DZIQ: Oral contraceptives have ‘more health benefits’—ex-DoH chief
What exactly are the greater health benefits with using oral contraceptives, Dr. Cabral? Does anyone become healthier by using hormonal OCPs? This is “essential medicine”?
When asked whether it was true that oral contraceptives posed a higher risk of breast cancer, Cabral answered in the affirmative but quickly added that “all medical products have good and side (bad) effects.”
“Oral contraceptives have bad side effects but there are more good effects,” Cabral said.
She said that taking oral contraceptives may lower the incidence of certain cancers such as endometrial cancer by 50% and ovarian cancer by 40%.
So should our choice be between one cancer or another? How about no cancer at all except as what might naturally occur in the course of our lifetimes? How about proactively lowering our risk by not increasing our risk? Does that sound good? What does Senator Cayetano have to say about this?
From Privilege speech of Sen. Pia Cayetano: RAISING AWARENESS ON BREAST CANCER:
This is dedicated to increase awareness on prevention of breast cancer through information and educational campaigns that reach out to all women throughout the world emphasizing the importance of early detection and treatment.
Furthermore, breast cancer remains the number one cancer killer among Filipino women, accounting for 28% of the total cases.
What is more alarming is that according to a report from the Philippine Breast Cancer Network, the Philippines now has the highest incidence rate of breast cancer in Asia and is also considered to have the 9th highest incidence rate in the world today. One out of four who are diagnosed with breast cancer die within the first five years and no less than 40% die within ten years. This is because breast cancer is often detected in its late stages due to low public awareness and lack of information about the disease.
Mr. President, diagnostic tests are more affordable than breast cancer treatment. For stage 1 and 2 breast cancer patients, treatment includes surgery which costs about Php 10,000.00 – 100,000.00 and chemotherapy which costs Php 5,000.00 per session or Php 30,000.00 for six cycles. For stage 3 breast cancer patients, surgery costs about Php 10,000.00 – 100,000.00 but chemotherapy would cost a patient Php 100,000.00 per session or Php 600,000.00 for six cycles. Lastly, stage 4 patients would also spend for surgery and chemotherapy. However, patients on this stage normally spend more as their medicines are more expensive because the cancer cells may have spread to the other parts of the body.
Senator Cayetano and Dr. Cabral, have you weighed the cost of treatment for any pill takers that do develop breast cancers? Even if only a small percentage of pill takers develop breast cancers, would the government be prepared to shoulder the expenses for their treatment? Would the government be willing to provide for the bereaved when these women die of breast cancer? Or will their lives be considered expendable because they’re poor?
Pro-RH Bill people claim the poor will simply be given “a choice”. Who are they fooling?
#1. If you’re a paid lackey and you get your salary based on how much you’re able to push contraceptives on people, would you really promote Natural Family Planning? Or will you more aggressively promote the method that puts the most money in your pocket? Human nature being what it is, and the RH bill being what it is, will the poor have any real choice in the matter?
#2. The RH bill is ALL ABOUT increasing contraceptive prevalence rates.
Makes one want to go hmmm….
The Pro-RH side (including MSM who are supposed to be unbiased) keeps claiming that the RH bill will “provide universal access to medically-safe, legal, affordable, effective and quality RH services, methods, devices, supplies and relevant information and education with priority on the needs of women and children in underprivileged sectors.” Increased breast cancer risk = medically safe?
The government has a stop smoking campaign to decrease lung cancer risk. And yet they want to promote increased contraceptive use?
Since breast cancer is ALREADY the #1 cause of cancer deaths in the Philippines, wouldn’t the best strategy be RISK AVOIDANCE? Instead, we get more minimization of risk perception: a common coercion tactic.
Pro-RH Bill supporters. Aren’t they just a little bit, uhm… confused? Or perhaps more likely, simply looking out for No. 1?
More about Breast Cancer in the Philippines:
Breast Cancer in the Philippines
Philippine Breast Cancer Network
Breast cancer number 1 cause of cancer deaths in RP
Breast cancer is leading cause of cancer deaths in RP
ETA: How Many of Us Took Birth Control Pills? — a breast cancer forum
We are Filipinos – all fighting for a single cause, the very reason why we have bound together as one group and one voice: to speak the truth about the dignity and sanctity of human life in all its stages, from natural conception to natural death.
AMDG
29 April 2011
Putting words in their mouths. A very poor argument.
You might want to read the following:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8563606.stm
http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/news/archive/cancernews/2010-03-16-Contraceptive-pill-does-not-increase-risk-of-early-death
Don’t like oral contraceptives? Use a condom, simple.
As a favor to the world, for every fear mongering you do, I will post studies from reliable sources. Spreading fear and ignorance in the name of the Lord is something that any self-respecting Catholic should not tolerate.
I will pray to God for your enlightment and your forgiveness for the damage your ignorance can cause, for clearly you know not what you do.
Margie
29 April 2011
Also, regarding the study mentioned in those links you gave, “Conflict of interest: Philip Hannaford has received payment from Wyeth Pharmaceuticals for lecturing on the role of hormone replacement therapy in clinical practice; Wyeth Pharmaceuticals also manufacture oral contraceptives.” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2008.00271.x/abstract
Truth wins out. Reproductive “health” = reproductive death. YES TO WOMEN’S HEALTH! NO TO RH BILL!
Margie
29 April 2011
Are you not aware that there are pro-contraception/abortion “doctors” and “experts” who twist and hide facts through “research”? One good example is the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. NOT a reliable source.
You might want to read the following:
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(02)00752-0/fulltext
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61684-5/abstract
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(08)60719-9/fulltext
Speaking the truth is not fearmongering. Now, stop spreading lies.
Tony Ahn
30 April 2011
The logic in this article is flawed. “So should our choice be between one cancer or another? How about no cancer at all except as what might naturally occur in the course of our lifetimes? How about proactively lowering our risk by not increasing our risk?”
Well, if have a substance that lowers risk of some cancers and raises risk of others, then not taking that substance is not a choice of no cancer at all. The author goes on to say “except what might naturally occur in the course of our lifetimes.” Does that make it better? That you got the cancer “naturally”? The real question that needs to be asked is what are the rates at which women get cancer. Because if the rate of one particular cancer is low and the other is high, then increasing risk of a low one and decreasing risk of a high one is of net benefit.
Also, the author seems to have a hard time understanding that risk is not causality. If something increases the risk of getting cancer, that does not mean it causes cancer. Here’s an easy to understand analogy: not looking both ways before crossing the street increases your risk of getting hit by a car, but it does not cause you to get hit by a car.
Effective contraception means you don’t get pregnant, you don’t have an unsafe abortion or raise an unwanted child, or worse, abandon that child. It means you don’t suffer the risk of dying in childbirth. It means you don’t have to spread your already meager resources even thinner to support one more.
Truthsayer
30 April 2011
The logic in this response is flawed.
The question is, Tony, why increase your risk of contracting cancer AT ALL? Isn’t minimizing risk what people who strive to be healthy do? Why would you deliberately take a substance that is *not* essential medicine when you know it will increase your risks of contracting a disease? That’s counter-intuitive.
No, getting cancer “naturally” isn’t better, but what’s more logical — take drugs that alter your natural processes such that you increase your chances of getting some sort of cancer? Or avoid those drugs altogether? Because that’s what pills are — DRUGS. They are not a CURE for a disease.
Did you not read that breast cancer is the #1 cause of cancer deaths in the Philippines? Why work to increase those numbers instead of decrease them?
If you’re going to talk about net benefit, what about the cost of treating breast cancer? Who pays that?
“It means you don’t suffer the risk of dying in childbirth.”
Tony, you just said “risk is not causality.” EXACTLY. I’m glad we agree on something. Pregnancy itself has risks, yes, but pregnancy does NOT cause death. Pregnancy is NOT a disease.
It amazes me the cavalier attitude many men have about pills. Perhaps if it were your bodies that were being altered by hormones you wouldn’t be so cavalier about it.
AMDG
1 May 2011
Hi, I understand your concern and your beliefs. And I respect them. Please open your minds.
These are YOUR source. Indeed, thank you for sharing the truth.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2008.00271.x/pdf
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(02)00752-0/fulltext
Please understand what the sources have to say before twisting their words:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
A counter study was made. They made an analysis due to the Conflict of interest and possible discrepancies of Hannford’s study. However, this is what was concluded:
“We found a 12% reduction in
cancers among users of the
pill—a major public health
benefit” – in bold red letters, you cant miss it.
http://www.thelancet.com
It is an independent study regarding cancer and the pill
they quote WHO:
The World Health Organization (WHO) has commissioned further research in this area but states “for young non-smoking women, the health benefits of oral contraceptive use (including an reduced risk of endometrial and ovarian cancers) far exceed the health risks”.
also:
The study concluded that there was no increased risk for women who had taken oral contraceptives for less than five years. There was also no connection between oral contraceptives and cervical cancer in women who tested negative for HPV.
Did you actually read YOUR source? off course not. why would you? your mind is set to believe what you want to believe. twisting their studies to promote fear is indeed fear-mongering. Are you going to call them liars now? the TRUTH indeed wins out.
How about the World Health Organization, The World Bank, Asian Development Bank, UK Cancer Research center, BBC, Inquirer. are they all liars too?
Doctors and experts have never lied about the risk, nor have they lied about the benefits too (unlike some people).
Finally, please remember, The Pill is not forced on women. It is their choice if they want it.
Again I will pray for your enlightement and maybe literacy. For you know not what you do.
Haggai de Cena
2 May 2011
You are just choosing what to believe so as to make this pill palatable to Filipina women. Sorry AMDG, but the pill has side-effects and some of those side effects are cancer. When it comes to health, it is more prudent to side with caution so if pills have risks then it is better not to recommend using it.
Yes, it is not forced but still tons of THE PILL will be distributed around the Philippines once the RH Bill is passed. It is not forced but the RH Bill will FORCE the government to purchase pills that pose threat to women’s health.
So, what will the government do with the pill? Will the government burn those pills to avoid giving it to women? Of course not. The government will distribute those pills and will even recommend it to women.
What are you so afraid of us telling the people that THE PILL is dangerous? Are you really for the truth or not?
Truthsayer
2 May 2011
AMDG, your data is outdated. when looking at these studies you have to look at longitudinal ones. those may have been true according to what they KNEW in 2008. the latest ones (2010) point to a clear connection between breast cancer and pills. from http://filipinosforlife.com/2011/04/09/into-the-light-protecting-health-and-lives-of-mothers/:
It is strongly recommended to consult the complete Monographs on these agents, the publication date, and the list of studies considered. Significant new information might support a different classification.
Tony Ahn
2 May 2011
The data is not outdated. If there were new findings, the WHO would have changed its stance, which it has not. Regarding the “pregnancy does not cause death” argument, over three thousand women die in this country every year because of complications related to their pregnancies. And most of them are poor. They’ll never get old enough to get cancer in the first place.
>No, getting cancer “naturally” isn’t better, but what’s more logical — take
>drugs that alter your natural processes such that you increase your chances
>of getting some sort of cancer? Or avoid those drugs altogether? Because that’s
>what pills are — DRUGS. They are not a CURE for a disease.
EVERYTHING you eat is a drug. Foods, like medicines, contain chemical compounds that affect the body’s functioning.
And why do you keep saying “Why increase the risk of ANY kind of cancer?” when its been clearly stated that it decreases the risks of others, with the research cited pointing to a net gain in risk avoidance? If your risk for developing condition A goes up 10% and your risk for developing condition B goes down 20%, then it does not follow to ask “Why take this substance and increase your risk of getting condition A?” And besides, the answer is “Because I do not want to get pregnant.”
Lastly, playing the gender card is beneath you. Do you think I’m saying anything that has not already been said by a number of female doctors, advocates, and health workers? Let’s stick to the issues, shall we?
AMDG
2 May 2011
I believe what i wish to believe true, same as you.
However all the data i believe in are data from legitimate studies from REAL doctors. REAL medical institutions. REAL people who care about life, GLOBALLY accepted by more stable countries ahead of us by decades. By Men and WOMEN of different race, creed and doctrine.
You on the other hand just want to see one side of the coin and utterly refuse to see the other side. You are so fast to call these people kwaks or evil, despite their expertise far exceeds our own doctors.
Furthermore, the proponents here keep posting so many articles about the truth behind the pill, but ultimately you just debunked yourselves. Why? you didn’t even bother READING YOUR sources. Your own sources are against you.
Also, the data i posted is outdated you say? let me reiterate: THEY ARE YOUR SOURCES (Margie’s actually).
So who is being selective? The man who reads the whole thing before casting a judgement? or the fool who reads half and makes an irrational conclusion? I understood the articles, the question here is: Did anyone here even bother reading them?
As I said, I am here to show the truth. these doctors (or kwaks to you) have not hidden anything. There are risks (in everything). outweighed by benefits. Women have a choice, NFP, Condoms, Pills or IUDs. I would prefer NFP if it worked at all.
As Tony said anything/everything you eat or drink will affect you. And in my words: all those can kill you in the long run.
Also, Please watch your words: RECOMMENDING is different from FORCING.
Doctors will not recommend the pill if a woman has a history of inherited medical diseases. just to get your facts straight.
Again I will pray for your enlightenment. For you know not what you do.
Truthsayer
2 May 2011
AMDG —
#1. Show us where the studies we quote aren’t from real doctors, etc.
#2. “Their expertise far exceeds our own doctors”. Wow, I’ll be sure to tell that to our Filipino doctors — I’m sure they’ll appreciate your vote of confidence.
#3. These “doctors” that you want to put your faith in think that RU-486, the abortion pill, is “essential medicine”. Explain that please.
#4. NFP works. Period.
#5. If you don’t think that word “recommending” is different from “forcing” then you don’t know your history. Read up on the history of population control, its main proponents and its methods, please. China’s is the extreme, yes, but you’ll find all sorts along the spectrum, many of which are definitely coercive.
#6. Thanks for your prayers. I pray for yours.
Truthsayer
2 May 2011
@Tony — did you not see the 2010 monographs including the disclaimer from the IARC themselves? If you don’t think the data’s outdated, nothing I can say here can convince you.
That number of 11 deaths a day is questionable. Show me your own calculations, please.
The reason those women are dying is that they lack the basic necessities and proper medical care to have healthy pregnancies! It is not the PREGNANCY itself that’s the problem, it’s the POVERTY.
You don’t alleviate poverty through contraception. At the end of the day, these people may have access to condoms and pills — how will they have access to food?
“Everything you eat is a drug”. So let’s see. These are already POOR WOMEN who have poor nutrition, live in squalor, probably already weakened immune systems etc. and you want to give them pills so they can’t get pregnant? How do you think their systems that already have difficulty fighting off disease will react to another assault from hormone-altering drugs? Wow, if you really think that’s helping them, then you live in a twisted world, brother.
Risk avoidance — so the fact that #1 cause of cancer deaths in the Philippines is breast cancer doesn’t mean anything?
I see what you’re saying — do WHATEVER IT TAKES, including risking your own bodies, to prevent pregnancy. Yes, ’cause that’s the be all and end all of your existence — sex without pregnancy. Thanks for making that clear.
AMDG
2 May 2011
So angry, it blinds you. I might as well get a better conversation from a tree.
> #1. Show us where the studies we quote aren’t from real doctors, etc.
Did you read your friend’s citations. Those studies she fanatacilly said were true? Did you just try to rebuff them? yes you did! You are such a hypocrite. Have you read studies by the links above or other links in this site debunking you time and again? I doubt. Actual studies, actual doctors/scientists.
> #2. “Their expertise far exceeds our own doctors”. Wow, I’ll be sure to tell that to our Filipino doctors — I’m sure they’ll appreciate your vote of confidence.
Yeah local doctors screaming the pill kills(the ones you like to listen to) and no mention of benefits. In contrast to the benefits cited by WHO and DOJ, two organizations who are the authorities in their practice.I will happily believe the WHO and DOJ anyday.
meet dr. lucille montes
http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2011/05/02/tastebuds-tsunamis-and-the-thorough-twisting-of-truth-a-recap-of-the-anti-rh-forum-at-sm-megamall-1-of-2-parts/
and Dr. Ligaya Acosta
http://sexandsensibilities.com/tag/ateneo-school-of-medicine-and-public-health/
two doctors who can barely come up with a logical argument. If these are your experts. No wonder our country is messed up.
> #3. These “doctors” that you want to put your faith in think that RU-486, the abortion pill, is “essential medicine”. Explain that please.
Learn to read. It has been posted time and again. Yet you just quickly rebuff them as kwaks, liars or “doctors”. Learn to backtrack, its all there.
> #4. NFP works. Period.
Did you read? i would prefer NFP if it worked. Becaus most urban poor, have like 7-10 children. Clearly it works for them. That was sarcasm by the way.
FYI NFP is a valid choice if women do not want contraception. However, tell that to their husbands.
Bottom line: NOT AS EFFECTIVE as other family planning methods. PERIOD. Welcome to the philippines where discipline and filipinos, are essentially oil and water.
NFP is about not having sex? whoa! it promotes sex, but rather promotes sex on days that there are no ovulation. Isnt that evil? since it promotes sex but without the consequence of getting pregnant? the same as you know: contraception. maybe im just toying with you here. Makes you think though.
> #5. If you don’t think that word “recommending” is different from “forcing” then you don’t know your history. Read up on the history of population control, its main proponents and its methods, please. China’s is the extreme, yes, but you’ll find all sorts along the spectrum, many of which are definitely coercive.
China does it, therefore we will do it. Wake up we do not live in China. RH bill will make us like China. Pills will not be forcefed. Such straw arguments. such actions that deviate from the constitution or what is written on the bill is criminal. You are a fear-monger, appalling.
> #6. Thanks for your prayers. I pray for yours.
Again I pray for your ignorance and intolerance, for it is the life you choose.
By the way, WHO still promotes the pill. An article just last year:
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/88/4/10-077446.pdf
World Health Organization: on myths and misperceptions: They talk about people like you. Here are the terms used by them to describe them: Fear-mongers and Sensationalists.
It shows how people use the media to make life difficult for those who really need their help spreading by misinformation.
Will you try to debunk the WHO yet again, as outdated, anti-life, kwaks or evil?
You never really answered any of my questions did you? Do you still honestly believe that Medical Institutions around the world (like WHO) are anti-life, liars and kwaks? You seem hellbent on ignoring their studies.
You seem flustered. Drink some tea to calm the nerves.
Truthsayer
2 May 2011
If you would like to go ahead and ignore the hundreds of references we’ve provided on this site to real studies by real doctors, go right ahead.
Next time you post another insult here, e.g., “learn to read”, your comments will be deleted and you will be blocked. You’ve been warned.
Again, NFP WORKS. Do your research.
You’re welcome to clarify your statements, in essence:
NFP cannot be taught to poor people.
NFP cannot be taught to husbands.
Discipline and Filipinos are essentially oil and water.
For someone who supposedly wants to help Filipinos, you have an incredibly (and not surprisingly) low opinion of them.
You don’t understand NFP, so you’re not qualified to pronounce judgments on it or expound on how it works or not. You don’t KNOW what you’re talking about
. At any rate, the choice to plan one’s family or not and the choice to use contraception or not is neither yours nor the state’s office. When you’re an adept NFP practitioner/user/trained teacher, you’ll be more than welcome to come back here and share your unbiased thoughts on it.
“Pills will not be force fed.” If you say so. The experience of people and documentation that we have says otherwise. If pills will not be forcefed, what are target numbers for, and quotas, and MDG goals? Isn’t a GOAL something that you work for? Isn’t the goal to increase contraceptive prevalence rate? How does that work out with “pills will not be force fed”. You contradict yourself.
If RH bill is not coercive, why is there a provision for penalties for “disinformation”? No one can talk about the RH bill and their objections to it and its provisions without feeling threatened? How is that not coercive? How is that about freedom of choice?
Again, thanks for your prayers. Pick a good saint, okay? I suggest St. Michael the Archangel, he helps me fight ignorance and intolerance like no other. I pray for your conversion of heart.
Thanks for letting us know about the WHO. You’re absolutely right, they still promote the pill. Despite the warnings and the data that would justify the contrary.
Wonder who funds them? Wonder how their money is siphoned into the Philippines and wonder where the money ends up? When in doubt, again, follow the money trail.
AMDG
2 May 2011
Again you avoided answering my questions. Again you rebuffed your own citations. And yes I have seen your references and have read as many as I can. People also have posted a significant number of references that says otherwise, most of which you refuse to read out of ignorance or laziness.
Yes indeed WHO, endorses the pill. So is the WHO an institution of anti-life and evil? Will you openly say it is run by people who do not know what they are doing?
please add citations. I want to see how you say WHO is run by kwaks.
WHO funded by who? is it the mafia? Follow money trail! Ah, now you are a conspiracy theorist. remember how you fanatically defended http://www.whale.to/. Seriously? your not qualified to make logical statement after that fiasco.
Disinformation, isn’t that what you are doing? Is it not right, to defend people from ignorance? Ignorance you delibarately spread? Afraid you will be charged for spreading lies? A large part of the bill is education on reproductive health.
now if we can just prove condoms can cause cancer and heart attacks…
http://filipinofreethinkers.org/2010/11/21/anti-rh-lies-about-the-rh-bill/
NFP have conflicting research. I choose who to believe, just like you. I just choose not to follow any internet source with a “-forlife” affix. Again it is a free choice, if women want this. RH is not about abolishing it. In fact, I am all for it. now if either of the coupe is promiscuous, usually true, it offers 0% protection from STD.
Indeed I do have a low opinion for most Filipinos. Hey most of us can barely follow basic laws: no littering/smoking/jaywalking. It’s nice to see you attacking my confidence on the filipino people. rather openly attacking, you know, the WHO, ADB and WB who have endorsing RH here.
Cheers
Thank you for your prayers. I’m sure St. Michael will guide me properly.
In turn I wish for you to pray to St. Therese of Lisieux. You really need the prayers to her.
Truthsayer
2 May 2011
Thank you for reading our references. Good to know.
Please show the comment or post saying that WHO is run by “kwaks”. As far as I can tell you’re the one who brought the term here. Of course the WHO has real doctors. But would you agree that there are doctors that are anti-life and those that are pro-life? Why is that?
May I ask why the doctors at WHO should have first say as to what poor women in the Philippines should put into their bodies? Why they should have the last word on what’s “essential medicine”? You haven’t answered the question about RU-486. Do you agree with the WHO that it’s essential medicine? What disease does it cure? Come on, educate me.
//education on reproductive health//
What kind of education, AMDG? Please detail. Would love to see your perspective. What exactly will people learn from RH bill that they don’t already know?
Could you point out where here at Filipinos for Life did we ever say that condoms can cause cancer and heart attacks? I realize how tempting it is to paint us as a bunch of people who don’t know how to think, but I’ll let the facts presented on this site speak for themselves. I’m sure there are people reading here who can evaluate the information intelligently.
“In fact, I am all for it.” Huh? You’re all for what? You kinda lost me there. What offers 0% protection from STD if couple is promiscuous? If couple is promiscuous, neither NFP nor any other contraceptive will solve THAT problem. We’ve never made any claims to the contrary. Promiscuity is a whole other problem altogether. That’s a morality problem right there that the RH bill can’t ever hope to solve. On the other hand, NFP because of its very nature won’t solve the problem, but it’s a first step towards greater respect for the human body, for its processes and its capabilities. NFP develops understanding, respect and awe for the science imprinted right into our own bodies. In a word, it’s wonderful, and not that difficult to learn either. Since you have such little confidence in Filipinos, then it shouldn’t be that hard for them to learn and practice it properly (at which point efficacy climbs up to 99+%). Isn’t it great that one doesn’t need a doctorate degree to use NFP effectively? How effective are contraceptives and condoms again? And what are the side effects of NFP? Hm… last I looked, there were only two:
1. cramping of the thumb and forefinger as the NFP user writes down symptoms/signs on the observation sheet.
2. the inability to eat while holding a thermometer under the woman’s tongue.
Pretty benign, don’t you think?
Why are you so defensive about the WHO, ADB and WB? So Filipinos for Life don’t trust them. Any reason we should? I’ll be happy to read your reasons why it’s in our best interests to do so. Seriously.
Again, thanks for the prayers. The more the merrier
PS Are you kidding? I *love* St. Therese of Lisieux!!! Isn’t she awesome? Glad to see we do have something in common
AMDG
3 May 2011
> Please show the comment or post saying that WHO is run by “kwaks”
Yes you yourself has said “doctors” when I pointed out your citations that quoted the WHO, who promotes RH. again, you avoided the question. I believe what the WHO and DOJ have to say in the matter over the likes of dr. lucille montes and dr. ligaya acosta any day. Are you openly sayiong That the WHO is wrong? Who will you believe our “experts” or the specialized agency of the United Nations (UN) that acts as a coordinating authority on international public health?
>Could you point out where here at Filipinos for Life did we ever say that condoms can cause cancer and heart attacks?
I didn’t. We are talking about the pill. That pamphlets was made by prolifers during that rally you were endorsing back in March and around local churches. That is a perfect example of literal disinformation that the bill and any self respecting individual needs to remove and ,if possible, the author thrown in jail-if written by a doctor. That is what the bill and the WHO is trying to protect women from – FEARMONGERS and SENSATIONALISTS.
> “In fact, I am all for it.” Huh? You’re all for what? You kinda lost me there. What offers 0% protection from STD if couple is promiscuous?
I do apologize, I went off track. The pill and NFP has 0% protection from STD. Let me make that clear. Now back to the point.
Studies reagarding NFP are INCONSISTENT. Some will say 99% effective some say 75% effective.
Who should women believe? It all boils down to informed choice, women have the right to choose.
http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/sec22/ch255/ch255b.html
Please look at the table and tell me which is the most effective. If you are lazy, Here;
With typical use: Pregancy rate: Pill’s 8%, condom’s 15% to NFP’s 25%.
With perfect use: Pregancy rate: PIll’s 0.3% condoms’ 2% to NFP’s 1-9%
as compared to:
http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/192/36/
99% effective. from 1998 data. all 99%-100% it sure does raise a brow, no tables, no comparisons.
I’ll wait for you to try and debunk merckmanuals now. Seems to be your hobby.
If women want NFP I will respect their choice, If women want modern contraception I will respect that choice. Both choices are viable and I am for both and against neither.
> Why are you so defensive about the WHO, ADB and WB?
There are quotations and articles from them that are litered in your website debunking your claims. YOUR OWN CITATIONS include quotes from the all of them. Quotations you claim are from “doctors” or are outdated. Did you forget you said that? Hmm selective memory. Why are you avoiding openly debunking them?
I will ask the question again, do believe that the WHO and other medical institutions, ADB and WB are wrong and that they do not know what they are doing? Which is funny since your own “experts” seem to rely on them.
Don’t get me wrong I am not a rabid RH proponent, I am here to educate. As I said there are things I definitely agree with you. Where i do not agree, is the emphasis on cancer but none of the benefits, the difference between coercion and recommendation. and the contradicting studies from all the sources.
I am happy we agree with something
More prayers for everyone!
Truthsayer
4 May 2011
I lost a lengthy reply I had typed to this.
I’ll try to get back to you later. Need to work now.
AMDG
3 May 2011
Before bothering with the RU-486. Let us be clear, this is NOT the same as regular BC pills we are talking about and there are no clear indications that this type of pill will be available here in the Philippines and is not mentioned in the RH bill. If it will be, by all mean scream to the top of your lungs, it is your right. implying this will be legal here if the RH bill gets passed is just straw arguments and fear-mongering – nothing more. Arent we off-topic already? sure I have time, why not!
The idea is to protect the mother’s life and health, if there are expected complications. Futhermore it is a means to avoid backyard abortions. Which is quite commonplace already – if you bothered to read. It all boils down to: do women want safe/legal abortions or a “backyard” abortion.
Also remember, not every country out there follows Catholisism nor the Philippine Constitution. the WHO is not tied down by Filipino morals and not anyone else’s. Imposing our morals on the world is a fool’s errand. Tagging whole countries as evil for following their beliefs is also illogical. US, China, Australia, taiwan
I believe in looking at both side before making a judgement. Austrailian(64% Christian)
http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/abortion_pill_ru486_(mifepristone)
Oh look possible benefits!
http://www.australianprescriber.com/magazine/32/6/152/4/#15
Oh look possible breast cancer prevention – the thing you were fighting for!
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/30/health/webmd/main2221326.shtml
Conclusion: My answer does not matter, I Leave it up to the DOH and constitution egg-heads. There education for you. Its usage, its benefits and risks. from a person who actually reads these studies. Have you read any of these, took me an hour or two.
On a similar touchy topic; do you agree with this?
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-03-11/world/brazil.rape.abortion_1_excommunicated-abortion-innocent-life?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html
All life is sacred, would you allow the girl to die to save the twins, conceived by rape?
A nine-year could die if she did go through with the pregnancy to the twins. What is your say on this?
Please I want you opinion.
Truthsayer
3 May 2011
No time right now, but will get back to your other questions later. For now I’ll leave you with this Q&A:
Q & A with the bishop (now retired) who declared the excommunication: “Q: Were there any street demonstrations against the abortion outside the clinic where the little girl was originally placed?
A: None at all. But in the newspapers and on television there was a lot of pressure in favour of the abortion, and as you know several “feminist” organizations intervened to obtain the abortion.
Q: Was the little girl ever at risk of dying?
A: No, never. The doctors stated this to me most explicitly.
Q: But if she had been in danger of dying, would the abortion have been justified?
A: That possibility was very clearly anticipated by the doctors. They hoped that when six months of pregnancy would be reached, it would be possible to make a C-section. But as the “feminist” groups wanted an abortion, they came to the IMIP (Mother and child institute of Pernambuco) where the child was hospitalized in order to take her to the other “health center” where the abortion was performed within hours of her arrival. They took her in the evening and all was over next day by 10 AM. It is well known here that this “health center” is habitually dedicated to performing abortions. It is very important to me to recall that the doctors who committed the abortion declared that they had been performing abortions for a long time, and with “pride” at that. And they affirm that they will continue. We cannot remain silent in the face of that. And there is so much less reason to say there was “doubt” in this case, as Msr Fisichella unfortunately writes. He said that nobody knows whether the doctor, in the moment of action, didn’t have “doubts” on what he should or should not do. We know the opposite is true: these doctors declared publicly that they practice abortion as part of their lives and have no “doubts” at all on the matter. They want to go on.
Of course there are other Catholic doctors here who say, on the contrary, that they perform no abortions because they believe in God and respect His law.
Q: Would your Excellency have reacted differently if the little girl had really been in danger of dying?
A: No, not at all. We know that even when there is danger of death abortion is never permitted. That is God’s law, as the Church proclaims it. Even in face of this danger, the natural evolution of the situation should have been waited for, trying all the while to save the three lives. This is a fundamental principle of God’s law and also of natural law: the end does not justify the means. My objective can be very excellent: to save the life of the pregnant girl. But the means to reach this end can never be to suppress two innocent lives. That is a natural principle which human reason can understand.
To give an example which is easy to understand here in Brazil: if I want to find food for the poor – and we have so many here – that does not allow me to hold up a bank, to take other people’s money to do a work of charity. And as my team of councilors said – the general vicar, my catholic lawyer and the other signatories of the text I was talking of earlier – it is not up to us to change God’s law, even if public opinion is following another path. Our mission, our so-important mission is to proclaim it for the benefit of all, even in cases like this when it is not easy.
It must be understood: since the very first centuries of the church, there have been laws on excommunication in the Church. They seek to protect the common good of the ecclesial society: it is for this reason that we need a canon law; the juridical aspect of the Church as a human society is indispensable. We cannot simply hope that each person follows his conscience. Evidently, the Church must first of all take care of the spiritual life of each person, but the common good, in the technical sense, is also very important: it consists in an adequate environment in which each may live peaceably. The penalties foreseen by the Code in canon law also have this goal.”
Truthsayer
4 May 2011
Good morning.
// This is NOT the same as regular BC pills.// No they are not.
// There are no clear indications that this type of pill will be available here in the Philippines.// I disagree. Many women already have access to it because our government has been lax in preventing its importation. While abortion remains legal in the Philippines, our officials have turned ablind eye to the procurement of abortion. Unsafe abortion is a known cause of maternal deaths. If the goverment truly wanted to decrease maternal deaths, funds and efforts should be directed towards the prosecution of illegal abortionists and those who abet them in the Philippines. Is there any provision for this in the RH bill? Instead we get post-abortion management. If I were a young lady faced with an unwanted pregnancy, and I’m thinking my only option is abortion, wouldn’t it be an encouragement to me to know that I can obtain these pills legally, take them and if I suffer from any complications that I have places I can go where I can get post-abortion care? It’s tantamount to permission to abort. But like I said, we’ll talk about this in another post.
I took a brief look at the articles you posted. So what are you saying — to prevent breast cancer it’s okay to abort a child?
Here’s an explanation of the connection between contraception, abortion and breast cancer:
http://filipinosforlife.com/2011/02/09/breast-cancer-abortion-oral-contraceptive-link-i/
Re your question about the girl —
1. We cannot assume death.
2. Rape does not justify the killing of the unborn.
AMDG
3 May 2011
By the way, i forgot to mention. RU-486 is illegal in the Philippines because it is literally abortion, this is in the constitution.
Please make a separate article for this. mifepristone and bc pills are not the same. very waaay off topic.
Truthsayer
3 May 2011
No problem. You’ll see a future article here. But I disagree that this is off topic. If you research the history of the legalization of contraception and then the subsequent legalization of abortion, you’ll see a definite connection. Not off topic at all:)
jaaraf
3 May 2011
AMDG, I do not agree that a nine-year old who has twins should have an abortion because the youngest ever recorded pregnancy, brought to term with the baby in good health was to a 5 year old in 1939.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lina_Medina
http://www.snopes.com/pregnant/medina.asp
It seems the circumstances then forced the doctors to deliver the child as the pregnancy was already nearing term anyway.
Seventy-two years after, we have had so many advances in medical science that I think we have all the technology needed to allow a 9 year old to carry twins to term without the child-mother dying in the process. I believe that the doctor erred in the side of caution by performing the abortion and therefore deliberately terminating the life two human beings rather than take the risk of continuing the pregnancy with possibility of one, two or even all lives surviving.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers
There is mention of a 10 year old girl who was able to deliver live twins, albeit 6 weeks premature in 1979. Why not a 9 year old girl delivering twins in 2009?
jaaraf
3 May 2011
btw, I’m a medical doctor licensed to practice in the Philippines.
AMDG
4 May 2011
Thanks for your insights. It is nice to see multiple points of view before casting judgement. As I said; as a people we cannot enforce one type morality on people with different ideals. If the news were accurate, it indicated a drop of the Catholic faith in Brazil. Alas such is life.
Please also note that the Church has abused the use of excommunication in the past and present, even using the term so lightly (thus Damaso), for political reasons not just for the common good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_excommunicated_by_the_Roman_Catholic_Church#21st_century
Again we are off topic:
Back to RU-486, again it is illegal. If confirmed it will be legal, alot of people will jump the fence. until then, there is no point in screaming about it. Claiming it will be if the bill gets passed, is a stretch and again straw arguments. Do note it is also illegal in pro-abortion countries like Canada and Austrailians actually pushed for it, spearheaded by femal senators. But discussion for that is for another time.
For the WHO’s point of view: abortion should be moderated and be made as safe and more humane as possible, much like any drugs/medical procedures. It is used as an alternative to: Invasive (regular) Abortion: requires a clamp and a needle attached to a vacuum and Uncontrolled abortion’s most used instrument: a hanger. Mind you, I do not like abortion. But i respect the people who need (not want) it.
Please also note, that taking the RU-486 has properties that could prevent breast cancer. It is stated that it is not a cure all for it, and not endorsed as such. It is highlighted in the conclusion of the last article. I have posted articles that both have Risks and Benefits. I do not solely focus on just one. And it was Ironic Comedy.
As I mentioned, I look at both sides of the coin. I am not a rabid RH-fanboy nor am I a rabid pro-lifer. I follow morals, but i do not let my religion or emotions get in the way of education and the sciences. I may side with you on some parts or i may openly oppose you.
Please include this in your RU-486 article
http://www.lifeissues.org/ru486/deaths.htm 15 women have died since 1991
In brief: Information is sketchy, I have confirmed some of the deaths (the ones with names and clinics), the rest are speculative; using “a woman(no name) in X(country) died in Y(year)” makes it hard to confirm, thus take seriously. You may have better luck tracking those down. I would like to confirm the information. a number of the deaths were due to malpractice and unforseen implications.
Comparative effectiveness, safety and acceptability of medical abortion at home and in a clinic: a systematic review
http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/89/5/10-084046/en/index.html
Math would translate that to: 0.75 deaths a year as from 1991-2010. RU-486 is reportedly used by 200,000-500,000 women in Europe alone.
as compared to 4,015 (11 deaths a day) and 4,500 deaths/year as of 2005-2009 due to birth complications from UNICEF and UNFPA respectively. 230 maternal deaths out of 100,000 live births. Alot of arguments will come up regarding number crunching
http://www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2007/mm_update05.pdf.
Finally. Let me admit Truthsayer, I admire your information gathering skills, quite a number of articles are quite informative, sometimes sidetracked by emotion, but good.
too bad, I can’t say much about your other proponents… A friendly piece of advice: Please teach your proponets to read the articles and verify their validity before posting. Sorry to name examples; but Margie and constantcrusader pretty much killed your arguments by linking sites that are either for comedy purposes, conspiracy theories or claiming sites/studies as anti-RH but are in fact Pro-RH. and defending those links does more harm than good for your cause. And not to be one-sided: this is also applies to pro-RH fanboys.
You might want to add that to your Rules of Conduct: Read and Verify your citations before posting.
Again: Ru-486 is not to be confused with BC pills. Contraception is not abortion.
Truthsayer
4 May 2011
//As I said; as a people we cannot enforce one type morality on people with different ideals.//
No we can’t and that’s why we oppose the RH bill.
//Mind you, I do not like abortion. But i respect the people who need (not want) it.//
We can agree to disagree.
//As I mentioned, I look at both sides of the coin. I am not a rabid RH-fanboy nor am I a rabid pro-lifer. I follow morals, but i do not let my religion or emotions get in the way of education and the sciences. I may side with you on some parts or i may openly oppose you.//
That’s fine. We are here to educate. Different people faced with the same data may come to different conclusions — that’s a given. That’s the same reason we allow people to post links here — we may agree with some or them, disagree with others. We appreciate the opportunity to discuss.
And thanks for your note re people’s sources. As it is, we are exposed to different sources of information whether pro- or anti-RH. The thing to remember is that we at Filipinos for Life are here because of a common belief in the sanctity and protection of human life from fertilization/conception to natural death. Whether we use Scripture, or the Catechism, or science, or mathematics, or history to support our belief is, in the long run, immaterial. We all believe that life is a gift and as such is to be treasured and protected and never seen as a burden. It is only in valuing every life do we truly realize the value in our own.