What Is This?

[i<3franciscans]

If nuns are using it for medical issues I find nothing wrong with it. The fact that CNN would address this as an issue is weird though. There are other thing that they could be talking about...

[i<3LSOP]

[quote name='Sister Marie' timestamp='1323309979' post='2347048']
It's a big misunderstanding.

I have a few problems with this whole thing on several levels. The first problem I have is the scientific inaccuracies... but I'm not even going to begin to try to touch that. As a sister what makes me the most upset with this whole article is that it is built upon several false premises:
[list=1]
[*]"Nuns" are just one whole group of women who are exactly the same.
[*]Not having sex = illness
[*]That nuns are ignorant of their health and so need someone else to tell them what to do.
[*]That nuns are so ignorant that they would be unable to prudently and prayerfully make a moral decision about how to care for themselves under the authority of their superiors.
[/list]



I know that this seems like the appropriate response but I would ask you to keep an open mind here because you may find that you are reacting in a way that is not exactly correct. Remember the pill is at the simplest a medication that manipulates hormones. There is absolutely nothing immoral about taking a medication that fixes hormonal imbalances. The problem with the pill is that it 1) is a contraceptive (It can only "contracept" though if one is having sex... obviously nuns are not, therefore no contraception would be occurring) and 2) it is an abortive substance (if one does become pregnant it can cause an abortion.. again, this obviously does not apply to nuns).

I know quite a few sisters who are out of extreme pain due to the effects of this hormone regulating treatment. There is nothing immoral about their use of the pill because there is no chance they will become pregnant and they are not having sex. The "pill" as we know it - has been a terrible destruction of family and society... the actual medicine in there is actually quite useful when used in line with God's plan for the life of woman and is not inherently evil. Contraception is.
[/quote]


I agree with this... if it is because of hormones and monthly things... it is perfectly fine to take as a medication.

[Sarah147]

My doctor finds bc unsafe. He opts for bioidentical hormones for the true deficiencies.

[Cherie]

[quote name='i<3LSOP' timestamp='1323362606' post='2347358']


I agree with this... if it is because of hormones and monthly things... it is perfectly fine to take as a medication.
[/quote]

Yes, it is not sinful for someone to be on birth control for therapeutic reasons (i.e. "hormones and monthly things"), but there are better, safer, and more medically accurate treatments. I know many doctors (specifically those trained in [url="http://www.popepaulvi.com/"]NaPro Technology[/url]) who firmly believe that the Pill is [i]never[/i] the answer to a woman's health issue, because it only masks symptoms and can cause other hormonal/physical difficulties down the line, not to mention the side effects. (And this applies to [i]all [/i]women, not just those who are hoping to have children in the future, because it is well known that women who have been on the Pill for a long period of time can have fertility issues when she decides to come off it in order to have children.) Personally, although there is no sin involved in taking the Pill for therapeutic reasons, I would not feel comfortable giving money to, or otherwise supporting through use of, what I consider to be one of the greatest evils of our time. Like I said, it is not sinful for someone to be on birth control for health issues unrelated to preventing pregnancy. But I suppose it's my "boycott mentality" that would impel me to search for other alternatives, which (as my ob/gyn back home has told me) also happen to be better for the physical well-being of the woman.

[i<3LSOP]

[quote name='CherieMadame' timestamp='1323374408' post='2347489']

Yes, it is not sinful for someone to be on birth control for therapeutic reasons (i.e. "hormones and monthly things"), but there are better, safer, and more medically accurate treatments. I know many doctors (specifically those trained in [url="http://www.popepaulvi.com/"]NaPro Technology[/url]) who firmly believe that the Pill is [i]never[/i] the answer to a woman's health issue, because it only masks symptoms and can cause other hormonal/physical difficulties down the line, not to mention the side effects. (And this applies to [i]all [/i]women, not just those who are hoping to have children in the future, because it is well known that women who have been on the Pill for a long period of time can have fertility issues when she decides to come off it in order to have children.) Personally, although there is no sin involved in taking the Pill for therapeutic reasons, I would not feel comfortable giving money to, or otherwise supporting through use of, what I consider to be one of the greatest evils of our time. Like I said, it is not sinful for someone to be on birth control for health issues unrelated to preventing pregnancy. But I suppose it's my "boycott mentality" that would impel me to search for other alternatives, which (as my ob/gyn back home has told me) also happen to be better for the physical well-being of the woman.
[/quote]


Cherie you certainly deserve that Church Scholar tag!

[Cherie]

I also wanted to clarify that I understand some people don't have any other [i]viable[/i] option: either they don't have access to the best care in that regard, or insurance issues prevent them from getting different care for the issue, etc. (For example, where I am currently living, I don't have access to a good NFP-only doctor. I'd have to travel an hour to my old ob/gyn in PA, and I realize many simply can't do that for whatever reason.) I sincerely hope these doctors become more readily available for women all over the country, because we desperately need them. Like I said, the Pill simply masks the problems, and/or adds other problems later. There are other, safer, more effective ways to treat "female" problems.

But I hope that those women who CAN seek better care sincerely strive to do so, even if it's more of a hassle, because if we all just "gave in" to the Pill (which, I must reiterate, is not sinful if used for therapeutic reasons) we'd be giving in to the seemingly ubiquitous (yet erroneous) idea that the Pill is a "fix all" for female health issues, and we're going to perpetuate that myth. And so it would be harder for these great, cutting-edge NaPro doctors (and those with similar philosophies) to become more available and less expensive.

[cmaD2006]

[quote name='i<3LSOP' timestamp='1323309284' post='2347034']
It's awful. I don't wanna get kicked off of PM so I won't say too much.

Nuns take a vow of chastity for a reason! I think that nuns should not take it at all for any reason. It is gross that CNN would do that.
[/quote]

Actually birth control pills can be used for treatment of PCOS and other like diseases. So a religious who would need to use it for such a disease is in line with Church teaching.

[savvy]

This is another stab at the church. If you're on the pill, they'll say you must be having sex, because only freaks don't do that. And if you are not, they'll say you are ignorant and not aware of the medical reasons for it or the benefits.

Never mind that none of these people know any nuns personally or we are to assume that they don't consult their doctors about this that CNN has to tell them what to do.

It's stuff like this that makes me really angry.

[brandelynmarie]

I once was on the pill temporarily, solely for medical reasons. Did it fix my female issue? Yes. Did I suffer from side-effects? Oh yes, especially from extreme irritabilty which made me feel border-line homicidal. (This is just my experience with it!)


May I just say how tired I am about statistics used to put a spin on just about everything?

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Sister Marie' timestamp='1323309979' post='2347048']

I have a few problems with this whole thing on several levels. The first problem I have is the scientific inaccuracies... but I'm not even going to begin to try to touch that. As a sister what makes me the most upset with this whole article is that it is built upon several false premises:
[list=1]
[*]"Nuns" are just one whole group of women who are exactly the same.
[*]Not having sex = illness
[*]That nuns are ignorant of their health and so need someone else to tell them what to do.
[*]That nuns are so ignorant that they would be unable to prudently and prayerfully make a moral decision about how to care for themselves under the authority of their superiors.
[/list]
[/quote]


These are the most important points I think.

1. Yes, they have put all nuns into a 'group' entity instead of recognising them as individual women each with her own health needs - truly patronising.

2. Celbacy is something that causes disease ---- excuse me What about sexually transmitted diseases??

3. This is even more patronising than the first ... nuns need to be told what to do about their own health.

4. This homogenous 'group of nuns' has no idea how to go about seeking assistance with their health issues - arrgghh!


If this article were printed out, it would be good .... for wrapping fish and chips!

As an individual woman, I have had health issues all my life with my mentrual cycle. I have sought out treatment from my own doctor and been helped as required. As a young woman, I tried using the contraceptive pill for relief of symptoms, only to experience even worse ones like migraines! I tried several different combinations of hormones with no success and finally sought out other methods of relief, some more effective than others.

As a mature woman, I have also had hormone problems associated with menopause. I did not want to go the HRT route and put off taking hormones for many years until my symptoms became not only unbearable, but also interfered with my ability to perform my duties and earn an income. My doctor and I worked out a personal hormone replacement therapy that involves using estrogen and progestrone separately in invividually tailored amounts to reduce (not elimimate) some of my symptoms. My doctor is also closely monitoring my health in respect to these hormones, so that I can reduce them slowly over time as my body adapts to the decreased level of naturally occurring hormones in my body.

Even if a woman requires hormonal medication, there are many ways to approach this problem without simply taking a 'contraceptive pill' hoping that 'one size fits all'. This article shows no respect either for nuns or for women in general.

Print it out and make some fish and chips!

[Antigonos]

[quote name='InPersonaChriste' timestamp='1323310100' post='2347051']
Birth control can highten the chance of getting cancer (I have a med student filling me in on her studies).


Just saying it shouldn't be that healthy to pump that much estrogen into someone.

Though I guess on another standpoint I know of a person who has to take birth control because the medicated pills she is on need birth control to balance it.
[/quote]

OK, here's the nurse midwife, Moi [to paraphrase Miss Piggy]: Virgins can get cancer. Women who have given birth to 10 children can get cancer. Breastfeeding mothers can get cancer, mothers who have never breastfed can get cancer. Not to mention that all women, of all ages, can have a variety of gynecological problems. Being a female--whether child, adolescent, woman of childbearing age or past the menopause -- means that one is liable to certain health problems that men never face [of course, AFAIK, no woman has ever had testicular cancer or prostatitis ]

Many of these gyn problems, though by no means all, involve hormones that affect the reproductive system. Some can be alleviated by lifestyle changes [diet, fitness, not smoking]. Some have a genetic component [especially breast and ovarian cancer]. Recurrent urinary tract infections or candida vaginitis ["yeast infections"] have nothing to do with a woman's sexual history or lack thereof. Yet there is a kind of stigma attached: only "loose" women get these things.

Phooey. Sister Marie is completely right in that the Pill is a medication. Indeed, in Jewish Law, because of the Laws of Family Purity which forbid marital contact during the wife's period and for a week thereafter, the Pill is sometimes prescribed when a woman's cycle is so short that she and her husband could never be together otherwise [i][b]even though [/b][/i]this makes the performance of another commandment, "be fruitful and multiply" impossible. The concept of "shalom bayit" or "peace in the home" takes precedence. Incidentally, there is another Jewish concept worth noting: "marit eyin" or "avoidance of the appearance of evil". If I see a guy who's wearing a yarmulke in a non-kosher restaurant, even if he's just ordered a Coke, he is risking being the subject of scurrilous gossip and shouldn't do so.

BTW, as a last bit of trivia for today: do you all know where the drug companies, until very recently, got the necessary basic substances for hormone manufacture? Infertility drugs were made from hormones extracted from women's urine, and the easiest place to get a large number of women to donate was....convents! [now most are made by genetic engineering]

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Antigonos' timestamp='1323444351' post='2347958']

OK, here's the nurse midwife, Moi [to paraphrase Miss Piggy]: Virgins can get cancer. Women who have given birth to 10 children can get cancer. Breastfeeding mothers can get cancer, mothers who have never breastfed can get cancer. Not to mention that all women, of all ages, can have a variety of gynecological problems. Being a female--whether child, adolescent, woman of childbearing age or past the menopause -- means that one is liable to certain health problems that men never face [of course, AFAIK, no woman has ever had testicular cancer or prostatitis ]

Many of these gyn problems, though by no means all, involve hormones that affect the reproductive system. Some can be alleviated by lifestyle changes [diet, fitness, not smoking]. Some have a genetic component [especially breast and ovarian cancer]. Recurrent urinary tract infections or candida vaginitis ["yeast infections"] have nothing to do with a woman's sexual history or lack thereof. Yet there is a kind of stigma attached: only "loose" women get these things.

Phooey. Sister Marie is completely right in that the Pill is a medication. Indeed, in Jewish Law, because of the Laws of Family Purity which forbid marital contact during the wife's period and for a week thereafter, the Pill is sometimes prescribed when a woman's cycle is so short that she and her husband could never be together otherwise [i][b]even though [/b][/i]this makes the performance of another commandment, "be fruitful and multiply" impossible. The concept of "shalom bayit" or "peace in the home" takes precedence. Incidentally, there is another Jewish concept worth noting: "marit eyin" or "avoidance of the appearance of evil". If I see a guy who's wearing a yarmulke in a non-kosher restaurant, even if he's just ordered a Coke, he is risking being the subject of scurrilous gossip and shouldn't do so.

BTW, as a last bit of trivia for today: do you all know where the drug companies, until very recently, got the necessary basic substances for hormone manufacture? Infertility drugs were made from hormones extracted from women's urine, and the easiest place to get a large number of women to donate was....convents! [now most are made by genetic engineering]
[/quote]

Interesting point about the women's urine - I didn't know that. I did know that they used a LOT of pregnant's mare's urine because I used to do rescue work for the unwanted foals of these pregnant mares after they were born. The farmers and the drug companies didn't want the foals, and they wanted to get the mare's pregnant again for their urine, so that's why they sold the foals for slaughter as soon as they were weaned. I used to buy them and ship them to my farm and then find homes for them. That's one reason I didn't want to use HRT - too many unwanted baby horses! But once the drug companies started manufacturing synthetic hormones, they didn't need to mares anymore, so the foal problem was solved but they had to sell the mares off to slaughter, so my job then became to rescue these mares and retrain them for sale. Now I'm very glad that there are synthetic hormones to use instead.

[i<3franciscans]

[quote name='nunsense' timestamp='1323445417' post='2347973']

Interesting point about the women's urine - I didn't know that. I did know that they used a LOT of pregnant's mare's urine because I used to do rescue work for the unwanted foals of these pregnant mares after they were born. The farmers and the drug companies didn't want the foals, and they wanted to get the mare's pregnant again for their urine, so that's why they sold the foals for slaughter as soon as they were weaned. I used to buy them and ship them to my farm and then find homes for them. That's one reason I didn't want to use HRT - too many unwanted baby horses! But once the drug companies started manufacturing synthetic hormones, they didn't need to mares anymore, so the foal problem was solved but they had to sell the mares off to slaughter, so my job then became to rescue these mares and retrain them for sale. Now I'm very glad that there are synthetic hormones to use instead.
[/quote]
I just have to say.... what you did with the foals is avvesome!

Edited December 9, 2011 by i<3franciscans