Saturday, November 22, 2008

For the Nth time...

In todays Philstar opinion column of Domini Torrevillas. a certain Dr. Bugnosen is quoted with respect to the RH bill, as follows:

"...I received a handwritten letter from Dr. Andy R. Bugnosen, my doctor brother Nell’s friend from way back, in Sagada, Mt. Province. In the early 60s, Dr. Bugnosen became involved with family planning under the aegis of the Family Planning Organization of the Philippines. He won the FPOP’s Most Outstanding Family Planning Private Practitioner of the Philippines Award.

Andy expresses his view on the Reproductive Health bill which is pending in Congress. He writes: “As we all know, the Roman Catholic Church prelates are opposing the passage of the bill, basing their objection on the biblical mandate to ‘go forth and multiply.’ They approve only the Natural Family Planning method. But this does not work for women with irregular menstruation...".

First of all, I have never heard of even one anti-RH bill advocate citing the ‘go forth and multiply’ biblical passage. There are many strong arguments used against the bill, and ‘go forth and multiply’ is certainly not one of them. Secondly and most importantly, the NFP method is always maligned as not working for women with irregular menstruation. This is either a gross misconception or a malicious and blatant lie, and it always gets repeated time and again to attack NFP. Todays NFP method, based on the Billings Ovulation Method (BOM), undoubtedly and most assuredly works even for irregular cycles.

Again for the Nth time: NFP should not be equated with the Calendar or Rhythm method.

For more than 40 years now, the Rhythm method is not anymore being recommended as an NFP method by Natural Family Planning advocates. Note that Dr. Bugnosen, in the article quoted above, was said to have worked as a Family Planning Practitioner "in the early 60s". That is more than 40 years ago, almost half a century if you wish. It is most unfortunate that Dr. Bugnosen's ideas on Family Planning remained in the 60s, and most unfortunate likewise that an opinion columnist becomes an unwitting(?) party in disseminating this error which is either a gross misconception, or a malicious and blatant lie.

1 comment:

grimace said...

i agree! they argue against the anti-RH with their wrong assumptions.