In New Hope For Infertility With NaProTechnology, the advantages of a new reproductive science that uses the physician’s medical and surgical energies in a way that works cooperatively with a woman’s natural reproductive function is reviewed. Current artificial reproductive technologies (ART) in widespread use rely on unnatural laboratory procedures rather than natural sex and are associated with significant risks and moral objections.
Here is a summary of what is presented:
Artificial Reproductive Technology: (a) ignores the underlying causes of infertility; (b) is associated with a multiple pregnancy rate of 35.4% (CDC Data); (c) is more than twice as likely to result in a child with a major birth defect: 9% versus 4.2% (New England Journal of Medicine); (d) recent studies suggest that ART may also be associated with higher rates of low birth weight infants, cancer, and even developmental issues; (e) ART sometimes requires “selective reduction,” which involves selectively “reducing” (i.e., killing) additional babies in the womb when there are too many.
NaProTechnology and The Creighton Model System The Creighton Model System is a standardized gynecologic charting system that is an integral part of NaProTechnology. Without the Creighton Model System, the physician who practices NaProTechnology would have inadequate information for the diagnosis and treatment of reproductive problems. Usually, a couple would start this program by learning how to chart the menstrual cycle according to the Creighton Model system. A medical consultation with a physician who is trained in NaProTechnology can be conducted at the same time. Frequently, the evaluation of infertility will include a targeted hormone evaluation of the menstrual cycle and an ultrasound series to evaluate ovarian function (this cannot be done without the Creighton Model System). A surgical evaluation is sometimes needed as part of a complete investigation.
The bottom line is that these techniques result in a “functional” and/or “structural” diagnosis that can then be addressed medically or surgically and the end result is natural conception.
Unfortunately, because of ART, we are led to believe that there is a “quick fix” for infertility. In reality, ART, doesn’t address the cause of infertility at all and does nothing to correct medical problems that might also affect the outcome of a pregnancy. Even worse, the conceptual, perinatal, and developmental implications and dangers associated with conception in a laboratory, it seems, are only now becoming appreciated.
According the Pope Paul VI Institute, NaProTechnology success rates are 1.5 to 3 times better than IVF (23.5% versus 38.4%-81.8%).
More information on this new DVD can be found in the NaProTechnology Communications Update of March 18, 2005 at: www.saintmaxworldwide.org/projects.asp
