You read it? yes? yes? okay. SO. Karen's like "well, if you wanna be really gutsy... you could talk about how Natural Family Planning is a more sustainable then artificial contraceptives." and then I'm like "HECK YEAH LETS BE GUTSY AND WRITE A CONTROVERSIAL PAPER ABOUT ARTIFICIAL CONTRACEPTIVES AND NATURAL FAMILY PLANNING!!!"
So. I present this to my teacher and she's like "there's no way you can do this." Let me tell you, I have never been more determined to do this in my life.... I fought. and guess what? I WON. I wrote an essay on some of the negative effects artificial contraceptives have on the environment, and how much better life would be if everyone used Natural Family Planning. And I would like to present it to you. Because I'm pretty dang proud of myself. My English class thinks I'm totally nuts, but I bet you no one has ever written on this topic before. Talk about standing out on your first quarter of college....
So Here ya go. Introducing Cc the scholar. This is my gutsy essay on birth control.
Considering
the Sustainability of Family Planning Methods
Family
planning is an important part of our culture, but has the common society ever
considered the sustainability of family planning methods? This paper will
compare the sustainability of two contraceptive choices: natural family planning
and artificial contraceptives such as the pill. It will examine the effects
artificial contraceptives and natural family planning have on the environment,
taking into consideration waste water pollution, and solid waste minimization.
The evidence suggests that natural family planning is a more sustainable method
of contraception.
According to the Encyclopedia of Women’s Health, natural family
planning is a method of avoiding or achieving a pregnancy by learning the signs
and patterns of fertility and abstaining from intercourse during fertile times.
Couples observe signs of fertility in the woman by tracking the woman’s body
temperature, mucus secretion and other signs. This method is also referred to
as the fertility awareness method, the rhythm method, or periodic abstinence
(“Natural Family Planning”). It has been proven that natural family planning is
as effective as artificial contraceptives. According to Professor
Petra Frank-Herrmann, of the University of Heidelerg, Germany, “for a contraceptive
method to be rated as highly efficient as the hormonal pill, there should be
less than one pregnancy per 100 women per year when the method is used
correctly.” Professor Frank-Herrmann conducted a study involving 900 woman
using the symptothermal method (STM) of natural family planning. She reports
that “the pregnancy rate for woman who used the STM method correctly in our
study was 0.4%, which can be interpreted as one pregnancy occurring per 250
woman per year” (“Natural
Family Planning As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds”).
Since the effectiveness of natural family planning is equal to, or greater than
that of artificial contraceptive methods with the failure rate of Oral
contraceptives currently standing at 0.7%, (Jurgen Dinger et al.) Professor
Frank-Herrmann maintains that natural family planning is “an effective and
acceptable method of family planning” (“Natural
Family Planning as Effective as Contraceptive Pill, New Research Finds”). Natural family planning
can be seen as an acceptable and possible method of contraception.
Not
only is natural family planning as effective as artificial contraception, it is
also less harmful to our environment. Artificial contraceptives negatively
effect the environment by introducing hormones into the water. Hormonal
contraceptives prevent pregnancy by increasing the levels of certain hormones
in a women’s body. Traces of the hormones are present in the urine of women who
use contraceptives such as the pill, patches, and vaginal rings. As recorded in an article in Biotech Business Week “Researchers at
Umea University and the Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg,
Sweden have discovered that traces of many medicines can be found in fish that
have been swimming in treated waste water” (“University of Gothenburg; Medicine
residues may threaten fish reproduction”). The article continues “the study
shows that levonorgestrel - which is found in many contraceptive pills,
including the morning-after pill - can impact on the environment and
constitutes a risk factor for the ability of fish to reproduce.” Joakim Larsson
at the Sahlgrenska Academy, one of the researchers behind the study states that
“If we know how our medicines affect the environment, we will be in a better
position to choose environmentally friendly alternatives“(“University
of Gothenburg; Medicine residues may threaten fish reproduction”). Natural family planning is one
alternative that will not hurt our environment.
Another
factor to consider in comparing the two carbon footprints is the amount of
solid waste generated by each contraceptive method. A truly sustainable form of
contraception would not produce waste that contributes to landfills. Christopher
Mims describes the importance of reducing waste in his article “Landfills”
published in Scientific American.
Americans
generate 2.50 million tons of trash every year, of which only 83 million
tons--about a third--gets recycled or composted. The rest goes into landfills,
which are essentially giant factories that convert garbage into toxic materials
and greenhouse gases. Water leaching through the detritus picks up industrial
chemicals and heavy metals, all too often depositing those poisons in nearby
groundwater supplies. Meanwhile anaerobic bacteria convert organic matter into
methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide.
It is highly important
that we minimize the amount of waste we are producing. Artificial
Contraceptives generate waste from their packaging. This may seem like a small
impact, but a study in 2008 shows that 61 percent of women in the United States
use contraceptives (Mosher WD, Jones J.). When
we put into perspective the amount of women using the pill, we can estimate the
large amount of solid waste this is creating. Natural family planning generates
no waste. Even if it seems like a little thing to cut down on waste like
packaging from contraceptive methods, it is highly beneficial to the
environment when we minimize our waste and decrease our carbon footprint.
Natural
family planning is an effective and sustainable method of family planning,
using only the tools Mother Nature has presented us with. It creates no waste,
releases no hormones into the environment, and leads to a healthier life style.
Natural family planning could be one small step in our road to sustainability
and healthy living.
Work
Cited
Dinger,
Jurgen et al, “Effectiveness of Oral Contraceptive Pills in a Large U.S Cohort
Comparing Progestogen and Regimen.” Obstetrics
& Gynecology 117.1 (2011): 1. Web. 5 Nov. 2011
Herrman, Frank P., et al. “The Effectiveness
of a fertility awareness based method to avoid pregnancy in relation to a
couple’s sexual behavior during the fertile time: a prospective longitudinal
study.” Human Reproduction. 22.5 (2007): 1310-1319
ProQuest Research Library. Web. 25 Oct.2011
Mims, Christopher. “Landfills.” Science
American 303.3 (2010):70. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct.2011
Mosher, WD, and J. Jones. “Use of contraception in the United
States 1982–2008.” National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat
23.29. 2010.
“Natural
Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research
Finds." ScienceDaily. N.p. 21 Feb. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.
“Natural Family
Planning." Encyclopedia of Women's Health.
Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, 2004. Credo Reference.
Web. 26 Oct. 2011.
“Universidy
of Gothenburg; Medicine residues may threaten fish reproduction.” Biotech Business Week 3 May. 2010: 1. Proquest. Web. 25 Oct. 2011
So, the next essay we were assigned was a persuasive essay on the same topic. A "take a stand" kinda thing. So, I wrote about how Natural Family Planning needed to be included in the sexual education curriculum. this has a lot of the same info in it, but more of a tone. and I liked it a lot better then the other one. :) Here's my essay on Sexual Education:
Education
for a Future of Sustainability in Sexual Education
We are constantly reminded to make
sustainable choices in our everyday life. Grocers offer reusable bags as we
leave the store. Stickers promoting waste reduction decorate our paper towel dispensers.
Commercials remind us to reduce, reuse, and recycle. Eco clubs are formed in
schools to protect the environment. But one factor people rarely consider when
committing themselves to a sustainable lifestyle is their choice of
contraceptive methods. However, new studies show that our contraceptive choices
effect the environment. If these consequences were better understood, people
would be in a position to make more sustainable choices. Often the first
information people gather on contraceptives comes from sexual education
programs. Public schools should
introduce methods of contraception that are both effective and sustainable. Natural
family planning is one such method. In order to create a sustainable future,
Natural Family Planning should be taught in sexual education classes.
Natural family planning (NFP) is a method of avoiding or achieving a
pregnancy by learning the signs and patterns of fertility (Encyclopedia of Women’s Health). The woman tracks
her fertility by recording her body temperature, mucus secretions, and other
signs. In order to avoid pregnancy, the couple abstains from intercourse during
fertile times. This is referred to as the symptothermal method. NFP is also known as the fertility awareness
method, the rhythm method, or periodic abstinence. This method, though it takes
a considerable amount of commitment, is effective and beneficial to the
environment.
Unlike
NFP, artificial contraceptives negatively affect the environment by introducing
hormones into the water through waste water. Hormonal contraceptives prevent
pregnancy by increasing the levels of certain hormones in a woman’s body. Traces
of these hormones are present in the urine of women who use contraceptives such
as the pill, patches, and vaginal rings. Researchers at Umea University and the
Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, discovered traces
of these same hormones in the blood of fish that have been swimming in treated waste
water. (“University of Gothenburg; Medicine residues may threaten fish
reproduction”). An article in Biotech Business Week reports, “the study
shows that levonorgestrel - which is found in many contraceptive pills,
including the morning-after pill - can impact on the environment and
constitutes a risk factor for the ability of fish to reproduce.”
In choosing hormonal contraceptives, we alter the eco system for the worse.
In choosing hormonal contraceptives, we alter the eco system for the worse.
When
measuring the impact of our contraceptive choices on the environment, we must
also consider the waste generated by each method. A study in 2008 found that
10.7 million women in the united states were currently using oral
contraceptives (Mosher and Jones 19). Consider how
much packaging this generates. Much of this packaging is disposed of in
landfills. In his article “Landfills”, Christopher Mims describes the negative impact
this has on the environment:
landfills,
[…] are essentially giant factories that convert garbage into toxic materials
and greenhouse gases. Water leaching through the detritus picks up industrial
chemicals and heavy metals, all too often depositing those poisons in nearby
groundwater supplies. Meanwhile anaerobic bacteria convert organic matter into
methane, a greenhouse gas more potent than carbon dioxide. (Mims)
In
comparison, NFP generates no waste, and therefore does not contribute to toxic
landfills that threaten our environment.
One
reason educators might be hesitant to include NFP in a sexual education
curriculum is due to concerns about its effective rate. This is partially
because of its historical background. When the method was first developed in
the 1930’s, it consisted of recording only the length of the women’s menstrual
cycle, and the days in between in order to determine the fertility of a the
women. This is referred to as the rhythm method, and is not very effective. In
an article in The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health
Care Scientist Gunter Freundl explains that, because the length of a
woman’s cycle varies, the length and timing of the fertility window changes
with each cycle. (Freundl 116). The rhythm method is often what comes to mind
when people hear the phrase “Natural family planning.”
However,
as science has developed through the years, factors such as tracking mucus secretions
and basal body temperature have been discovered, creating a far more accurate
and effective method. This is known as the Symptothermal method (STM). In fact,
it has been demonstrated that NFP is as effective as artificial contraceptives.
In 2007, Professor Frank-Herrmann of the University of
Heidelerg, Germany conducted a study involving 900 woman using STM. She reports
that “the pregnancy rate for woman who used the STM method correctly in our
study was 0.4%.” (“Natural Family Planning As Effective As Contraceptive Pill,
New Research Finds”). The failure rate of Oral contraceptives currently stands
at 0.7%, (Jurgen Dinger et al.) Since the effectiveness of NFP is equal to, or
greater than that of artificial contraceptive methods. Professor Frank-Herrmann
maintains that NFP is “an effective and acceptable method of family planning”
(“Natural Family Planning as Effective as Contraceptive Pill, New Research
Finds”). NFP has evolved since the 1930’s; therefore, educators need not
hesitate to include NFP as an option in their sexual education programs.
As
an additional benefit, NFP is free from negative side effects. Contraceptives come with many health risks
including blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, depression, ovarian cysts, and
other serious conditions. (Office on Women’s Health. 8) Minor side effects include
weight gain, vision problems, irregular menstrual bleeding, dizziness,
headaches, abdominal bloating or pain, and others. (Office on Women’s Health. 8)
The education systems should be
cautioning their students on these risks, as well as giving them the option of
a healthier alternative.
Many
object to NFP because of the commitment it requires. But when we compare the
other sustainable life style choices, such as recycling, composting, using
reusable bags for grocery’s, buying products that require less packaging, or
eating a vegan diet, we can see that sustainability always requires commitment.
Teachers don’t hesitate to share information with students about vegan diets,
neither should they hesitate to share information about NFP.
Educators
already incorporate information about, recycle and energy conservation and
endangered species into their curriculum. There is no reason why schools
shouldn’t include natural family planning in sexual education programs to give
students a more sustainable alternative. It is commonly said that children hold
the future in their hands. But it is also what we teach them that will effect
what our future holds. It is educators job to provide students with sustainable
alternatives, and it is the responsibility of each of us
to take the information we’ve been given, and make good choices.
Works
Cited
Dinger,
Jurgen et al, “Effectiveness of Oral Contraceptive Pills in a Large U.S Cohort
Comparing Progestogen and Regimen.” Obstetrics
& Gynecology 117.1 (2011): 1. Web. 5 November 2011
Freundl,
Gunter, Irving Sivin, and Istvan Batar. “State of the Art of
Non-hormonal Methods of contraception: IV. Natural Family planning” The
European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care 15. (2010):
116 Web.
Herrman, Frank P., et al. “The
Effectiveness of a fertility awareness based method to avoid pregnancy in
relation to a couple’s sexual behavior during the fertile time: a prospective
longitudinal study.” Human Reproduction. 22.5 (2007): 1310-1319 ProQuest Research Library. Web. 25 Oct.2011
Mims, Christopher. “Landfills.” Science
American 303.3 (2010):70. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct.2011
Mosher, WD, and J. Jones. “Use of contraception in the United
States 1982–2008.” National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat
23.29. 2010.
“Natural
Family Planning Method As Effective As Contraceptive Pill, New Research
Finds." ScienceDaily. N.p. 21 Feb. 2007. Web. 25 Oct. 2011.
“Natural Family
Planning." Encyclopedia of Women's Health.
Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media, 2004. Credo Reference.
Web. 26 October 2011.
United
States. Dept of Health and Human Services. Office on Woman’s Health. Birth
Control Methods 2009. Web.
“Universidy of Gothenburg; Medicine residues
may threaten fish reproduction.” Biotech
Business Week 3 May. 2010: 1. Proquest.
Web. 25 Oct. 2011
But yeah. This was the exciting project I got to work on. It was really hard. I had a break down probably every week and my big sister who's a college graduate had to hold my hand through it all. But it was a good experience. There were several aspects of this subject that I didn't get to touch on, which made me sad, but I was glad I was able to do what I did. It was exciting to be able to stand up for what I believe in. Most of my class had never even heard of natural family planning, so I was able to shed some light on the subject, and everyone was really excited about it which was really cool.
I go to school. I'm half a college student. I'm doing big things and making people think. I'm learning that I'm not stupid, which is really cool. Life is good. God is good. Amen? Amen.