion here first before making the change. --Coppertwig 22:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- "Pregnancy rate" is more clear, also. "Failure rate" with respect to barrier methods doesn't necessarily mean the woman got pregnant - a "lost" condom or a diaphragm that came out in the middle of coitus would be described as "failures" regardless of pregnancy outcome. Lyrl C 22:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Coppertwig please do not open identical debates on multiple pages at once. I'll copy over your additonal points from Template talk:Infobox Birth control and my responses:
I would like to edit this infobox to change "failure rate" to "pregnancy rate". This is the usage in some birth control literature e.g. and I believe this usage is growing and that it will become standard. The phrase "pregnancy rate" is much more courteous towards those people whose lives happened to begin while their parents were trying to prevent pregnancy. "Failure rate" can be perceived as very negative towards those people; "pregnancy rate" is neutral and its meaning is quite clear -- even slightly clearer than "failure rate", perhaps, which could possibly be misinterpreted in some contexts as a failure to achieve pregnancy. I'm also planning to similarly edit the wording on the birth control and natural family planning pages and perhaps other pages. I'm leaving an opportunity for discussion before making the change. --Coppertwig 22:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree: "which could possibly be misinterpreted in some contexts as a failure to achieve pregnancy" – but the whole point of contraception is NOT to "achieve pregnancy". A pregnancy despite use of contraception is therefore not what is being sought and not a "success" as far as the method goes, indeed it is a negative reflection on the particular method. Terminology usage in the UK is still to describe failure rates. The view that "usage in some birth control literature ... and I believe this usage is growing and that it will become standard" is a personal opinion and thus excluded from article space by WP:NOR, unless you can cite an authorative source explaining that the terminology is to change. The reference given is for a US webpage in 1997, which is hardly indicative of a changing use of terminology (just that this one paper in 1997 so phrased).
- Of course I agree none of this implies any judgement on those people so borne, but we do use terms such as "planned pregnancy" or "unplanned pregnancy" when making antenatal referals or supporting people in making a decission on how they wish to proceed (continue with pregnancy or not to) - see current UK FPA's Information about unplanned pregnancy in Northern Ireland. David Ruben 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Further, and from 2006, example of terminology usage comes from Family Health International, Using Pills Correctly which describes "Typical failure rates among pill users are as high as 12% to 20% in some surveys." So I am not convinced of a changing international use of terms. David Ruben 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I like your enthusiasm, but calling it the "pregnancy rate" is just inaccurate. It's not duplicated anywhere else of which I'm aware. Like Lyrl said, a failure of a method does not necessarily mean pregnancy, it could just mean that the condom broke, etc. A method can fail without a pregnancy occurring. Also, I don't see this usage as any more "courteous" - what about women who chose abortion? Would they appreciate being included in the "pregnancy rate"? This, of course, isn't as relevant as what I mentioned initially. Joie de Vivre 03:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- While some people might inaccurately believe that every time birth control fails they'd get pregnant (really the fault of the pro-birth control crowd in the first place) I don't think that we should change every single article from failure rate to pregnancy rate. It seems impractical, especially since, if the original source doesn't include the pregnancy rate, it would make it more difficult to compare findings. Or at least that is what I believe. What would we do in those cases where a study simply lists the failure rate? Use a conversion method devised by another study? Chooserr 04:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
In the context of Vasectomies (where this debate is linked), the term failure rate is an applicable term - as the procedure is a surgical sterilization of the male reproductive system, therefore any conception that results is due to a failure in this procedure. To state POV/NPOV in either direction for this sepcific discussion could lead to a long and complex argument, with little gained by any but in the case vasectomies specifically, then it's innaccurate to not descibe it as such. --RedHillian 04:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I apologize for opening the same discussion in different places. Thanks, David Ruben, for helping straighten this out. I've just now put notes on multiple other birth control pages alerting people to this discussion, indicating a desire to make the same change on those pages too, and directing them to comment here; I hope I did that right this time.
- In reply to David Ruben: I agree that the point of contraception is to avoid pregnancy, but I fail to see how this fact prevents misunderstandings occurring. The writer could be talking about contraceptive methods and the reader could wrongly think that methods to achieve pregnancy were being discussed -- especially on a page such as Natural Family Planning where both types of technique are likely to be discussed on the same page, but also on other pages where a reader might for some reason think both types of technique were being discussed. I don't think we're necessarily constrained to stay with any particular terminology for example the terminology of a particular country; I think we're free to choose another terminology, for example if some of us find it to be more courteous and/or less ambiguous and if others have no strong objections. The view that "usage in some birth control literature ..." True, this is a personal opinion; but since I'm not proposing to make such a statement in the article, it's irrelevant whether it's excluded from article space. It's not excluded here, where the goal is to find a consensus among Wikipedian editors as to what the article should say.
- I did Google searches for "failure rate" "birth control" and for "pregnancy rate" "birth control" and got a larger number of pages for the latter. I've also given an example above of a web page using the "pregnancy rate" usage; I've also seen it other places, as well as seen the idea expressed that it's more respectful of people who were born under such circumstances.
- "Of course I agree none of this implies any judgement on those people so borne..." Maybe you're missing my point. I think that if someone has been born in spite of birth control (as many people have been), and knows or suspects it, and if that person is depressed, (as many people are), and if that person reads these articles, it may be very difficult for that person to avoid thinking that there is an implication here of a negative judgement on them, such as the idea that that person is a failure. So I'm saying it does imply judgement (at least in the minds of some such people). So, I'm not sure who you're agreeing with here.
- I'm OK with the terms "planned pregnancy" and "unplanned pregnancy"; they don't seem too negative to me. It's the term "failure rate" that I would like to eliminate as much as possible in this context.
- In reply to Joie de Vivre: So, is it your understanding that when it says in the birth control infobox, for example on the page about the Diaphragm, "failure rates (per year, with spermicide)/Perfect use: 6%/Typical use 10-39%" is it your understanding that this does not mean that there is a pregnancy rate of 6% and of 10-39%, but that those include a rate of something else happening (e.g. diaphragm falling out or something)? I think you've misinterpreted the phrase "failure rate" in the birth control infobox, and that changing it from "failure rate" to "pregnancy rate" will help prevent people misunderstanding it just as you have just misunderstood it. What do other people think? Does it actually mean a pregnancy rate of 6% or is it talking about some other definition of "failure"? This phrase "failure rate" occurs in the birth control infobox which is on many birth control pages; it would be good if the term were clearly defined and understood by everyone.
- In reply to Joie de Vivre saying Also, I don't see this usage as any more "courteous" - what about women who chose abortion? Would they appreciate being included in the "pregnancy rate"? I think I don't follow your point here. Maybe you could explain more fully what you're getting at. I suppose different people who have chosen abortions will have different opinions. I think some people may feel a little depressed or belittled or offended on reading "failure rate"; I don't see any reason why anyone would feel particularly bad on reading "pregnancy rate". I think a woman who has chosen an abortion and who herself was born when her parents were using birth control may feel depressed or belittled or offended on reading "failure rate", just as someone who has not had an abortion may also feel on reading that. Actually, I think having had an abortion would tend to make the feeling even worse, even stronger -- the depressed thought that might tend to intrude might be "I'm a failure; I'm worthless, just like the fetus I aborted." It can be difficult or impossible to push such negative thoughts out of one's mind if one is depressed. --Coppertwig 05:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- In reply to RedHillian: I don't quite follow. I agree that the term "failure rate" is logically applicable and accurate. However, the term "pregnancy rate" is also logically applicable and accurate (and clearer, less ambiguous, and more respectful). Do you agree that the term "pregnancy rate" is also applicable? If not, why not? Why do you say it would be inaccurate not to say "failure rate"? I don't see how not saying something can be inaccurate.
- I'll rephrase - the single purpose of a vasectomy is to prevent pregnancy. It is a complex procedure requiring work that is only entrusted to a few highly trained and skilled professionals. Barring surgical reversal (where conception is the specific desired result), there is the intention of creating a sterile male, unable to reproduce, therefore any pregnancy resulting afterwards is as a result of the operations failure rather than any other choice. Regardless of personal feelings (which require a Point of view), the terming of this (at least withing the page vasectomy as anything other than failure is Un-encyclopedic. As has also been noted elsewhere in this thread, failure does not always mean conception either, failure in the case of a vasectomy could mean that viable spermatoza were detected in a semen sample from a patient, well after the sample should have been clear, a clear failure but no pregnancy. --RedHillian 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- In reply to Chooserr: Please see my reply to Joie de Vivre. --Coppertwig 05:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOR before any wholesale changes are made to multiple articles. Understanding of the studies and terminology is paramount before any change is made. Personal feelings aside when one reads failure rate, this is an encyclopaedic project, not personal opinion portrayed as fact. Unless you can find citations from reputable studies that state pregnancy rate, any change from failure rate would be POV and original research. We should not be going down that path, no matter how we feel. --Bob 06:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think regardless how good our personal arguments are for or against the usage of these terms, what matters most is WP:V. What term do our sources use? A quick google search finds that the FDA and the ACOG use the term 'failure rate'. Who exactly uses the other term in regards to birth control? --Andrew c 21:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
- Here are a few examples of "pregnancy rate" in the literature (there are more):
- Cumulative pregnancy rates during lactational amenorrhoea were 2.9 and 5.9 per 100 women at 6 and 12 months, compared with 0.7 at 6 months for the LAM.
- 1: Lancet. 1992 Jan 25;339(8787):227-30. Links Contraceptive efficacy of lactational amenorrhoea. Kennedy KI, Visness CM.
- Cumulative pregnancy rates during lactational amenorrhoea were 2.9 and 5.9 per 100 women at 6 and 12 months, compared with 0.7 at 6 months for the LAM.
- Breakage and slippage rates were determined, and typical-use and consistent-use pregnancy rates were calculated using life-table analysis, adjusted for use of emergency contraception.
- Evaluation of the Efficacy of a Polyurethane Condom: Results from a Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. Ron G. Frezieres, Terri L. Walsh, Anita L. Nelson, Virginia A. Clark, Anne H. Coulson Family Planning Perspectives, Vol. 31, No. 2(Mar. - Apr., 1999), pp. 81-87
- Breakage and slippage rates were determined, and typical-use and consistent-use pregnancy rates were calculated using life-table analysis, adjusted for use of emergency contraception.
- Progestogen-only contraceptive implants are highly effective. In most studies, 5-year cumulative pregnancy rates are less than 1.5/100 women for Norplant and Norplant II.
- Contraception. 2002 Jan;65(1):29-37. Implantable contraceptives for women: effectiveness, discontinuation rates, return of fertility, and outcome of pregnancies. Glasier A.
- Progestogen-only contraceptive implants are highly effective. In most studies, 5-year cumulative pregnancy rates are less than 1.5/100 women for Norplant and Norplant II.
- "Pregnancy rate" and "failure rate" do not always refer to the same quantity. Where they refer to the same quantity, I prefer the term "pregnancy rate" for reasons I've mentioned above. Where they refer to different quantities, a distinction needs to be made. Another alternative is to cite the "effectiveness rate" -- this term is also frequently used outside Misplaced Pages; for example a method may have a pregnancy rate of 1% which means an effectiveness rate of 99%.
- Maybe the Birth Control infobox does not report pregnancy rates. I consider the method and use pregnancy rates to be important quantities that people want to know and that should be in the infobox. Here's another idea: modify the Birth Control Infobox so that editors can easily list either "pregnancy rate", "failure rate" or "effectiveness rate", (or more than one of these), depending on which is most appropriate to the given method. Also, modify the infobox so that "pregnancy rate" (or "failure rate") becomes a link which goes to a definition of the term, a different definition for each method if necessary, (usually in a subsection of one of the birth control method pages or this page), or to say for example on the Condom page "pregnancy rate (per year, latex; definition)" with "definition" being a link to the definition. (Or similarly for "effectiveness" or "failure" rate.) Clearly (based on this discussion) it is not adequate to simply say "failure rate" and assume that everybody understands what it means.
- I think the meaning is clearer if "pregnancy rate" is stated. Everybody knows what a pregnancy is. But who knows what a writer or editor meant to include in "failure rate", unless the definition is stated? For example, if a vasectomy does not reduce the fertility of a man but he does not get anyone pregnant because he knows he's still fertile and continues to use other methods of contraception, is that a "failure" or not? It could easily be considered a "failure" by some people but not by others. Perhaps the man considers it a "success" because his primary objective of not getting anyone pregnant was achieved. So, if we say "failure rate" some readers may think they know what we mean but be wrong. This is to be avoided.
- Some of the citations used in these Misplaced Pages articles say "failure rate," but they generally define what they mean, which can vary from one article to another. Here on Misplaced Pages we're supposed to be writing concise summaries, not copying the literature word-for-word. If they give a long, complex definition that includes a description of which cases they excluded and why, we don't have to copy the entire definition. But we do have to provide accurate reporting. Just saying "failure rate" because the original article did, without providing a summary of their definition, may be very misleading. Saying "pregnancy rate" or "percent who continue to be fertile 12 months after a vasectomy" has a clear meaning in English. Just saying "failure rate" without supplying a definition does not. --Coppertwig 00:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- If one takes a driving test, and does not meet the required standard of competence then it is not termed as continued pedestrian activities, but as a failure. By your own arguments, we are supposed to be writing a conscie summary for an encyclopedic article, hence WP:NPOV. In your hypothectical question of the gentleman with then non successful vasectomy; then yes, it is still a failure as he has not become permanantly sterilised despite the cost and discomfort of the operation. --RedHillian 01:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- In the case of vasectomies, then, failure rate can mean either 1)the portion of men whose semen analysis comes back "fertile" after the vasectomy or 2)the portion of men whose semen analysis comes back "infertile" after the vasectomy but go on to impregnate their partner anyway (perfect-use failure rate). The meaning is not clear. Changing the term to "pregnancy rate" would specify that 2) was meant.
- I'm not enthusiastic about the term "effectiveness rate" because nothing/no birth control has an "effectiveness" of 10-15% per year in preventing pregnancy. The infertility rate (at 10-15% of the population) has an impact on the number of pregnancies, and just subtracting the pregnancy rate from 100 does not take that into account.
- As far as what the term in the infobox currently refers to, on the pages on which I've been involved (a large majority) it currently refers to "pregnancy rate". I don't think I've seen anyone so far argue that that field should be used to refer to something else. Lyrl C 02:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I remembered, though, for emergency contraception, the failure rate has a rather complex definition that does not lend itself to expression as a pregnancy rate. If a change to "pregnancy rate" were accepted, there would have to be an opt-out option for EC. Lyrl C 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- If the infobox means "pregnancy rate", then I submit that it would be a good idea to edit it to say "pregnancy rate". Two people in this discussion (Joie de Vivre and Chooserr, see above) have claimed that it does not mean "pregnancy rate" but means something else. If they have misunderstood it, then I guess many other readers of the pages have also misunderstood. This is a serious problem.
- Look at the Condom page, for example. It already uses all of the terms "pregnancy rate", "failure rate" and "effectiveness". In some cases, the meaning is clear, and in some cases it is not. It says The method failure rate of condoms is 2% per year. The actual pregnancy rates among condoms users vary depending on the population being studied, with rates of 10-18% per year being reported. (Note that the phrase "pregnancy rate" was already being used here before I came along.) Without actually going and looking at the citation it is not 100% clear whether "method failure rate" could mean that there was a certain rate of condoms breaking (but not usually leading to pregnancy). Note that the citation for the 2% "failure rate" gives a URL to a page which does not use the word "failure" anywhere on it. Therefore, this instance of the word "failure" should be changed. The citation says Percentage of women experiencing an unintended pregnancy during the first year of typical use and the first year of perfect use of contraception and the percentage continuing use at the end of the first year. To my mind, "pregnancy rate" is a much better concise summary of this long phrase than is "failure rate".
- I hereby clarify or modify my original intention: I don't intend to change the phrase "failure rate" everywhere it appears. I only wish to change it when another phrase such as "pregnancy rate" is equally clear and accurate (but more courteous) or more clear and accurate in the context. For example, in the section "causes of failure" on the condom page, I might not edit "fail", "failure" or "failure rate" because it seems to be talking about condoms breaking, not pregnancy. (Or is it?) But the Condom page gives a use "pregnancy rate" in the main text and a similar number for "failure rate" in the infobox; I would like to change the infobox to say "pregnancy rate" at least in this instance, which would only be making it agree with the text. --Coppertwig 02:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- In reply to RedHillian re driving test etc.: I don't disagree with your first two sentences but by themselves they don't disprove anything I've said; you might want to try explaining your arguments more fully. Re vasectomy, I see that in your opinion it (what precisely? see below) would be a failure; this confirms my opinion that to some people it would be a failure, and doesn't change the idea that there are likely also people who would not consider it a "failure". Personally, I would look at it like this: The overall goal is to prevent pregnancy. As a step towards this goal, sterilization is attempted. The attempted sterilization doesn't work and can therefore be referred to as "an attempted sterilization that didn't work" or as "a failure" or as "continuing fertility after vasectomy" or by any of a number of other phrases (it is not necessary to use the word "failure"). In the example I give, the attempt to prevent pregnancy did nevertheless work, so the attempt to prevent pregnancy can be referred to as "an attempt to prevent pregnancy, which worked" or as "a success" or as "managing to avoid pregnancy" or by any of a number of other phrases. So if we ask, "was it a failure?" I would say the answer to this question depends on what exactly is referred to as "it". In the Birth Control infobox, "it" is not defined so the meaning is not clear. --Coppertwig 03:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- OK, summing up - are you agreed with me that in the specific case of page Vasectomy, the term failure rate is applicable as an encycolpedic and neutral entry? I fully appreciate that in the case of some of the other pages on this topic, the termong may not be so clear? If so, I'm quite happy to get back in my box and leave this discussion before it gets too messy! --RedHillian 04:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Other issues that have been discussed above and are not yet resolved: The proposal to change many instances of "failure rate" in many birth control articles with "pregnancy rate"; the proposal to modify the Birth Control infobox to allow "pregnancy rate" to be displayed (instead of or in addition to "failure rate" and perhaps "effectiveness"); and specificially the proposal to change this sentence on the Condom page: "The method failure rate of condoms is 2% per year" to say "pregnancy" rather than "failure" on the grounds that the citation given for this statement says "pregancy" and does not say "failure". (The pages on which I put notes directing people to this discussion are this page, the Birth Control infobox, and many but not all of the articles that can be reached by the Birth Control navigation template. I didn't put such notices on pages that don't use the word "failure" or that use the word "failure" but where it was apparent to me at the time that it likely didn't mean "pregnancy rate" in that context.)
- In reply to RedHillian re the vasectomy page: I am not happy with the vasectomy page and I think it definitely needs to be modified. The problem, which IMO is much more serious than the courtesy issue I originally raised here, is that it provides a summary "infobox" which displays a "failure rate" with no link to any definition of "failure rate", and also mentions "failure rate" in the text without defining it. It's clear from the above discussion that some people (e.g. myself and Lyrl, apparently), on first encountering this wording in the article, assume that "failure rate" obviously and certainly means the rate of pregnancies, while other people (e.g. Joie de Vivre and Chooserr), encountering the same wording, assume that it obviously and certainly refers to a quantity which can be quite different both numerically and semantically from the rate of pregnancies. Assuming that the general readership of the page also contains many people who react similarly, this is a dangerous situation which can easily lead to people believing they have received certain information when in fact the information they have is false and is based on a misunderstanding of the intent of what was written. (Of course, it's not possible to avoid all misunderstandings, but when it seems likely that large numbers of people are going to misunderstand, as in this case, the article needs to be edited.) Because of the profound effects of birth control on individual peoples' lives, it's urgent that such major ambiguities be corrected.
- One thing that would help: Note that on the Condom page, after "failure rate" in the infobox it says "(per year, latex)". So obviously it's possible to add information to this line in the infobox. On each page that uses this infobox, a couple of words can therefore be added clarifying what "failure rate" means in each case. For example, for Condom, it can be edited to say in the infobox "failure rate (pregnancies per year, latex)". For Vasectomy, it can say "failure rate (return of fertility, per year)" if that is what it means, or "failure rate (pregnancies per year)" if that is what it means. (This would clarify it, which is the more urgent and important thing; later I would also like to change "failure rate (pregnancies per year)" to "pregnancy rate (per year)" for reasons of courtesy and conciseness.) --Coppertwig 13:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think we may be beginning to head towards a consensus here. David Ruben, you said "I disagree" above, but it's not clear to me exactly what you disagree with. If you disagree with any of the edits that have been proposed in this discussion, and if you still disagree with them in light of the rest of the discussion, please state clearly which proposed edits exactly you disagree with.
- If I don't see any objections to this specifically, I'll edit the Condom page to change the sentence I mentioned above to say "pregnancy" rather than "failure" as its citation does. Many other similar edits are also still under discussion.
- I've made two test versions of the Template:Infobox Birth control. I have a version with a bugfix (User:Coppertwig/Infobox Birth control1) and a version which also has a default of "Pregnancy rates" and option to fill in "Failure" or other word as a "rate_type" parameter value to give "Failure rates" (User:Coppertwig/Infobox Birth control2). The bugfix allows the default values (usually question marks) to be displayed as they should when blank or null parameter values are set. I can put "rate_type = Failure" into the infobox call on most pages and then install the new version of the infobox, and "Failure rates" will still appear the same as it does now on those pages with "rate_type = Failure". I propose to have "Pregnancy rates" appear on the Condom page, though, on the grounds that the numbers displayed apparently come from a citation that does not use the word "failure" and for reasons discussed above. Later I intend to look more closely at some of the other pages and comment on which words are most appropriate on those pages.
- RedHillian: to answer your question slightly more directly: I don't believe we're restricted to any list of "encyclopedic" terms. We're free to use the English language including occasional words from other languages if appropriate, and in each specific context we can choose words based on clarity, style and other considerations within a consensus-building process. Because I don't think in terms of a restricted list of allowed words here (as opposed to the Simple English projects) I don't see how I can give a yes or no answer to your question. However, I hope the paragraph directed to you about the vasectomy page above is a sufficient answer. --Coppertwig 04:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Coppertwig I do not see consensus in the above for this change (either for all BC articles or various rephrasing in specific articles). This edit to Essure therefore seemed a little premature. Absence of people responding back to your replies is not evidence of their change of view & agreement; although I agree you do discuss well :-) We could perhaps do with some additional editor views, but before perhaps adding a request at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine, are there any points/issues/framework for further discussion that we wish to agree upon first (eg set up outline for a straw poll on various aspects of the above discussions) ? David Ruben 02:07, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- First, let me clarify what I'm doing here. Note that the first three changes listed below make little or no difference to how any of the articles display and do not in themselves change "failure rate" to "pregnancy rate" anywhere.
- Default values: the current version of the template Infobox Birth control has one behaviour if a parameter is not specified at all (usually displaying a question mark), and a different behaviour if a parameter is assigned a blank value. The version User:Coppertwig/Infobox Birth control1 modifies this so that the default value (usually a question mark) is displayed whether the calling page does not mention the parameter or assigns it a blank value. I think that most or all pages using this template do assign values, so it will make little or no difference now, but will I hope be a convenience for future users and maintainers of the template. This modification has nothing to do with whether the infobox says "Failure" or "Pregnancy" and perhaps should be in a separate discussion; I mention it here because I propose to make both changes to the infobox simultaneously.
- Adding "rate_type = Failure" to various pages: This change by itself, which I did a few hours ago, makes no difference to how the articles look. As long as this line is left as-is, then going from version infobox1 to version infobox2 will make no difference to how the articles look. However, if this line is deleted or changed, then the articles can be modified to say something else instead of Failure: perhaps Pregnancy as in "Pregnancy rate", or Failure with a footnote attached and the footnote can explain the definition of Failure, or some other text.
- Installing version User:Coppertwig/Infobox Birth control2 at Template:Infobox Birth control: I haven't done this yet but am proposing to if there is no objection. As explained above, this change should have no effect on the phrase "Failure rate" in the infobox as long as the rate_type line is left as-is. I plan to modify the documentation for the infobox too, so that people using it on new pages would tend to copy in a rate_type line. This modification is not intended to have any immediate effect on how the articles look, but it adds flexibility allowing the following changes to be made. I propose to skip version infobox1 and just install version infobox2.
- Changing "Failure rate" to "Pregnancy rate" in the infobox on the Condom page: I propose to make this change, which as I pointed out above will make the wording of the infobox conform more closely to the citation its information is based on, since the citation says "pregnancy" but does not say "failure". I put a note some time ago on the Condom talk page about this, directing discussion to take place here. The above changes, which do not in themselves change the way the pages look, allow this change to be made.
- On the Vasectomy page, I think it would be good to attach a footnote to the word "Failure" in the infobox, with an explanation of what is meant by "Failure". I would have to read the references to see what is meant (pregnancy rate? rate of continuing fertility?). Again, the version infobox2 allows such a footnote to be added. For an example of what this looks like, see User:Coppertwig/Sandbox4.
- The change I made, adding "rate_type = Failure" does not in itself change the way the articles look. The next change, installing the version infobox2, should make no change to how the "Failure rate" header displays. The change from "Failure rate" to "Pregancy rate" in the infobox on the Condom page has already been discussed above and I don't see any objection to it after I pointed out that this brings the wording closer to what is in the citation. Related changes on the Vasectomy page and other pages may require further discussion. People are welcome to comment here on any of these changes. --Coppertwig 13:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you want to ask for more opinions from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine that's fine. What question were you thinking of asking? The question could be whether to change the heading in the birth control infobox specificially on the Condom page from "Failure rate" to "Pregnancy rate". It seems unnecesary to me to seek a lot of opinions about internal changes to the template that won't affect the display, but you can if you want.
- I oppose having a vote covering wording in multiple pages at the same time. I think each page needs to be considered individually, without having to deal with constraints imposed by people who were voting about birth control in general, possibly without having considered the specifics of particular pages: for example, some methods are single-use; some might have purposes other than just avoiding pregnancy, such as the vasectomy page where the purpose may also be avoiding having to use other forms of birth control, some might have specific wording used in the citations, etc. There may be other things one would discover one has to consider when editing a particular page. I don't think the editors of each page should be constrained by an overall vote. --Coppertwig 17:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Re the vasectomy page: In the infobox I see failure rates of 0.1% and 0.15%, but I don't see any supporting citation anywhere on the page. We need (a) a supporting citation, and (b) the definition of "failure", which will depend on what definition is used in the citation (which could be pregnancy rate, or rate of continuing fertility, or something else.) --Coppertwig 17:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Here's a citation re vasectomy: The risk of pregnancy after vasectomy Here's another one: " How reliable is a vasectomy? Long-term follow-up of vasectomised men. The Lancet, Volume 356, Issue 9223, Pages 43-44 N. Haldar, D. Cranston, E. Turner, I. MacKenzie, J. Guillebaud" --Coppertwig 17:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- And I also propose to make the following change, as I suggested earlier and I don't think anyone has objected: on the Condom page, changing "failure" to "pregnancy" in "The method failure rate of condoms is 2% per year. The actual pregnancy rates..." (near the end of the section on effectiveness in preventing pregnancy), which will also make this part conform more closely to the citation, which as I mention above says "pregnancy" and does not say "failure". --Coppertwig 21:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't have immediate easy access to the text of the vasectomy studies I mentioned above, so I'm hoping maybe someone else will pull the relevant information out of them. (Or find other citations.) The abstract of the first one is available online but I don't think the full text is -- I could be wrong. --Coppertwig 01:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- David, I do not see opposition to the changes I propose in the list immediately after "First, let me clarify what I'm doing" above. Someone may hold a vote if they wish provided case-by-case editing of each page is one of the options. Someone may seek to involve more people in this discussion if they wish. I've already made edits on many pages with a link to here in the edit summary, and put two notes each on the Condom and Vasectomy talk pages as well as the original notes on a number of other talk pages, directing discussion here. If someone thinks I should follow some procedure before proceeding, that one will need to tell me specifically what that one thinks I should do. Anyone is welcome to comment here on the proposed changes, stating reasons for any opposition. II don't think I've assumed that anyone has changed their views; I think the proposed edits are consistent with most or all of the views that have been expressed in this discussion. In particular, David, although you've asked me to wait, it isn't at all clear to me that you've expressed opposition to any of the proposed edits; if you do oppose them, please clarify that and give reasons. --Coppertwig 01:56, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Coppertwig, thanks for pausing :-) I only requested this as there did not seem a "positive consensus" to so proceed and there had been almost a month since the last posting in this discussion. Whilst I personally would prefer the term "failure rate" to apply across the contraception articles (both for being a better term, in my opinion, and for the consistency), it is equally true that there was no clear "negative consensus" either, and in particular no one has sought to post additional comments this month. So in the best tradition of wikipedia, Coppertwig be bold and tryout your proposed changes on the selected pages you mention above :-) David Ruben 03:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's hard to sift through the above conversation because there is a lot to read. It seems like almost every editors initial concern was over unanimously changing failure rate to pregnancy rate due to Coppertwig's concerns of the former having negative connotations. Other editors said that we should follow our cited sources, and that one user not likeing the word "failure" is not enough to change medically acceptable language. However, it seems like Coppertwig's proposal has changes. It appears that a handful of articles' cited sources use pregnancy rate instead of failure rate, and that it is more accurate to use one term over the other in specific, case by case, situations. This make a lot more sense than the initial proposal to change the phrasing unanimously. One thing that may help engage other users would be to try and make posts a lot more concise. It's hard to follow a discussion when one user is taking up a lot more space than everyone else. Good luck.-Andrew c 17:18, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Methods
Absentence is not having sex, that is not a form of birth control anymore than saying Riding a bike is a form of birth control because if you're busy peddling a bike you can't be having intercourse. It should be removed. Absentence is a form of SEX education not birth control.
4.142.90.229 05:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)nick
The article uses the term sexual abstinence. This is to say that the a person re frames from having any sexual relations. This is not so much a method of contraception but a method restraining from sexual contact. I suggest putting avoiding vaginal intercourse under abstinence (as it can be seen as a sexual abstinence) and calling it Abstinence of Vaginal Intercourse and changing the title "Abstinence" to "Sexual Abstinence Methods".
Rave666 11:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
- While there are organizations that group abstinence as a similar method to outercourse (Association of Reproductive Health Care Professionals), it seems more common to treat them as completely separate methods (Planned Parenthood, About.com, Campaign For Our Children). All of these sites list abstinence as a birth control option - Misplaced Pages, as an encyclopedia, does not decide on the categorization of methods. It only reports on how methods are categorized by others. A Google search for "sexual abstinence methods" yields 3 hits. This is not an established category of birth control. Absent some compelling reason, I believe Misplaced Pages should follow the most common practice and list "avoiding vaginal intercourse"/"outercourse" under a different heading than "abstinence". Lyrl C 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"Abstinence is not having sex, that is not a form of birth control anymore than saying Riding a bike is a form of birth control because if you're busy peddling a bike you can't be having intercourse... Abstinence is a form of sex education not birth control."
- seems to me that it is worth adding this after the word "Abstinence": ("some organizations group abstinence as a similar method to outercourse Association of Reproductive Health Care Professionals). This should satisfy everyone. Basicdesign (talk) 05:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
External links
- Stop Terrible Human Over Population Disasters (eCards website to limit human population growth)
- WiseArt Cybernetics (On-line artistic slideshow about limiting human population growth)
Hallo Joyous! I have a question about your message: You ask me not to add inappropriate external links to wikipedia. When I compare the 2 links I added to other existing external links on certain webpages, I see that the 'appropriate' links (i.e the ones you leave alone), are also links to external -third party- organisations, such as our European organisation (STHOPD) is too. Our non-profit organisation works with volunteers and stands for certain principles which are similar to the 'appropriate' organisations on the webpages concerned, such as: Decreasing human overpopulation in an ethical way, having no children, warnings about the worldwide consequences of overpopulation such as the destruction of ecosystems. Please explain to me what would make our links appropriate. Friendly regards, 213.84.166.83 18:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC) MetaMouse.
- The other external links provide information about birth control methods. Your external links advocate for birth control to be used in a certain way. I don't feel this is on-topic to the subject of birth control. They might be appropriate in an article on a different topic such as population control or overpopulation. Although they appear to be off-line now so I cannot view the sites, if they solicit for monetary donations or sell items to raise money, that is generally against Misplaced Pages policy for external links. Lyrl C 22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
US centric?
Many drugs are mentioned in the article as "available" or "withdrawn", but without mention of whether this is international availability or USA only.
Fertility awareness - primary signs and specific methods
This diff made a couple of changes I'm unsure of:
- It changed from three primary signs to two. Weschler's book, the Kippley's book, and Singer's book (the only major FA publications I am aware of) all say there are three primary signs, the third one being cervical position. The Kippley's book even offers rules for using it as the only sign, which can not be done for secondary signs like mittelschmerz. I'm confused about where the statement that there are only two primary signs comes from.
- While there are significant differences between the CM-only methods of Billings and Creighton, there are also many significant differences between the Couple to Couple League's STM rules and Weschler's STM rules.
- CCL draws two coverlines, Weschler only draws one - in a different spot.
- CCL allows 'shaving' (a math formula to lower one or more temps that are much higher than the ones around them), Weschler offers the 'rule of thumb' (completely ignore one temp that is much higher than the ones around it).
- CCL offers six options for pre-o rules; Weschler offers three.
- CCL offers five options for combinations of temps and CM to determine post-o infertility; Weschler offers one rule for temps and one rule for CM and leaves it completely up to the user whether to follow one, the other, or both.
- So I'm uncomfortable about separating out the two largest CM-only methods, but not separating out the two largest STM methods. I'm also uncomfortable about separating methods out at all outside of the FA article - because of the international scope of (and thus possibly unrepresentative amount of English-language publications) newer methods like Marquette and the Two-Day Method, I'm not confident in judgments of their size. For all I know, they could be just as large as (and thus just as deserving of a mention) Creighton and Billings.
Others' thoughts? Lyrl C 03:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Billings deserves a mention, in my opinion. Whenever we become aware of something sufficiently well-known or widespread to deserve a mention, let's mention it. If we're not sure whether something deserves a mention, don't worry about it. Don't not mention something just because there *might* be something else equally worthy of mention; if all of Misplaced Pages did that, we would never write any articles about anything. By "separating out" I suppose you mean mentioning (not writing a separate Misplaced Pages article about)? You can address your concerns by mentioning the Weschler and CCL methods. I'm guessing CCL at least is notable. Incidentally, it's my understanding that "shaving" is actually mathematically equivalent to ignoring one (or more) of the numbers, i.e. the same as the "rule of thumb". I could be wrong on that. --Coppertwig 04:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Shaving lowers the temperature by a certain amount. The adjusted temperature is still used in determining the coverline.
- I've done some Google searches and found that "couple to couple league", "billings ovulation method", "fertility awareness method" (what Weschler calls her symtpo-thermo system), and "creighton model" all get well over 10,000 hits. "Marquette model" gets slightly over 10,000 hits, but many of them are unrelated to the NFP system. "Two day method" gets less than 1,000 hits. If my search terms were correct, this somewhat reassures me that Billings, Creighton, FAM, and CCL are the big four that should be specified. Though my worries that the newer methods have foreign language or non-web presences that are large still exist.
- If there are a small number of method types, it makes sense to list them all out - this article lists both types of condoms (male and female) and all four types of cervical barriers (sponge, cap, shield, diaphragm). If there are a large number of method types, it does not. This article does not list the five different types of cap (Prentif, FemCap, Dumas, Vimule, Oves) - the cervical cap article does that. This article also does not list every formulation of birth control pill. The article oral contraceptive formulations does that.
- I'm not sure at what point the number of FA methods become numerous enough to leave the listing to the FA article. Four seems to have precedence (per the cervical barriers example), but five might be too many (per the cervical cap example).
- Per Coppertwig's comment, I'm leaning towards just adding the FAM and CCL brands of symptothermo to the article. Lyrl C 15:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Condom image
The "three colored condoms" image was deleted on Commons as a copyright violation. Commons has some other pictures of condoms, but I'm not sure which one to use to replace the deleted image. Do others have a preference? Or some other source of a GNU-released picture? Lyrl C 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- The best one, IMO, on the commons is Image:Préservatif enroulé.jpg. -Andrew c 18:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
- Wouldn't an unrolled condom be useful? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.144.184 (talk) 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
im taking a minipill since january and my period was become abnormal it is possible to mke me pregnant?
im taking a minipill since january and my period was become abnormal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.255.33.57 (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
- You should contact your pharmacist or prescribing physician for matters of medical importance. Misplaced Pages should not be the place to go for personal medical advice. If you believe your primary method of birth control (the minipill) is failing and you are concerned about becoming pregnant, the best thing to do is to use a back of method of contraception (or two) to lower your chances of pregnancy (or stop having sex). However, please seek the advice of a medical professional in this matter.-Andrew c 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Fertility awareness - specific methods
In the current version of the fertility awareness section, the Weschler symptothermo method is mentioned specifically in the first paragraph. The Billings and Creighton methods are mentioned specifically in the second paragraph. In opposition to the consensus reached in #Fertility awareness - primary signs and specific methods, the mention of Couple to Couple League has been deleted altogether, with the edit summary that CCL does not currently have an article on Misplaced Pages. Per my comments in the previous discussion, I support adding the CCL method as an example of symptothermo alongside Weschler's method.
If the section is going to link to specific methods, I believe it would be better to list them all together. Both Billings and Creighton have significantly sized non-Catholic target audiences (Billings is widely used in China, for example, not exactly a Catholic stronghold) and the Couple to Couple League's method, while it is not targeted to non-Catholics, is certainly picked up and used by non-Catholics: this buddy group provides instruction in both Weschler's and the CCL methods and recommends both books, despite being a thoroughly secular group. I do not understand why these methods have to be segregated away from Weschler's method.
Instead of presenting methods in either the first or second paragraph, perhaps they could all be listed at the end of the FA section in their own paragraph? Lyrl C 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Just because something doesn't have a Misplaced Pages article isn't a reason not to mention it. I support mentioning the CCL method. Maybe at a later date there will be a Misplaced Pages article on it. Any of the ways you've suggested of handling it sound OK to me.
- By the way, I question the statement that NFP refers specifically to methods approved by the Catholic church. I've used the term and that is not what I meant and it didn't occur to me that anybody might think that. Who uses it like that? I think it might be more accurate to say that NFP refers specifically to practices such as breastfeeding and periodic abstinence, while FA can involve practices some might not think of as "natural" such as using FA to schedule the use of barrier methods. The fact that the RCC approves of certain methods doesn't seem to me to be fundamental to the definition of NFP; if the RCC were to change their mind and start saying that periodic abstinence is sinful, (or less implausibly that certain practices such as using a thermometer for FA purposes is sinful) would the term "NFP" still refer to whatever the RCC then approves of? --Coppertwig 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- The definition of NFP varies depending on the source. It is very widely used interchangeably with FA. However, Toni Weschler in her book defines NFP as excluding the use of barrier methods, relying only on abstinence during fertile times to avoid pregnancy. The Couple to Couple League specifies that couples who engage in non-intercourse sexual acts are not practicing NFP. The website of the Canadian organization Serena says "Using condoms, diaphragms, spermicides or withdrawal during the fertile time is not natural family planning," and also appears to be strongly pro-life. From an earlier discussion with an editor familiar with the Billings organization, I gather that their position is that non-intercourse sexual acts are "incompatible with correct use" but not strictly prohibited. The founders of the organization, John and Evelyn Billings, are Catholic and developed the method while working for the Catholic Church. Regarding the definition of NFP, I am unaware of the position of Creighton, but it is based from the Pope Paul IV Institute (so strong Catholic connections).
- Despite the fact that the term is most commonly used interchangably with FA (Misplaced Pages's normal guideline), I have tended to use this "religiously motivated" definition because of Misplaced Pages's naming conventions "Use the name(s) and terminology that the individual or organization themselves use." Organizations that call their method NFP all appear to be associated with the Catholic Church and to associate religiously-based restrictions on its use. Lyrl C 23:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Methods that are widely considered "natural" but that the RCC does not approve of (such as withdrawal) are already excluded from the definition of NFP. (Also see natural birth control.) I imagine that if RCC teaching changed, the Church would attempt to drag popular definition of the term NFP along with their change. It might be unsuccessful, but that's another issue. Lyrl C 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's fine to list various methods, but it is important to state which are taught as NFP/abstinence-only, and which are taught as a standalone method of FA. The simplest way to do that is to list the NFP-taught methods in the NFP paragraph. However I think it is important to draw the line somewhere: if you look at the Natural Family Planning article, there are many, many "methods" being taught by various organizations, and I don't think it's appropriate or necessary to list every single one. I think the ones we have listed as of now are sufficient. Joie de Vivre 20:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I propose that the line be drawn at methods that are used by large numbers of people, preferably internationally. The Couple to Couple League is an international organization (24 countries) and is the largest NFP organization in the United States, teaching their version of the symptothermal method to almost 8,000 couples in 2004 alone . The only other international organization in the NFP article is Family of the Americas, which teaches the Billings method (already listed in this article). So to my understanding, drawing the line at international methods used by large numbers of people does not have a danger of overwhelming the FA section with a list of methods. I propose including Ms. Weschler's system, even though it has limited international scope, because her book has been so overwhelmingly popular. The Marquette and Two-Day Methods are the only other international methods I am aware of - see my analysis at #Fertility awareness - primary signs and specific methods for why I concluded they should not be included in this article.
- To me, it seems much more continuous to list all the methods together. I find it awkward to have them in two separate lists. A note along the lines of "some organizations include religious content in their fertility awareness classes" I would be fine with. However, I object to singling out methods as "these methods are only taught as NFP". Firstly, saying Billings and Creighton are taught as abstinence-only systems is like saying Habitat for Humanity only builds houses for people who convert to Christianity. The fact that these organizations have leadership that is devoutly Christian in no way means they enforce that upon the people they train as leaders or the people they provide services to. Secondly, while the organization of the Couple to Couple League does include religious content in their programs (unlike Billings or Creighton), the method itself - that explained by the secular charting group at weddingchannel.com - is just a set of rules that has no religious connotations about abstinence or anything else. The method can be learned without ever encountering religious material, so the method itself should not be identified as NFP-only.Lyrl C 22:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think it's good to list the BOM and the CM here, because there is no religious content in the classes. However, someone wants to learn about specifically NFP methods they can click on the NFP article. It's not necessary to include the CCL method here because it includes religious content and is more specifically Catholic NFP. "Including the CCL method" should not be used as a pretext to blur the distinction between those methods developed without any background in Catholicism, those developed by Catholics but taught fairly secularly, and those taught with religious intent. The paragraph does a good job of that, and I think the distinction should be maintained. Joie de Vivre 17:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I prefer working through issues exclusively on Talk pages. Part of our conversation is now only in our edit summaries, so others who would like to express their opinion can't see the full background. I do appreciate Joie de Vivre coming back to the Talk page, though.
- I'm not understanding why a large (at least within the FA/NFP community), international organization with a distinct set of symptothermal rules should not be included in a list of prominent FA methods. I am having trouble understanding Joie de Vivre's reason for excluding them. I certainly agree they should not be characterized as a secular organization. But surely we can find a way to acknowledge their religious attitude without discounting their importance? Lyrl C 19:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I feel compelled to remind you of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." It should not be included in the list of FA methods because it is not taught as an FA method. BOM, CM, Weschler's methods are taught without religious content and can be categorized as FA. CCL method includes religious content and can only be considered NFP. Wikilink to the NFP article takes care of that. You destroyed the distinction between pure FA methods and the NFP paragraph. See you in 24 hours. Joie de Vivre 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think the source of our disagreement is that I view NFP as a practice — actions done by a specific couple on a day-by-day basis — rather than a method, or rule set. The rule set that a couple uses - Billings, CCL, FAM, etc. - is independent of their decision to follow or not follow the restrictions associated with NFP. Whether or not they follow those restrictions, the fact that they are observing fertility signs and using a rule set to interpret them means they are practicing FA. So a couple can be using FA and NFP - NFP is not a method by itself.
- Does that make sense? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lyrl (talk • contribs) 21:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC).
- I feel compelled to remind you of Misplaced Pages:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor." It should not be included in the list of FA methods because it is not taught as an FA method. BOM, CM, Weschler's methods are taught without religious content and can be categorized as FA. CCL method includes religious content and can only be considered NFP. Wikilink to the NFP article takes care of that. You destroyed the distinction between pure FA methods and the NFP paragraph. See you in 24 hours. Joie de Vivre 19:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lyrl did not personally attack anyone here. Please review what is considered a personal attack before making such a bold statement. "When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." Just because they referred to you does not mean they were attacking you. "The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy." --pIrish 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lyrl and I are discussing this on our own and as far as I can see there is no real conflict. Thanks for the link, I will remember it in the future. Sorry for the reverting disturbance. Joie de Vivre 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Lyrl did not personally attack anyone here. Please review what is considered a personal attack before making such a bold statement. "When there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack." Just because they referred to you does not mean they were attacking you. "The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy." --pIrish 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since you can't seem to figure out what to do with the article, I requested to get this page fully protected until you stop fighting about what should and should not be on this page. What's worse about this whole thing is that you continue to edit the article in your favor before even coming to a consensus! That doesn't help solve anything and it only infuriates the other side and makes them less likely to change their position on the issue. Please, figure something out here, on this talk page, or take it over to dispute resolution and have a mediator/arbitrator step in and help. Thank you. --pIrish 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
(Undent) Yes, that makes a lot of sense. Lyrl, that is an excellent observation, one I had not quite discerned. You are absolutely right that the different methods are separate rule sets, and that individuals may incorporate those rule sets into a practice of NFP, or on their own, for birth control or for other reasons such as health monitoring. You are right that NFP is not a "method" of FA, I see it more as a behavioral system informed by religious beliefs.
It is true that the different methods are indeed rule sets which may be used either in conjunction with religious beliefs or without them. The problem I see is in the way they are taught. The CCL is taught specifically as a method of NFP, and if you are learning the CCL method, you are being exposed to religious teachings. I feel that in this article, it is important to make it clear which are taught in a religious context and which are not. I feel that this serves two purposes: to empower people to avoid such teaching if they find it offensive, and to maintain a distinction between the meanings of FA and NFP.
I think it would be fine to include mention of the CCL method. It is indeed well-known and used by many people. However I feel it would be best to specify that this particular method includes religious content. I found this easiest to do by creating an FA paragraph and a NFP paragraph, and listing the NFP methods therein. I found that the sections became too bulky and repetetive if they were mixed together. Could we reinstate the previous version, and include a sentence at the end of the second paragraph about the CCL method, perhaps? Joie de Vivre 22:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- I support tying CCL in as an NFP organization or otherwise mentioning the religious content of their classes. However, I'm unsure about classifying Billings and Creighton as NFP, because they are promoted to non-Catholics. But I don't want to imply they're secular, either, because of the Catholic leadership. I was trying to find a way to be ambiguous about their religious connections. Would you be willing to work along that line? Lyrl C 01:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- I appreciate the sentiment, but the ambiguity about the religious connections was what prompted me to make the change. The BOM website bills the method as NFP outright. The CM goes further, stating that "it is a system that it firmly based in a respect for... the integrity of marriage", with prominent links to the Pope Paul Institute. The CCL method includes Catholic content and is certainly NFP. My feeling is that it is important to differentiate between those with a Catholic background and those without, particularly since they all have varying levels of religious content. I think the paragraph explaining the term NFP is the best place for these. Joie de Vivre 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- As far as people seeking FA information, and unexpectedly encountering religious information - I'm not convinced that's a danger. Classes from Billings and Creighton certified teachers are unlikely to contain any religious content - Kerry Hampton, for example, is a Billings teacher, but obviously does not follow Catholic teachings (she fits diaphragms). For the websites, if the name of a Pope, and a statement implying Creighton is marriage-strengthening are the most religious comments to be found, I'm not impressed. Both Toni Weschler and Katie Singer in their books talk about how periodic abstinence can strengthen a relationship; I don't believe the idea is religious in nature. Weschler specifically recommends that FA only be used by couples in a long-term committed relationship; while it's not cutting-edge PC to assume this kind of relationship involves a piece of paper issued by the government, I don't find targeting FA at married couples to be overtly religious, either. I'm also not impressed by a link to a site that contains some religious content - both Weshler's and Singer's books list places like CCL in their "Resources" sections, which are not segregated into FAM vs. NFP lists, but placed in simple alphabetical order by organization name.
- As far as I am aware, people looking into Billings and Creighton either through the website or a local teacher are no more likely to come across religious content than people looking into Weschler's FAM. Following from this, I don't understand why these methods should be specifically categorized as NFP. Lyrl C 02:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- They should be categorized as NFP, primarily because that is what they bill themselves as. End of story. Joie de Vivre 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
They are not using the definition of NFP described in the FA section. If Misplaced Pages is going to go with the "popular use" definition of NFP, and the definition Billings and Creighton (and now, apparently, Katie Singer) use in their outreach efforts, it does not include religious restrictions. In that case (a change of Misplaced Pages's definition of NFP to remove religious restrictions), I would have no objection to calling Billings and Creighton NFP. Lyrl C 23:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am so tired of arguing about this with you. Can't we just explain that the term NFP was coined by Catholics, that others have adopted its use, but that the term FA is more frequently used to mean non-religious, condom-OK-unmarried-OK, and NFP more frequently means Catholic, no-condom,-must-be-married,-penile-vaginal-only? Can't we explain that the CM and the CCL methods are religious in background and that the BOM, Weschler and Singer methods are more open? I honestly see a big difference between someone who teaches it as "this is a wonderful way to avoid pregnancy naturally", and someone who teaches it as "God said that everything else is forbidden." Joie de Vivre 14:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- There are certainly things we agree on - that NFP is more commonly used by Catholic groups, that FA has no religious connotations, that CCL teaches "God said that everything else is forbidden" and article references to CCL should make that clear. I agree this kind of strung-out debate is onerous, but I'm not sure how else to handle it. I'm open to ideas if others have dispute resolution suggestions.
- For me, I see a big difference between an organization that outright states "sexual morality education" and "God's great gift of sexuality" are part of their "ministry" and an organization whose founders apparently believe in Catholic morality, but whose fertility information pages contain no religious content (Billings, Creighton). I can agree to specifying secular organizations as secular, and "morality education" groups as religious. I do not agree with categorizing the "morality education" groups like CCL together with the "no religious commentary" groups like Billings and Creighton. Lyrl C 01:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Since you still can't seem to come to a mutual decision (though not much dicussion has taken place here recently so I'm not sure if you're talking elsewhere or just not talking at all), I will, once again, bring up the page for dispute resolution. It can help you make your case and have an unbaised third party person help you work through things. --pIrish 20:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am starting to wonder why the NFP methods need be listed at all. Joie de Vivre 16:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- I would support not mentioning any specific methods, just leaving that to the FA article. Lyrl C 00:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- How would not mentioning FA methods in the FA section improve the article? NFP and FA are not conjoined twins. Excluding the methods which are explicitly geared towards married Catholics does not necessitate excluding standalone FA methods that carry no religious or behavioral expectations in their teaching. Joie de Vivre 19:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Teaching a method to atheist Chinese populations without including religious content (as Billings does) is not exactly "geared toward married Catholics".
- Not mentioning FA methods would resolve our conflict, and would not affect the article significantly. Lyrl C 01:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have any problem with including Billings. I also wouldn't have a problem including CCL and CM and the other NFP methods if we were just to briefly note which ones include Catholic messages in their teaching. Why can't we do that? FA in general is so little-known (and so useful) that I think it'd be a real shame to remove their mention from the article. More people will read the Birth control article, and fewer people will bother to click through onto the NFP or FA articles. I think increasing public knowledge of FA could be achieved here by including the most popular systems.
- What if it went like this:
- Fertility awareness (FA) methods involve a woman's observation and charting of one or more of her body's primary fertility signs, to determine the fertile and infertile phases of her cycle. Unprotected sex is restricted to the least fertile period. During the most fertile period, barrier methods may be availed, or she may abstain from intercourse. Different methods track one or more of the three primary fertility signs: changes in basal body temperature, in cervical mucus, and in cervical position, though cervical position is most frequently used as a cross-reference with one or both of the others. If a woman tracks both basal body temperature and another primary sign, the method is referred to as symptothermal, one such method is taught by Toni Weschler. Other bodily cues such as mittelschmerz are considered secondary indicators. A woman may chart these events on paper or with software.
- The term natural family planning (NFP) is sometimes used to refer to any use of FA methods. However, this term specifically refers to the practices which are permitted by the Roman Catholic Church — breastfeeding infertility, and periodic abstinence during fertile times. FA methods may be used by NFP users to identify these fertile times. Various systems are taught as NFP: the Couple to Couple League teaches a symptothermal method, while the Billings Ovulation Method and the Creighton Model are based on mucus observation alone. Some NFP teachers and organizations include religious content in their classes.
- Pretty please? Have I misunderstood any of your concerns? Does this address them? I too would love to get this resolved. Joie de Vivre 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Subheader for navigation
It's better, because it does not outright say Billings and Creighton include religious content. However, I still object to presenting them separately from Weschler's system. My objections to specifying Billings and Creighton as NFP are twofold: 1)they do not use the definition of NFP that Misplaced Pages is using, and 2)the methods themselves can be (and sometimes are) taught outside of an NFP context.
The term NFP is defined differently by different organizations. Some organizations, such as CCL, include the Catholic behavior restrictions as part of NFP. Other organizations, such as Billings and Creighton, appear to define NFP as the observational method itself, and to consider the behavior restrictions as separate aspects of the Catholic faith not integral to NFP. It is misleading to define NFP with the CCL definition and then say Billings and Creighton are "taught as NFP". It falsely implies they use the same definition that CCL does.
Saying the methods are "taught as NFP" also misleadingly excludes teaching of the methods outside of their original organizations. Examples include the promotion of the CCL method on weddingchannel.com, and Billing's practice of giving official teaching licenses to all comers, resulting in secular teachers of the Billings method. These avenues are certainly not teaching these methods as NFP. Lyrl C 01:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- What about adding to the end of the current section: The Roman Catholic Church has dominated the development of fertility awareness methods. While numbers of secular teachers such as Toni Weschler are increasing, currently even organizations that do not include religious content in their classes may have connections to this Church.Lyrl C 01:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like the general idea of identifying the RCC's involvement with the research and development of FA methods. I am not pleased I feel uncomfortable with the wording "has dominated", also "numbers of secular teachers... are increasing" is somewhat speculative. How about this:
- Some NFP organizations include religious content in their classes. Those that do not may still be run by practicing Catholics.
- The phrase "connections to this Church" is really vague. Can't we be more specific about the nature of those "connections"? Joie de Vivre 15:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- I like the general idea of identifying the RCC's involvement with the research and development of FA methods. I am not pleased I feel uncomfortable with the wording "has dominated", also "numbers of secular teachers... are increasing" is somewhat speculative. How about this:
- Just add that on to the end of the current last paragraph of the FA section (that lists all the methods, including Weschler's)? That would work for me. Lyrl C 01:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- I am fine with adding the sentence but not with including something that is definitely 100% an FA method in with all the NFP methods. Joie de Vivre 15:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I can't talk about this any more. We should just get rid of the last paragraph in the current version and leave it at that. Joie de Vivre 15:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- I wish I knew more about what you were talking about so I could help out with this issue more, but, unfortunately, I do not. However, my suggestion would be to not include whatever is trying to be included. If it causes this much controversy, indecision, and argument between established Misplaced Pages editors, it probably doesn't belong or need to belong in this article. This is just my take on things and I hope some sort of consensus can be reached about this issue soon so we can unprotect the article. --pIrish 17:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- Getting rid of the last paragraph (that lists the individual methods) is good by me. Lyrl C 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Birth Control equivalent to contraception?
Why does Contraception redirect to Birth Control? Isn't contraception a specific subset of birth control? --Llewdor 23:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
- The overlap is fuzzy because of the does-hormonal-contraception-prevent-implantation-and-if-so-is-that-abortion debate. Where to put hormonal methods, and also IUDs, if a contraception article was created would be a mess. Lyrl C 00:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
- I think it would be safe to put hormonal methods and IUDs in contraception... Contraception covers the means and methods to prevent conception. Contra - against (i.e. contrary to). Ception - as in "conception"... The hormonal pill acts PRIOR to conception thus it is "contra-conceptive"... Conception does not occur until the zygote has formed and implanted. Birth control includes such things as laws disallowing multiple offspring (such as in many parts of China). I think that is definitely FAR BROADER than the issue of condoms, pills, femidoms and IUDs! Cultural mandates should not come into this... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
SILCS device
According to the Cervical Barrier Advancement Society, SILCS is a diaphragm. To my understanding, its unique characteristics are that it is one-size-fits-all, and has a hook in the rim for easier removal. If this is correct, I'm uncertain about listing it as a separate kind of birth control. Lyrl C 03:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- I also feel that SILCS intravaginal barrier contraceptive should be merged with Diaphragm_(contraceptive)#Types. The former does not seem foreseeably expandable, and the latter contains specific brands/styles that do not have their own article. That said, I wouldn't mind having a line or two (maybe a little less than what we have now) about this specific brand in development in this article. (I wouldn't mind if it was completely removed, either way works). -Andrew c 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
- Regardless of what it is called, I think its design is different enough to warrant its own mention; just as the Lea's shield has. Joie de Vivre 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- I think the Lea's shield article should be merged into cervical cap, but that's not something I'm motivated to pursue at this time. A mention of SILCS is fine, in the barriers section with the diaphragm. I oppose SILCS having its very own section. Lyrl C 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that it does not need its very own section. The SILCS diaphragm is mentioned briefly under Barrier methods, with an internal link to its listing in the "Methods in development" section. Joie de Vivre 19:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I question that SILCS should be listed under "methods in development". It is a diaphragm, and diaphragms are not "in development". My current knowledge of the SILCS is that its only unique characteristics are the finger cup (whoop-de-doo) and its marketing as a one-size-fits-most. Distributing only one size of diaphragm has been advocated before, though the first formal study suggested it was a bad idea (PMID 12279800). But with the push for diaphragm use in developing countries, and the barrier posed by the currently-required fitting session, interest in the topic has picked up (PMID 15033398). The effectiveness trials of the SILCS are groundbreaking, certainly, in that good effectiveness studies of a single-size diaphragm have never before been conducted in the over one hundred years the device has been on the market. However, I don't see any reason the results of the study would not be applicable to all arcing-spring diaphragms. Should someone have information on some unique aspect of SILCS I am not aware of, I would be interested. But currently, I believe the SILCS should not be listed as a "method in development" and that its only listing in this article should be in the "barriers" section. Lyrl C 02:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- Your comment about diaphragms not being in development is an association fallacy. The SILCS diaphraghm is still in testing. Your suggestion that the results of the SILCS study should be be applied to all diaphragms is not shared by any medical or statistical authority that I am aware of. There is no onus on me to prove why such associations should not be made. The SILCS device has not been approved by medical authorities. My guess is that if the SILCS device was the same as other diaphragms it would have already been approved on the grounds that it is no different from other diaphragms. Even if the reason the SILCS device is not yet approved is unrelated to any differences from other diaphragms, we can return to the fact that the SILCS diaphragm is still in testing. Thus it is categorized and described appropriately. Joie de Vivre 03:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- On the "still in testing" argument: Condoms were studied for effectiveness as recently as 2004 (PMID 15504381). Does that mean they were "in development" until then? On the "medical authority" argument: This pdf article implies that testing of the SILCS is primarily because of its one-size nature: "One randomized, controlled trial now in the late planning stages at Ibis Reproductive Health intends to test the need for fitting the Ortho All-Flex, the diaphragm market leader. If the device performs well without clinician fitting, that diaphragm and perhaps others could be offered in a standard size. Participants at the 2002 meeting also placed priority on evaluating the effectiveness of new one-size or two-size devices such as Lea’s Shield, BufferGel Cup, and the SILCS diaphragm." Lyrl C 03:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- If condoms were not yet on the market, such an argument about continued testing might be relevant. The SILCS diaphragm is not yet available and thus the "still in development" categorization is appropriate. I don't really care to discuss implications regarding the reasons behind the continued testing; I don't see the relevance. The placement of the description of the SILCS device, under "Methods in development", is appropriate. Joie de Vivre 03:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- "if the SILCS device was the same as other diaphragms it would have already been approved on the grounds that it is no different from other diaphragms." Its only difference in every document I have read is the lack of sizing. No diaphragm anywhere in the world is approved for use without a clinician fitting. We're not going to agree with each other on this. As a second choice position, I have added other currently researched but so far unapproved methods (like new brands of spermicide, and the new rim type of the Duet diaphragm) so SILCS won't be the only thing in that section. Lyrl C 11:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
- The other difference, other than the lack of sizing, is that the device has not been approved. It is still in development; there is nothing that changes the fact. I find your choice, to add a string of other items as a reaction to the inclusion of the SILCS device, to be unsavory. Joie de Vivre 13:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Morality objections mention in lede moved here
The following statements are unsourced. I find it inappropriate to make vague statements about cultural and religious opposition to birth control, especially when such statements are unsourced. I feel that these statements, if sourced, do not belong in the lede. They should be placed under Birth control#Religious and cultural attitudes or perhaps Religious views on birth control.
Here's the content: Joie de Vivre 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Contraception differs from abortion in that the former prevents fertilization, while the latter terminates an already established pregnancy. Methods of birth control which may prevent the implantation of an embryo if fertilization occurs are medically considered to be contraception but characterized by some opponents as abortifacients.
- Birth control is a controversial political and ethical issue in many cultures and religions, and although it is generally less controversial than abortion specifically, it is still opposed by many. There are various degrees of opposition, including those who oppose all forms of birth control short of sexual abstinence; those who oppose forms of birth control they deem "unnatural", while allowing natural birth control; and those who support most forms of birth control that prevent fertilisation, but oppose any method of birth control which prevents a fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterus and initiating a pregnancy.
New category required for NFP/FA related articles
NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Note: The centralized location for discussing categorization of NFP/FA articles is at Category talk:Periodic abstinence. Please discuss there, not here. Joie de Vivre 18:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
The previous category was Category:Periodic abstinence, however a recent CfD result was "delete". This new category effects the following articles: Rhythm method, Fertility awareness, Natural family planning, Basal body temperature, Billings ovulation method, Creighton Model FertilityCare System. Category:Behavioral methods of birth control is a category that was created earlier this month, and is intended to house these articles, plus Coitus interruptus and Lactational Amenorrhea Method. Should we create a new subcat to house the categories that used to be in periodic abstinence? If so, what should it be called? I'm not sure, for categorization purposes, we need to have such a specific category, especially when we've had difficulty trying to come up with a name that everyone can agree with, however, I feel that we should raise a new consensus for whatever we do before recreating deleted content without going through the undeletion process of deletion review.-Andrew c 13:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- The pebble in my shoe here is Rhythm Method. The Rhythm Method involves noting the date that menstruation begins, using an algorithm to estimate the date of ovulation, and bracketing a no-sex zone around that date. All of the other methods involve getting up-close-and-personal with cervical mucus, cervical position (with a speculum), or basal body temperature, which for most women exhibits a noticable shift at ovulation. These methods are called fertility awareness. (They are called natural family planning if used by Catholics for religious reasons.) I would be fine with grouping the fertility awareness methods together and leaving Rhythm out. I don't see how it's grammatically possible to group them together without error. I did try to group them together by suggesting Category:Methods which detect or estimate fertility, but Lyrl argued that all FA methods "estimate" and that we shouldn't differentiate even in the title. I disagree, I think we should make it clear that FA methods involve bodily signals, and Rhythm involves a calendar and a pen.
- I still really like Category:Methods which detect or estimate fertility, particularly because then the category can be cross-linked with Category:Fertility, which is good because many women use these methods to help them conceive. Ideas? Joie de Vivre 14:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- Of course, then the category is open to things like Hamster test, so maybe we should narrow the scope to Category:Fertility awareness. But then we are back to excluding rhythm, and even Natural family planning. I am having trouble finding a good solution. Joie de Vivre 14:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
- As explained at Category talk:Periodic abstinence, I believe the recreation was the correct thing to do in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies. Discussion on a renaming had already started there. Lyrl C 14:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Please disregard my post above, the centralized discussion for this topic is ongoing at Category talk:Periodic abstinence. Sorry.-Andrew c 16:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Population control in fiction
In fiction, population control has appeared in TV-series as Sliders, and movies as Fortress (1993 film).
Brave New World by Aldous Huxley is worth mentioning as all Women are required to take birth control pills and encourageed to engage in sexual play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.144.184 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
"Typical use" first-year failure rate for Depo-Provera
The FDA uses a contraceptive efficacy table based on:
- James Trussell's "Contraceptive Efficacy" chapter in the 17th edition (1998) of Hatcher et al. (eds.) Contraceptive Technology
not:
- James Trussell's "Contraceptive Efficacy" chapter in the 18th edition (2004) of Hatcher et al. (eds.) Contraceptive Technology
for consistency in current FDA-approved labeling for all contraceptives (e.g. Depo-Provera U.S. prescribing information, Lybrel U.S. prescribing information).
In his 18th edition of Contraceptive Technology contraceptive efficacy table, among other changes, Trussell changed his "typical use" first-year failure rate for Depo-Provera from 0.3% to 3% based on:
- Trussell J, Vaughan B (1999). Contraceptive failure, method-related discontinuation and resumption of use: results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect. 31(2):64-72,93 PMID 10224544
which reported (Table 1) 12-month failure rates from the 1995 NSFG of:
- 2.3% Implant (Norplant)
- 3.2% Injectable (Depo-Provera)
- 3.7% IUD
For his 18th edition of Contraceptive Technology contraceptive efficacy table, Trussell:
- rejected the NSFG failure rate of 2.3% for Norplant as absurd and set his Norplant typical use failure rate equal to its first-year perfect use failure rate of 0.05% derived from clinical trials (which he had used in his 17th edition of Contraceptive Technology contraceptive efficacy table).
- accepted the NSFG failure rate of 3.2% for Depo-Provera instead of using Depo-Provera's first-year perfect use and typical use failure rate of 0.3% from the largest clinical trial of Depo-Provera (which he had used in his 17th edition of Contraceptive Technology contraceptive efficacy table).
- rejected the NSFG failure rate of 3.7% for IUDs as absurd and set his ParaGard typical use failure rate equal to its first-year typical use failure rate of 0.8% in the largest ParaGard clinical trial, and set his Mirena typical use failure rate equal to the average of its first-year perfect use and typical use failure rate of 0.1% in two large clinical trials (which he had used in his 17th edition of Contraceptive Technology contraceptive efficacy table).
The FDA's Draft Guidance on Labeling for Combined Oral Contraceptives published for comment in March 2004 has a simplified contraceptive efficacy table based on clinical trial data reviewed by the FDA—and omits dubious "typical use" failure rates derived from NSFG survey data.
69.208.167.245 03:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
- The FDA uses the 1997 edition in its labeling because its guidelines were created in 1998. Lacking an actual statement from the FDA that it has rejected the most recent edition of Contraceptive Technology, the most reasonable conclusion is the the FDA is out of date, not that it has actively rejected Trussel's most recent analysis. While the FDA may "omit dubious "typical use" failure rates derived from NSFG survey data" for hormonal contraceptives, they certainly don't have a problem using those rates for fertility awareness. In the "choosing a regular method of birth control" section of this document, the FDA says fertility awareness has a first-year failure rate of 25% - the NSFG number (based on 217 women using calendar-based methods and 33 women using symptoms-based methods). This despite numerous recent clinical studies demonstrating significantly lower typical failure rates (PMID 8478373, PMID 1755469, , PMID 8147240, PMID 9288336). Neither source is "consistent" in using clinical trial data above survey data.
- The current FDA contraceptive labeling guidelines were adopted in 1998 and include a contraceptive efficacy table based on Trussell's table from Contraceptive Technology, 17th ed. (1998).
- The FDA has explicitly rejected use of Trussell's table from Contraceptive Technology, 18th ed. (2004) -- see page 9 of FDA Medical Review - Plan B Rx to OTC switch:
- "The Applicant replaced the 18th Edition of the Trussell table with the 17th edition of the Trussell Table as requested by the Division of Reproductive and Urologic Products (DRUP) in order to be consistent with presently approved labeling for Plan B and non-emergency contraceptive products."
- The FDA Draft Guidance on Labeling for Combined Oral Contraceptives (March 2004) does NOT use Trussell's table from any edition of Contraceptive Technology.
- Aside from the 10X jump in typical use failure rate for Depo-Provera from 0.3% to 3% between the 17th and 18th editions of Trussell's table, the next biggest change has been the 2.67X increase in typical use failure rate for the Pill in Trussell's table from 3% (16th ed. 1994) to 5% (17th ed. 1998) to 8% (18th ed. 2004).
- Notably, the only significant differences between the 2004 FDA Draft Guidance efficacy table (based on clinical trial data reviewed by the FDA) and the 2004 18th edition Trussell table is:
- a failure rate of <1% versus 3% for injectables
- a failure rate of 1% versus 8% for COCPs (and the patch and the vaginal ring)
- a failure rate of 2% versus 8% for POPs (very-low-dose norethindrone or norgestrel POPs)
- behavioral methods (withdrawal, periodic abstinence) are not listed in the 2004 FDA Draft Guidance table
- perfect use failure rates are not listed in the 2004 FDA Draft Guidance table
- The 2004 FDA Draft Guidance efficacy table IS consistent in using clinical trial data (except for sterilization and spermicide):
- "The estimates for drugs, condoms, diaphragms, and IUDs are derived from clinical trial data reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration. The estimates for sterilization and spermicides come from the medical literature."
- "Choosing a regular method of birth control" in this document is a section of a Patient Package Insert proposed by Women's Capital Corporation (owner of Plan B before it was sold to the Duramed Pharmaceuticals subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals) to the FDA and included as Appendix 7 of a briefing document for the 16 December 2003 FDA advisory committee meeting about the proposed Rx-to-OTC switch for Plan B.
- The FDA did not approve a "Choosing a regular method of birth control" in the OTC patient package insert for Plan B.
- The FDA did insist, as noted above, that Duramed Pharmaceuticals use the 17th edition instead of the 18th edition of Trussell's table in the physician prescribing information for Plan B.
- Trussell's chapter "Contraceptive Efficacy"" in Contraceptive Technology, 18th ed., page 774 says:
- "Our estimates of the probability of pregnancy during the first year of typical use of spermicides, withdrawal, periodic abstinence, the diaphragm, the male condom, the pill, and Depo-Provera are taken from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) corrected for underreporting of abortion."
- Fu H, Darroch JE, Haas T, Ranjit N (1999). Contraceptive failure rates: new estimates from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.] Fam Plann Perspect. Mar-Apr; 31(2):56-63. PMID 10224543
- "Moreover, women in personal interviews for the NSFG also might overreport use of a contraceptive method at the time of a conception leading to a live birth. Evidence for this suspicion is provided by the uncorrected first-year probabilities of pregnancy of 3.7% for the IUD and 2.3% for Norplant (methods with little or no scope for user error) in the 1995 NSFG; the probabilities are much higher than rates observed in clinical trials of these methods, and for this reason we did not base the typical-use estimates for these two methods on the NSFG."
- Trussell J, Vaughan B (1999). Contraceptive failure, method-related discontinuation and resumption of use: results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect. 31(2):64-72,93 PMID 10224544
- "Overreporting use of a contraceptive method at the time of a conception leading to a live birth" may be a reason for 1995 NSFG failure rates of 2.3% instead of 0.05% for implants and 3.7% instead of 0.8% for IUDs -- so why couldn't that also be a reason for 1995 NSFG failure rates of 3.2% instead of 0.3% for injectables?
- If "overreporting use of a contraceptive method at the time of a conception leading to a live birth" resulted in a (false) background 1995 NSFG failure rate of 2-3%, this would dramatically affect reported failure rates of methods like implants, IUDs and injectables and significantly affect reported failure rates of pills, but only slightly affect reported less effective methods like spermicide, rhythm, withdrawal, etc.
- None of the failure rates based on the 1995 NSFG are very precise, but the 95% confidence intervals for implants (0.6% - 8.6%), injectables (0.6% - 14.4%), and IUDs (0.5% - 22.5%) are especially wide, spanning ranges of 14x, 24x, and 45x vs. ranges of ~1.5x for pills or condoms and ~2x for withdrawal or periodic abstinence. Another good reason for Trussell not to use failure rates based on the 1995 NSFG for implants and IUDs (or injectables).
- Trussell J, Vaughan B (1999). Contraceptive failure, method-related discontinuation and resumption of use: results from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Fam Plann Perspect. 31(2):64-72,93 PMID 10224544
- "Our estimates of the probability of pregnancy during the first year of typical use of spermicides, withdrawal, periodic abstinence, the diaphragm, the male condom, the pill, and Depo-Provera are taken from the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) corrected for underreporting of abortion."
- Using failure rates based on the 1995 NSFG, instead of an average of 1976, 1982, and 1988 NSFG failure rates, resulted in these changes of typical use failure rates in Trussell's table from the 17th to the 18th edition of Contraceptive Technology:
- spermicides: 26% -> 29%
- withdrawal: 19% -> 27%
- periodic abstinence: 25% -> 25%
- diaphragm: 20% -> 16%
- cap (nulliparous): 20% -> 16% (1995 NSFG diaphragm failure rate)
- sponge (nulliparous): 20% -> 16% (1995 NSFG diaphragm failure rate)
- male condom: 14% -> 15%
- pill and minipill: 5% -> 8%
- Using failure rates based on the 1995 NSFG, instead of the Depo-Provera clinical trial typical use failure rate, resulted in this typical use failure rate change in Trussell's table from the 17th to the 18th edition of Contraceptive Technology:
- Depo-Provera: 0.3% -> 3% !
- Using failure rates based on the 1995 NSFG, instead of an average of 1976, 1982, and 1988 NSFG failure rates, resulted in these changes of typical use failure rates in Trussell's table from the 17th to the 18th edition of Contraceptive Technology:
- 69.208.163.127 17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- If I am reading Trussell's 1999 paper correctly, his reasoning for not using the typical failure rate from the clinical trials of Depo-Provera is as follows:
- Note that discontinuation among users of the injectable has been measured differently from discontinuation among users of other methods in clinical trials. As in the NSFG, a woman in a clinical trial is usually considered to be a user of a method as long as she considers herself to be using that method. However, in clinical studies of the injectable, a woman is considered to have discontinued use if she does not re-turn for her next shot within 14 weeks (15 weeks in some studies), even though contraceptive protection probably extends well beyond that period, and even if she returns thereafter and receives another injection. This convention of classifying such women as discontinuing but not pregnant at 14 (or 15) weeks leads to an overestimate of the discontinuation rate and to an underestimate of the pregnancy rate if women miss an injection and become pregnant after 14 weeks but still consider themselves to be using the injectable.
- The average woman on Depo does not ovulate until ten months after her last shot , so it is not unreasonable for her to still consider herself a "Depo-Provera user" even if she forgets or delays a scheduled shot for several weeks. Rather than rejecting the trial data outright, he seems to have weighed the problems with the survey data against this problem with the clinical trial, and decided the inaccuracies in the NSFG were less problematic. The clinical trials of IUDs and Norplant apparently did not have this issue - the definition of "user" for those products is much more clear-cut.
- "Seems to have weighed the problems with the survey data" = did not discuss the problems with the survey data for Depo-Provera.
- What "problem with the clinical trial"?
- In a clinical trial of a contraceptive pill, or patch, or ring -- a woman would NOT consider herself to still be using them after stopping for more than two weeks.
- In a clinical trial of an implant or an IUD -- a woman would NOT consider herself to still be using them after they were removed.
- 69.208.163.127 17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Also on the topic of consistency, the 18th edition of Contraceptive Technology is used throughout the "effectiveness" section of this article (except for the one modification under discussion) and in many other birth control articles (condom, female condom, diaphragm (contraceptive), cervical cap, fertility awareness, coitus interruptus, Lactational Amenorrhea Method, Rhythm Method). I previously had a lengthly discussion on the condom page about this very issue of 17th vs. 18th. If we're going to deem a source reliable, we should be willing to cite its most recent findings on all relevant topics. If it's not reliable, then it shouldn't be anywhere - alternative sources should be found for all these articles. Picking and choosing outdated sources and using them as if they are authoritative is not right.
- The 18th edition of Contraceptive Technology IS NOT used consistently throughout the Birth control articles nor used consistently throughout the Comparison of birth control methods - Comparison table -- picking and choosing sources (or providing no source at all) may not be right, but IS what is currently done:
- Source of typical use failure rate:
- Contraceptive Technology 18th ed. table:
- Contraceptive Technology 17th ed. table:
- Contraceptive Technology 16th = 17th = 18th = 19th eds. tables:
- not Contraceptive Technology table:
- not in Contraceptive Technology table
- The lengthy discussion on the condom page was about 17th vs. 18th ed. perfect use failure rates of 3% vs. 2%.
- This discussion is about 17th vs. 18th ed. Depo-Provera typical use failure rates of 0.3% vs. 3%.
- 69.208.163.127 17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- If it's not a question of reliability of the source, but rather disagreement between reliable sources, then the best solution would seem to be citing both sources. While this overview article isn't the place to get into details, we could simply say something along the lines of "the typical failure rate of Depo Provera is disagreed upon, with figures ranging from less than one percent up to three percent" and cite both Trussell (18th) and the original Depo study. Lyrl C 13:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a question of the overall reliability of the sources. The FDA and the medical reference textbook Contraceptive Technology are both reliable sources.
- It is a question of a large (10-fold) disagreement between reliable sources:
- the 16th (1994) and 17th (1998) editions of Contraceptive Technology,
- the FDA's current (1998) contraceptive labeling guidelines,
- the FDA's draft (2004) contraceptive labeling guidelines
- the 18th (2004) and 19th (2007) editions of Contraceptive Technology
- 69.208.163.127 17:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good work, Lyrl! --Coppertwig 15:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- The FDA does not want to change all the labels it has approved since 1998, and so is sticking to the 1997 edition. This seems to me an administrative decision regarding clerical difficulties, not in any way a judgment of the 2004 edition's numbers. Because Misplaced Pages does not have these same bureaucratic concerns, I stand by my assertion that Misplaced Pages should only use the most recently available edition. The "comparisons" table is problematic in that its format allows only one number - so a discussion of available evidence as is done here or here is not possible. For the outdated numbers, all I can say is inclusion is not an indicator of validity.
- Anyway, my current proposal is to modify the sentence in this article to read along the lines of the typical failure rate of Depo Provera is disagreed upon, with figures ranging from less than one percent up to three percent and citing both Trussell (18th) (I wouldn't cite the NSFG directly - to me, Trussell is more authoritative on effectiveness numbers) and the large clinical trial the FDA has proposed using (PMID 4698589 - I'd rather cite the FDA directly, but considering the document is still in the draft stage, I suggest going directly to the clinical trial data for now). How does that sound? Lyrl C 18:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
As long as we're discussing method comparison
... would folks mind stepping in to review my question about the sorting of the comparison table at Comparison of birth control methods? Please see my question here. Thank you. (Very nice work on the above, Lyrl!) Joie de Vivre 02:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Urine hormone tests as contraception?
Perhaps urine hormone testing (most famously Persona) should be included as a method of birth control - possibly included within Fertility Awareness methods. This method seems to be relatively common in the UK, I'm not sure about elsewhere.
Edits to introduction
I've modified the recently rewritten introduction in several ways:
- I removed the references to Ancient Greece and Rome - these civilizations did not even begin to exist for many centuries after the Kahun Papyrus was written.
- I listed the two ancient contraceptive methods (withdrawal and pessaries) together, followed by the possibly abortifacient herbal methods.
- I removed the reference to absorbents - I believe the description "pessary" includes things like pieces of wool soaked in (supposed) spermicide, which like modern contraceptive sponges work both spermicidally and also by absorbing semen.
- I removed the references to the earliest hormonal contraceptive and earliest condoms. Condoms were a comparatively unpopular method of birth control prior to the development of modern manufacturing techniques by Julius Fromm - I think the 16th century date for a linen condom implies an undue level of importance to these early devices. Hormonal contraceptives and condoms are the most widely used methods today, but in a historical context the development of spermicides, the female barriers of diaphragms (more important in the U.S.) and cervical caps (more important in Europe), and IUDs were also significant developments. I believe it's better to leave this discussion to the history section, rather than selectively mentioning these two methods in the introduction.
- I removed the discussion focused on effectiveness and just straight linked to the "comparisons" article. In addition to being false (the IUS has a lower failure rate than sterilization) and misleading (LAM and strict forms of fertility awareness also have pregnancy rates lower than 1% per year), it completely ignored other factors people use in choosing their birth control method such as ease of use and level of side effects.
- I also shortened the paragraph on religious and cultural attitudes and added a section link. The introduction was almost going into more detail on this topic than the section did - for example, attitudes concerning open discussions of sex are not currently mentioned in the "attitudes" section at all.
Lyrl C 14:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
- I wrote the introduction to help comply with WP:LEAD; I'm fine with what you've done. I have a tendency to ramble. I was basing the birth control effectiveness off of typical (rather than perfect) use ranges. I also completely forgot to distinguish between IUS and IUD- I would qualify the IUS as "hormonal" but that's probably unnecessarily pedantic.-Wafulz 02:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for being a little harsh describing my reasons for the changes - I've gotten into disputes over several of these issues in the past and let my emotional reaction get away with me. You're right about the IUS being hormonal, too, I hadn't really thought that statement through. Thank you for explaining your edits, also - despite my being nitpicky on some issues, I believe they improved the lead significantly. Lyrl C 14:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
sti's, std's
I think in section (i think) 26, about birth control education, it says std's, i think it shuld say STI's, isn't that the proper term? --Jameogle 02:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
- The Misplaced Pages article is currently located at sexually transmitted disease, so I think it's currently fine to use STD. I suspect eventually the Misplaced Pages article will be moved to sexually transmitted infection (which is currently a redirect), and at that point I would support changing other articles to use STI instead. (You could suggest that at Talk:Sexually transmitted disease, if you're interested - it looks like the last time this was discussed was in March 2006, although at that time the move was rejected because STD is the more commonly used term.) Lyrl C 22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Plants or other natural products used as contraceptives?
Just added to the Jatropha article about the nuts and seeds used as a contraceptive in South Sudan. What about a paragraphe listing whatever plant (or other) turns up?
Adding at beginning of paragraph (written in red and bold, possibly, or some other way of alert) a serious warning, mini skull-and-bones sign in front of each plant maybe also, and whatever else in that line.
Could be a table, with columns for 1-the name(s) of the product; 2- reference(s) of where it is said to be used as such; 3-side-effects known; if we don't know of any, make it clear what is meant exactly, by writing "side-effects unknown - caution is required" (or similar) by default, or changing that into "no known side-effects" when we are absolutely sure that it has none (probably not that many if not very few). 4 - anything else that may be thought of.
Made a link to here, but the feed-back from here to the plant is amiss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basicdesign (talk • contribs) 06:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Stats on usage
This article could really benefit from some stats on how many women use which method. If I missed that info, would someone mind pointing it out - thanks! --Phyesalis (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- A number of the sub-articles have a "prevalence" section which discusses how popular the method is: condom#Prevalence, female condom#Worldwide use, intrauterine device#Popularity, for example. Fertility awareness does not have a section like that, but there is the related natural family planning#Prevalence. The diaphragm and cervical cap articles discuss popularity in their "history" sections, and the pill article touches on it in the introductory paragraph. If you think it would benefit this article, feel free to incorporate some of the information from the sub-articles. Lyrl C 21:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Although it primarily covers United States, this article might also give some useful data. Zodon (talk) 21:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Douching
I think it should be clarified that while douching with water, juice, milk, soda, etc. does not prevent pregnancy, it is inappropriate to clam douching with ANY liquid will not be effective. Douching with rubbing alcohol for instance will not only prevent pregnancy (as well as being very painful), but it can also make a woman sterile. And don't think no one is stupid enough to try it, I know that is not true. 74.240.193.57 (talk) 02:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- During the 1930s, women attempted to avoid pregnancy by douching with toxic mercury compounds, or with Lysol. Medical estimates at the time were that 70% of these women got pregnant each year. Article. While this may be a reduction from the pregnancy rate from doing nothing at all, I would hardly call a method with a 70% failure rate "effective". Lyrl C 01:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Scope of see also section
The introduction of this article defines birth control as actions taken to prevent pregnancy.
Recently introduced to the "See also" section were links to the lifestyle choice of childfree (though oddly the actual link is a redirect to that page), and the social philosophy of natalism. I propose that both of these links would be more appropriate for a "see also" section in the family planning article, not here. Neither a discussion of a lifestyle or a social philosophy is directly related to the methods of birth control. (This article should probably link to family planning, however, as it is a subset of that topic.)
What do others think? Lyrl C 13:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Common thread seems to be employing contraception (or its opposite). They seem at least as relevant to contraception as Population control and One-child policy (which are both social concepts that often employ contraception), which are also in the see also section. I added childless by choice as a balance to these links. Pop control and one child policy have some connotations of externally imposed restrictions, so for balance offering link that relates to personal freedom and choice enabled by contraception. (Sorry about linking to redirect - that is the name I am most familiar with, so what I remember.) If want to move Pop control and one-child policy to family planning (childfree and natalism already there) and remove them all here, that's fine by me. If going to keep some and not others here, we probably need to formulate some guidelines to clarify what goes where. Zodon (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Task force proposal
Interested in improving birth control articles? I've proposed a task force to help coordinate work in this category: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine/Task forces#Reproductive medicine
I do not anticipate this being a high-workload task force. Just having a few people to bounce ideas off of every once in a while would be great! Please add your name to the proposal description if you're interested. Lyrl C 00:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- This task force has been created. The task force's page is here and all interested editors are welcome. You don't have to be a medical expert -- just willing to put the talk page on your watchlist or to take a look at it every now and again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Delete this run-on sentence?
In a non-random, Internet survey of 1,400 women who found and completed a 10-minute multiple-choice online questionnaire listed in one of several popular search engines, women who received sex education from schools providing primarily abstinence information, or contraception and abstinence information equally, reported fewer unplanned pregnancies than those who received primarily contraceptive information, who in turn reported fewer unplanned pregnancies than those who received no information.
This sentence is very wordy. What is the popular search engine? What questionnaire did they complete? It is my understanding that women, specifically teen girls who receive abstinence-only education have higher rates of teen pregnancy and STD's than those who receive medically accurate information regarding sexual intercourse. This sentence makes absolutely no sense. It states that women who received information about contraception, (i.e. they use it), are having more babies than those who don't use contraception? With no method of birth control at all, 80% of women become pregnant within the first year of sexual intercourse with a partner/partners.
The pill(contraceptive) is 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy. A woman who takes the pill is much less likely to have a baby than a woman who relies on condoms or nothing at all.
It's like a complicated story problem from math class in which you are asked to determine which group of women has had the fewest babies. It is also very vague. Fix it please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjanata (talk • contribs) 04:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Probability of pregnancy from single unprotected intercourse
According to it's "about .014 (i.e., the odds are 1 in 70)." Could be mentioned somewhere in this article. 78.105.220.50 (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a static number, though. On the most fertile day of the menstrual cycle, odds are 2 in 3 ( odds ratio of .667 on peak day of cervical mucus). Starting several days into the luteal phase, odds are more like 1 in 100,000. The .014 average seems very useful for population and fertility studies, but given the wide day-to-day variation in female fertility, I'm not sure it would be helpful for those trying to learn about birth control. Lyrl C 00:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Hindu attitude
There is a major error within the religious section in the article, specifically the part that talks about Hindus. Hindus may NOT, per scripture, use contraception, nor may they perform abortion. I attempted to access the link that is supposedly given as a reference that says it is acceptable, and the webpage could not be accessed. Please fix, thank you. I would fix it, but the article is protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.9.255 (talk) 00:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also I understand that a couple of recent prominent Hindus have suggested that it may be okay, and perhaps there are some Hindus (as there are with every religion) that do use contraception instead of abstinence, but per the accepted scriptures, it is unacceptable to use contraception. Please fix, thanks.
This is an archive of past discussions about Birth control. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
- "Reducing unintended pregnancy in the United States". Contraception. January 2008.