Medical experts blast claim that nuns need contraception

Onesimus

Washington D.C., Dec 10, 2011 / 08:05 am (CNA).- An article claiming that nuns should use contraception to lower their risk of breast, ovarian and uterine cancers drew criticism from medical professionals who say the study’s basis is seriously flawed.


Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life International, said the argument was so poorly made that she initially thought the article was a parody.


“It’s that bad,” she told CNA on Dec. 8, adding that the claims were not only outlandish but unsupported by the evidence presented in the analysis.
Australian researchers Kara Britt and Roger Short penned a Dec. 8 article in the international medical journal The Lancet warning that nuns “pay a terrible price for their chastity.”


They argued that because they never bear children, nuns have a higher probability of death from breast, ovarian, and uterine cancers.
Britt and Short lamented the “plight” of religious sisters and called on the Church to “make the oral contraceptive pill freely available to all its nuns” in order to decrease risk of these cancers.


But Brauer pointed out that this claim is misleading, even according to the study on which the authors based their arguments.


Referencing a graph included in the article, she noted that before age 70, the nuns actually had a lower rate of death from uterine cancer than the control group. Their comparative rates of death from ovarian cancer fluctuated before age 80, being at times above, below and equal to that of the control group.


According to the study, breast cancer was the only one for which the nuns were consistently at higher risk than the control group of women, said Brauer. However, Britt and Short did not claim that the pill would reduce the risk of breast cancer, as they did for ovarian and uterine cancer, but simply that it would “not increase” the risk of breast cancer.


In addition, said Brauer, women who use oral contraceptives face “considerable” negative side effects. These include a significantly increased risk of deep venous thrombosis, which causes potentially life-threatening blood clots—a fact that Britt and Short acknowledged.
For these reasons, using the pill only to prevent disease “doesn’t make any sense,” she said.


Oncologist Dr. Luis Raez weighed in that the Lancet article has more political significance than scientific value.


Raez told CNA on Dec. 8 that because of the risk of side effects that accompanies any pill, doctors generally use prescription drugs to treat cancer and diseases rather than prevent them.


In the case of the oral contraceptive pill, users are at higher risk of blood clots and hypertension, among other conditions, he said.
He also observed that even among women such as nuns who do not bear children, ovarian and uterine cancers are rare.


Such cancers are often curable if discovered early through regular checkups, he added, noting that the pill's actual benefits would likely be minimal as it does not eliminate the risk of these cancers.
Raez argued that it would be absurd to use oral contraception in hopes of preventing a rare type of cancer while putting yourself at elevated risk for other serious problems.


He also said that most women who take the pill do so for only a limited number of years, because they stop using contraceptives when they decide to have children. However, nuns, who never have children, could be on the pill for multiple decades.


The risk factors of using the pill in this way have not been adequately evaluated for such a course of action to be recommended, he underscored.

soterpisc

I saw the article... Interesting.. However strange how nuns have a very long life expectancy without any drugs... The nuns that taught me in School are still alive well in their 80's, still walking about the down and visiting other old people giving communion..

However from a Medical point of view, drugs that can be used to stop conception can also have other medical uses, if the drug is taken for another end then its not a contraceptive.. etcc. The Drug per se is not bad... its the end its used for. The catholic church is not against x or y drug, its against contraception (always in the context of the family)


I think the whole story was just to make headlines.... Nuns+Contraception .. Bingo. Even if the nun were to take a drug that could be classed as contraceptive it would not be a contraceptive for the nun as she is not intending to conceive.. Therefore the drugs is not against the church teaching,,, it would be taken for other ends... But media would not understand this.

Zombrex

I always thought the pill increased risk of breast cancer, not the other way around?

soterpisc

Zombrex wrote: »

I always thought the pill increased risk of breast cancer, not the other way around?

Depends on the drug... There is not just one. A Doctor can prescribe the Pill for other medical reasons. My Wife always said its not good for a woman to be taking a drug, any drug for long periods of time. Every drug has side effects of some sort or another. Facts are it can cause DVT, Stroke, heart attack, Migraine. But that can be said for many drugs, all will have some or other side effect.

Doctor DooM

soterpisc wrote: »

I saw the article... Interesting.. However strange how nuns have a very long life expectancy without any drugs... The nuns that taught me in School are still alive well in their 80's, still walking about the down and visiting other old people giving communion..

Not really strange, you'd hardly expect the ones who'd died or retired to be teaching people in school in their 80's, if you think about it.

MrPudding

Zombrex wrote: »

I always thought the pill increased risk of breast cancer, not the other way around?

I think there are some other studies that show this is not the case...

Genuine question. Would there actually be an issue with a nun taking the contraceptive pill if it where shown it reduced a genuine risk of developing a fatal illness? There is no question, I would presume, that it would ever act as a contraceptive as they don't have sex. I would further presume that if god decided to impregnate one of them "immaculately" he would not have too many problems bypassing the pill...

MrP

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

I think there are some other studies that show this is not the case...

Genuine question. Would there actually be an issue with a nun taking the contraceptive pill if it where shown it reduced a genuine risk of developing a fatal illness? There is no question, I would presume, that it would ever act as a contraceptive as they don't have sex. I would further presume that if god decided to impregnate one of them "immaculately" he would not have too many problems bypassing the pill...

MrP

I would think it's also OK for a practising Catholic to use a condom for non-contraceptive purposes. For example, it could be a good idea to wear them if wading through Amazonian waters where you might encounter a candiru!

soterpisc

MrPudding wrote: »

I think there are some other studies that show this is not the case...

Genuine question. Would there actually be an issue with a nun taking the contraceptive pill if it where shown it reduced a genuine risk of developing a fatal illness? There is no question, I would presume, that it would ever act as a contraceptive as they don't have sex. I would further presume that if god decided to impregnate one of them "immaculately" he would not have too many problems bypassing the pill...

MrP

:rolleyes: Did you not see my post above!/.... The Church as nothing against x or y contraceptive pill per se.. The teaching is against the act of contraception. Whatever form that takes. And the teaching is in the context of a Marriage.. People think contraception arrived in the 60's... Well it didn't, its been around for years in different forms.

Peregrinus

Doctor DooM wrote: »

Not really strange, you'd hardly expect the ones who'd died or retired to be teaching people in school in their 80's, if you think about it.

True, but it is nevertheless the case that nuns do have an extraordinarily long life expectancy.

Trivial fact of the day: Never-married women [and women who never have long-term conjugal partners] live longer than women who marry [or partner] (whereas, interestingly, the reverse is true for men). So, simply by not marrying, nuns increase their life expectancy.

But that doesn't fully account for the phenomenon; nuns have a longer life expectancy than never-married and never-partnered women who are not nuns. And this remains so even when you control for other factors, e.g. nuns are almost invariably non-smokers.

The reasons for this are not fully understood, but one hypothesis is that community living, as practised by nuns, is beneficial when compared to solo living, as practised by most women who never marry or partner.

I used to work in the insurance/pensions sector, where we were terribly interested in life expectancy and related statistics. Believe me, if you're selling a health insurance policy to an order of nuns, you really need to know about their life expectancy.

So, girls, if you want to live for ever, ditch the bloke and preferably enter a convent. Boys, get married - once - and stay married. And make sure you have at least one child. Both of you, lay off the ciggies.

MrPudding

Peregrinus wrote: »

True, but it is nevertheless the case that nuns do have an extraordinarily long life expectancy.

Trivial fact of the day: Never-married women [and women who never have long-term conjugal partners] live longer than women who marry [or partner] (whereas, interestingly, the reverse is true for men). So, simply by not marrying, nuns increase their life expectancy.

But that doesn't fully account for the phenomenon; nuns have a longer life expectancy than never-married and never-partnered women who are not nuns. And this remains so even when you control for other factors, e.g. nuns are almost invariably non-smokers.

The reasons for this are not fully understood, but one hypothesis is that community living, as practised by nuns, is beneficial when compared to solo living, as practised by most women who never marry or partner.

I used to work in the insurance/pensions sector, where we were terribly interested in life expectancy and related statistics. Believe me, if you're selling a health insurance policy to an order of nuns, you really need to know about their life expectancy.

So, girls, if you want to live for ever, ditch the bloke and preferably enter a convent. Boys, get married - once - and stay married. And make sure you have at least one child. Both of you, lay off the ciggies.

The issue being, a lot of woman probably consider that what a nun has is not really a "life" and would prefer what they have, even though it might be shorter.

Live for 90+ years in a convent, never having "fun", never having sex, never loving anyone other than your god, never having a joy of watching your children grow up or; living for 80+ years and having fun, having sex, loving someone, having and watching your kids grow up... No contest.

MrP

Fanny Cradock

It's rather presumptuous of you to state that you can't have "fun" unless people meet your requirements. Unless you think that sexual love is the only type of love, I'm curious how you know that nuns don't know love? Spoken to many nuns, have you? Additionally, why should "fun" be the ultimate goal in anyone's life?

Peregrinus

MrPudding wrote: »

The issue being, a lot of woman probably consider that what a nun has is not really a "life" and would prefer what they have, even though it might be shorter.

Live for 90+ years in a convent, never having "fun", never having sex, never loving anyone other than your god, never having a joy of watching your children grow up or; living for 80+ years and having fun, having sex, loving someone, having and watching your kids grow up... No contest.

MrP

No offence, MrP, but I think this little screed tells us rather more about you than it does either about nuns or about "a lot of women".

It may well be that lots of women don't want to be nuns. Bully for them; they should definitely not be nuns. It doesn't follow, though, that women who do want to be nuns, and who live out that choice, have made a bad choice. And there is considerable evidence that, at least in medical terms, the choice has good outcomes for them. And since long life is not positively correlated either withs stress or with persistent unhappiness, the evidence suggests that nuns are, on the whole, not stressed or unhappy - or, at least, not as stressed or unhappy as the population at large.

PDN

MrPudding wrote: »

The issue being, a lot of woman probably consider that what a nun has is not really a "life" and would prefer what they have, even though it might be shorter.

Live for 90+ years in a convent, never having "fun", never having sex, never loving anyone other than your god, never having a joy of watching your children grow up or; living for 80+ years and having fun, having sex, loving someone, having and watching your kids grow up... No contest.

MrP

And a lot of nuns might not consider that the way a lot of Irish women live their lives is not really a 'life'.

Different strokes for different folks (no pun intended). And a celibate life would certainly not be my choice. But your bigotted dismissal of the choices nuns have made is very revealing.

Jimoslimos

Perhaps there are errors/methodological flaws in the research for the original article, BUT......

On one hand we have

A) An article in a highly respected world-leading medical journal.

and on the other,

An pro-life lobby group who actively campaign in support of pharmacists who REFUSE to dispense legally prescribed contraception on religious ground.

Now The Lancet doesn't get everything right (see Wakefield et al MMR/Autism) but overall I know which argument is worthy of further consideration and research.

georgieporgy

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Perhaps there are errors/methodological flaws in the research for the original article, BUT......

On one hand we have

A) An article in a highly respected world-leading medical journal.

and on the other,

An pro-life lobby group who actively campaign in support of pharmacists who REFUSE to dispense legally prescribed contraception on religious ground.

Now The Lancet doesn't get everything right (see Wakefield et al MMR/Autism) but overall I know which argument is worthy of further consideration and research.

Many in the medical world view the Lancet as an ideological rag not much better than the News of the World. Quoting the Lancet as an authority is a bit like being impressed by Nobel Prize recipients. Both have lost their hard currency reputations.

You will go further if you choose option B.