Natural family planning

I recently read an article about the Reproductive Health bill that provides an ethical analysis, objections and points for opponents and advocates to develop a common ground on the bill. The article by Joaquin Ferrer was given to me by Fr. Tony Salas, SVD, the University of San Carlos vice president for academic affairs.

Ferrer said the bill  “explicitly and specifically identifies the ‘modern’ artificial birth control methods and devices that the Philippine Government ought to subsidize.” The government wants to improve access to hormonal contraceptives, intrauterine devices (IUD), injectables that it claims to be  “medically safe and effective,” pro-poor and affordable.

The bill is aimed at addressing “unwanted” population growth and promoting poverty towards sustainable human development.

The study argues that the proposed bill,  while suggesting a first moral step for consideration towards common ground for dialogue  fails to provide a compelling moral arguments for systematic inclusion of  the legal infrastructure for “non-reproductive” artificial birth control methods.

According to the article: The artificial birth control methods and devices

(1) are health risks and have harmful sideeffects which require sophisticated medical care and supervision and the expertise of highly qualified, but very limited number of doctors,

(2) are unaffordable  because their primary target market are the rich—those who can afford and are willing to pay; and their procurement for, as well as their distribution and accessibility to the “poorest of poor” by the government agencies would only make corruption alluring; and

(3) the choice as to which artificial birth control method to use is not a basic right but merely a “preference satisfaction.” Such a choice would prohibit a correlative duty to sacrifice certain basic human rights, such as the right to follow one’s conscience and religion merely to satisfy somebody else’s contraceptive preference.

Research and medical practitioners generally agree that besides abstinence, the safest method for family planning, birth spacing and responsible parenthood is fertility awareness, which is widely known as “natural family planning” (NFP) method.

A more developed, “modern” (or post-modern) type of NFP is the sympothermal  method that combines three fertility awareness based methods—temperature methods, cervical mucus method and calendar method.

The sympothermal method is 98 percent effective when used correctly and consistently. It has  no harmful side effects. These and other natural family planning methods are always accessible and available, free or costs very little and require no medication.

* * *

Apparently, barangay Tejero officials do not agree with the  reblocking and road-widening plan proposed by Cebu City Mayor Michael Rama because it is going to displace occupants who were already affected by the recent fire.

The common complaint of our firemen is the lack of access in the area where the structures built by illegal settlers choked the roads.

I think Rama is looking after the people. Barangay officials should dialogue with the mayor without interference from any politician with vested interests to resolve the issue the soonest.

The mayor should provide a relocation site for those affected by the reblocking but if the city government owns the land the barangay officials can only help look for a relocation site.

The general welfare of the people, not politicking, should be the officials’ primordial concern.