Ovulation method not to be confused with other contraception

Press, 19 August 1978, Page 10

Ovulation method not to be confused with other contraception

By .

AVERIL BATHURST

The ovulation method of contraception is not getting the publicity it needs to show that it has a sound scientific basis. Dr A. Holmes, medical supervisor of the Christchurch natural family planning clinics says that information supplied about it by medical sources is often inadequate and confuses the ovulation method with the rhythm and temperature methods. She says that a general scepticism as to its reliability is founded on a lot of antagonistic and uninformed comments by doctors. Consequently many young people who are interested in a natural way of planning their families in line with present' “au naturelie” trends, are unaware of the ovulation method and what it involves. Dr G. Metcalf, an analytical chemist at Princess Margaret Hospital and a Career Fellow of the Medical Research Association, who has for the last few years been studying ovulation patterns in women, has found a marked resistance to the pill and a general antidrug feeling in her research in the city. She says that there is an increasing interest in the science of cervical mucous (which the ovulation method uses to observe ovulation patterns.) Staff at the Family Planning Clinic say t,here is a lot of curiosity regarding the ovulation method and they receive a lot of general inquiries about it. Doctors at the clinic see the method as unnatural in that it inhibits the spontaneity of intercourse and imposes sometimes long periods of abstinence (at the most a week to 10 days) One of the doctors, Dr H. McGill, says that human frailty makes these periods unrealistic and suggests that, the method is only practical if used in conjunction with other

contraceptives during times of fertility. However, users of the ovulation method regard the self-imposed abstinence as advantageous to a marriage relationship in. that the sexual act does not become humdrum but is, in fact, enhanced because of the restraint. The use of other contraceptives during fertile times is discouraged because these can interfere with mucous detection; for example, contraceptive foams used in conjunction with diaphragms and condoms. For many, religious convictions have directed them to natural family planning in the first place. Dr McGill says that unless the woman using natural family planning has an understanding and co-operative husband she can see very serious problems arising. Great conscientiousness would be needed to avoid pregnancy. This again is considered by natural family planners to be another advantageous by-product of the method in that it encourages joint responsibility in contraception. Dr Metcalf sees a large margin of error for premenopausal women using the method. By measuring the level of pregnanediol, the urinary form of the hormone progesterone, which rises sharply when ovulation occurs, Dr Metcalf has determined fluctuating ovulation patterns during this time in a woman’s life and claims that irregularity makes detection difficult.

“It is a very complicated method, ’ and a woman would need to be intelligent to learn it.” Dr Metcalf says she has become aware of a great anxiety and fear of pregnancy among women in the 40 to 50-year-old age group and thinks abortion should be freely available to all women over 40. Staff at the Family Planning Centre say that they are keen to supply information to clients about the method. “We respect a person’s choice and consider that, as a contraceptive clinic, we should offer information concerning all types

of methods,” Dr McGill said. “We have tried to join forces with natural family planning teachers and have a tutor visit the clinic for consultations at certain times. But we were met with resistance by the teachers, who did not wish to espouse other forms of contraception and do not allow others to teach the method unless they themselves are first using it. “We just aren’t prepared to use the method ourselves as a prerequisite to teaching it,” Dr McGill said. “It is not regarded as reliable by the medical profession generally but I can see that it • could be verv ■ ''hi’e if it •:<?

as scientific as they make out.” However. Dr Holmes says that she has not been asked by Family Planning Clinic staff to make available her teachers to F.P.C. clients on the clinic premises. She says that it is preferable that the method be taught by users to avoid it falling into disrepute because of poor , teaching. Statistics of failure rates could also be misleading as it was difficult to ascertain motivation of patients and the-quality of teaching. Dr Holmes is adamant that natural family plan-

ning centres do not moralise and set themselves up as evangelists. She sees the periods of abstinence as imposed by the method as “not on for most people.”