The Washington Post goes to Omaha to look at the NaPro Technology Center
Inspired by Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae, which condemned artificial birth control, Hilgers began by helping to develop, with colleagues at nearby Creighton University, a natural family planning method called the Creighton Model, which involves meticulously charting a woman’s monthly cycle. But Hilgers goes beyond simply offering an alternative form of birth control.
An obstetrician-gynecologist and reproductive surgeon who trained at the University of Minnesota Medical School, Hilgers said he combines the charting system with intensive hormonal and ultrasound studies for better diagnoses. He said he can then restore fertility and treat other ailments through individually tailored therapies, such as targeted hormones and surgical techniques he developed for conditions including blocked fallopian tubes, pelvic adhesions and endometriosis.
"We can look at a woman’s cycles in ways that others simply can’t," Hilgers said during an interview in his office, surrounded by images of Popes Paul VI and John Paul II. "We work cooperatively with a woman’s cycle rather than suppressing it or destroying it. Many women come to us after years of being frustrated by the treatment they received elsewhere."
There’s more, including nay-sayers, whose views, I’d estimate, compose about a third of the article. A proportion that would be unheard of, it goes without saying, in a profile of Planned Parenthood.
The problem with this article is that it is so anxious to get the politics "right," to make sure we get that these religious fanatics are probably sort of anti-science, that it eats up all sorts of space on that issue, and leaves us hanging on questions we might be generally curious about. As in – exactly how do they treat infertility – what methods and medical procedures aren’t used for various problems? Are there problems that this method can’t treat? The reporter interviewed 4 doctors who are being trained in this method – 3 of those doctors are women. That’s interesting. Is there possible a mainstream-fertility-treatments-can-be-demeaning thread working here, aside from the faith aspect? Even the critiques quoted are vague. Ah, well, we can’t all be Stephanie Simon.
Read Previous Post