Natural Family Planning: Breastfeeding Research published in April and May 2018

February 10th, 2019

Mortality prevention
Breastfeeding all babies for the first two years would save the lives of more than 820,000 children under age 5 annually.  In many hospitals and communities around the world, whether a child can be breastfed or not can make the difference between 1) life and death and 2 whether a child will develop to reach his or her full potential. Joint Press Release, WHO and UNICEF, Geneva, April 11, 2018

Childhood leukemia
Any breastfeeding for 6 months or longer was associated with a 19% lower risk for childhood leukemia. “A causal mechanism for childhood acute lymphoblastic leukaemia,” Nature Reviews Cancer, May 21, 2018.

Immunity
New evidence that human breast milk is packed with immune cells ready to attack bad bacteria, “Presence and Profile of Innate Lymphoid Cells in Human Breast Milk,” JAMA Pediatrics, May 2018.

Breast cancer
The evidence shows that, in general, the greater the number of months that women continue breastfeeding their babies, the greater the protection these women have against breast cancer.  The goal is to breastfeed exclusively for 6 months and then up to two years of age or beyond alongside appropriate complementary foods.  Cancer Prevention Recommendation by the World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research, 2018.

Maternal blood pressure
Women who breastfeed more children, and for longer periods of time, are less likely to experience high blood pressure, or hypertension, after they reach menopause.  “Breastfeeding and Maternal Hypertension,”  American Journal of Hypertension, May 7, 2018.

Too many babies are not breastfed.
Babies in wealthy countries are five times more likely to miss out on breastfeeding than those in the under-developed, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) said on Thursday, May 10th, explaining that this gap could be addressed by better support for working mothers, and regulating sales of infant formula.  Each year some 7.6 million babies across the world are not breastfed despite clear evidence that breastfeeding can save lives and protect babies and mothers against deadly diseases. Breastfeeding is the best gift a mother, rich or poor, can give her child. The US alone accounts for more than one-third of the 2.6 million babies in high-income countries who were never breastfed. UNICEF, May 10, 2018.

For those concerned about the February meeting of bishops, see John’s article for Catholic World Report where he submits that Humana Vitae and dissent need to be on the table at the Feb. meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

Natural Family Planning: Breastfeeding Research published in Jan., Feb. and Mar. 2018

February 3rd, 2019

Atopic eczema
Prolonged and exclusive breastfeeding may reduce the risk of atopic eczema in adolescence. JAMA Pediatrics, online only, January 2, 2018.

Type 2 diabetes
A 30-year study concluded that moms who breastfed up to six months had a 25 percent lower chance of developing type 2 diabetes than those who didn’t nurse, and women who breastfed for six months or more reduced their risk of developing the disease by 47 percent. Moreover, researchers found that the most benefits came from nursing 12 months or longer when compared with those women who didn’t breastfeed at all.  “Lactation Duration and Progression to Diabetes in Women Across the Childbearing Years,” JAMA Internal Medicine, January 16, 2018.

Peanut sensitivity
This study investigated the relationship between maternal peanut consumption while breast-feeding, timing of direct peanut introduction, and peanut sensitization at age 7 years. The lowest incidence of peanut sensitization (1.7%) was observed among children whose mothers consumed peanuts while breast-feeding and directly introduced peanuts before 12 months. “Reduced risk of peanut sensitization following exposure through breastfeeding and early peanut introduction,” The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, February 2018.

Heart disease
Women who breastfed for six months or more had higher levels of HDL (aka the good cholesterol), lower triglycerides as well as a healthier carotid artery thickness versus the women who had never breastfed.  Breastfeeding might reduce mom’s risk for heart disease later in life. American College of Cardiology’s 67th Annual Scientific Session, March 2018.

Infant mortality
Not breastfeeding according to recommendation in Indonesia is estimated to contribute to 5377 preventable infant deaths due to diarrhea and pneumonia/respiratory disease  per year.  The recommendation in Indonesia consists of early initiation of breastfeeding (within the first hour of birth), exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months, and continued age appropriate breastfeeding at two years (accompanied by iron-rich complementary foods).  “The annual cost of not breastfeeding in Indonesia: the economic burden of treating diarrhea and respiratory disease among children (< 24mo) due to not breastfeeding according to recommendation,” International Breastfeeding Journal, March 2, 2018.

Mortality prevention
Breastfeeding could prevent 823,000 annual deaths in children under 5 years and 20,000 annual deaths from breast cancer among other well documented benefits.  World Alliance for Breastfeeding Action, International Women’s Day, March 8, 2018.

Overweight infants
The risk of becoming overweight or obese decreased significantly if high-birthweight infants were exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life.  The Endocrine Society, 100th annual meeting, Chicago,  “Breastfeeding may protect high-birthweight infants from childhood obesity.” March 18, 2018.

 

 

Natural Family Planning: Mucus-only Systems

January 27th, 2019

Recently I saw a blog that raised my concerns about mucus-only systems.  First, some background.  The late Fr. Paul Marx OSB conducted an NFP symposium every summer in the Seventies.  I attended these from 1971 through 1978 and heard Dr. John Billings give his talk each year.  He was such a convincing speaker that he would leave me wondering why we taught the cross-checking Sympto-Thermal system.  That question evaporated when I realized that there was at that conference another meeting to which I was not invited.  The Ovulation Method (OM) teachers would get together to discuss real-life situations.  They were finding that in real life things were not as simple as in the talks by Dr. Billings.  The temperature sign can be a  tremendous help and especially when the mucus signs are ambiguous or difficult to interpret.  By the way, Fr. Paul Marx was a supporter of NFP International.

At the talks by Dr. Billings, I heard him say two things that are troubling to this day.  In one talk he explained why he and his associates had dropped the temperature sign.  He said it was too easy.  It was so easy to use and interpret the temperatures that their Sympto-Thermal Method (STM) users were getting sloppy with their mucus observations.  Thus, his method systematically deprives his mucus-only users of the very-easy-to-use temperature sign.  Our answer to this problem is to point out that each sign is very important, especially in some situations.  If a couple decides to use only one sign, that’s their business, but we strive to give them the freedom to choose.  I strongly object to the deliberate withholding of this information, the deliberate reduction of couples’ freedom to make informed choices.

I also heard Dr. Billings explain that his system does not teach the teachings of the Church regarding birth control.  He used the word “crutch” in saying that his method stands on its own merits as a method of birth control and does not need the “crutch” of religion.  The Hilgers system likewise advertises that it is open to people of all faiths.  He certainly doesn’t encourage any immoral behaviors, but his system does not explicitly teach Catholic teaching on unnatural forms of birth control.  A Hilgers user-couple once told us that such a lack of specific teaching led them to practice masturbation during the fertile time until they somehow got our materials.  In our manual’s witness chapter, one gentleman says he and his spouse used our 1996 manual for self-instruction but skipped the sections on morality and resorted to masturbation during the fertile time. They finally read those sections and repented.  I am sure that these cases are not at all exceptional.  In the mid-Seventies, a secular fertility-awareness book openly recommended oral sodomy although it condemned anal sodomy on grounds of being unsanitary.  I think it is imperative to state the specific unnatural forms of birth control.

Perhaps when the Billings dropped the teaching of morality, there were no immediate bad consequences because the users were made very much aware of the fullness of Catholic teaching by their Catholic education and parish priests.  Certainly that cannot be counted on today.

I am more convinced than ever that it is imperative to teach the covenant theology of the marriage act simply because it is so easy to grasp.  It also makes it very easy to understand the dishonesty of “marriage acts” outside of marriage.

Lastly, the Billings method of birth control is not as effective as it is sometimes claimed to be.  Right after Humanae Vitae, the U.S. bishops founded the Human Life Foundation to assist couples to live the teaching of the encyclical.  The Foundation persuaded the NIH to conduct an impartial study to determine the relative effectiveness of the STM and the OM.  It was published in 1981, stating that there were approximately twice as many surprise pregnancies in the OM group.  Drs. Billings and Hilgers criticized it at length even though they had been consultants to the study.  For example, they found fault with the study’s inclusion of unmarried couples.  Does anyone have good reason to think that unmarried couples are less motivated to avoid pregnancy than married couples? The bottom line is that the US Bishops through their Human Life Foundation sponsored a study which gave the above results, but many or most dioceses have ignored those results. In other words, while the OM may be very good, the comparative study showed that it is second best.

Couples have a right to know all the common signs of fertility, ecological breastfeeding, and the covenant theology of the marriage act.

For readers interested in what we teach at NFP International, go to NFPandmore.org and purchase Natural Family Planning: The Complete Approach.

John F. Kippley