Archive for the ‘Education’ Category

Low Progesterone and Creighton Shots

Sunday, May 22nd, 2011

A mother asks:  I do have a quick question for you—I mentioned before that my fertility has returned (at 6 mos postpartum), confirmed by a full thermal shift in temps. I wasn’t able to figure out my luteal phase with the first cycle (I stopped temping for a couple weeks and when I started again, my temps were very high and then I had my period a week later). But, I just finished my second cycle and was concerned to see that my luteal phase was only 9 days long. Progesterone was a concern for me in the past so I am naturally wondering about miscarriage risk should we get pregnant soon.

My question is, do you routinely see short luteal phases when cycles return (even after just 6 mos of breastfeeding infertility)? My worry is that we would get pregnant this month (or in the next few months) and not have enough progesterone to sustain the pregnancy.  Thank you for your replies re: progesterone when fertility is returning. It was very helpful.

John’s Response:
I would suggest that you get one of the late Dr. John Lee’s books dealing with menopause and premenopause.  (What Your Doctor Won’t Tell You About Menopause published by Warner Books).  These should be widely available in public libraries or online.  He was a great advocate of natural progesterone administered transdermally.  His interest was in building bone density in older women, but what he has to say about natural progesterone has a wider applicability.  Since it is biologically the same as your own progesterone, he says it can be taken safely when pregnant and, I imagine, while nursing.  The idea in a case like yours would be to start it on the first day of temperature elevation and then continue it for two weeks, tapering off the dosage gradually the last few days.  As he notes in one of his books, suddenly stopping the dosage could “trick” your body into thinking it should menstruate, and that could cause a miscarriage.  So I have recommended tapering down over 3 or 4 days.  Then if you don’t have a period, you can assume pregnancy and resume the treatment and take it all during pregnancy.  Administered according to his directions, it mimics the daily secretion during the luteal phase.  I don’t know if greater amounts would be needed during pregnancy if your placenta was not doing its job.  That’s where the medical use of vaginal natural progesterone suppositories can be helpful, but that’s beyond my competence.  Because of stories we have heard, we are not fans of the Hilgers system of using progesterone injections in the butt.  I am told it works, but we question its invasiveness in the light of alternative therapies.

Questioner’s response:
I did want to comment about what John said about the pg shots in the behind. I did this with my first pregnancy and it was effective but if I had known there was an easier, alternative therapy I would have jumped at the possibility. Not only did I have to drive a distance to get the shots, they were very painful and caused extreme tiredness for the rest of the day. Most of the physical maladies I had during my first trimester were due not to morning sickness (although I did have it) but rather tiredness from the shot.

Many of my friends have low pg and get put on the shot (we are in Creighton territory) and it is the same story every time. Wonderful that the Creighton docs know how to help when progesterone is low, but sad that they’re not open to the creams and suppositories. I would venture to say it’s simply because they are not taught about it at the Creighton classes, and this in turn is due to a lack of knowledge in Omaha. I worked for Fertility Care Services so I do know a bit about the inner workings of the Creighton method. I switched back to the STM method after I couldn’t make sense of my fertility using mucus alone after having my first baby.  Taking temps again was just what I needed to know what was going on.

Thanks again for all you do.
___________

John F. Kippley

Eco-Breastfeeding and the Poor

Sunday, May 15th, 2011

The health advantages for infants are widely recognized, but perhaps the dangers of not breastfeeding are not so well recognized in this country.  After all, American babies born into poverty frequently have access to medical care when they get sick, and most of them will not be given water that is unsafe to consume.  It has been reported for some years that if all babies worldwide were exclusively breastfed (only mother’s milk) for the first six months of life, the lives of 1,500,000 babies would be saved each year.   I suspect that most of those saved babies live among the poor in less developed countries.

As breastfeeding expert Dee Keith puts it, “Give a family a tin of formula and you feed an infant for a day.  Give a mom tools and education and she can feed her child for 12 months or longer from her own body and protect his health for a lifetime.”

Breastfeeding not only provides the best nutrition that particular day but also provides another 20 health benefits for the baby and eight special health benefits to the nursing mother, some of which are still helping her 30 years later.  Teaching a mother to do ecological breastfeeding is the best breastfeeding education because most of the benefits of breastfeeding are dose related, and the practice of ecological breastfeeding helps to ensure a long duration of breastfeeding.

As Dr. Ruth Lawrence has said so well:
Breastfeeding is the most precious gift a mother can give her infant.
If there is illness or infection, it may be a life-saving gift.
If there is poverty, it may be the only gift.

John F. Kippley

PS: This week the US Catholic bishops published the John Jay Report on Clerical Sexual Abuse.  You may be interested in my husband’s commentary on the Report.  Sheila

Mental Illness and Casual Sex: A Father’s Plea

Sunday, May 1st, 2011

To whom it may concern:

I would like to write a letter to describe as best I can my thoughts on the relationship between men and women and their relationship to God and moral values.

Before I go into that, I would like to make a few comments on the relationship between mental health and sexual intercourse outside of marriage.

Many people believe that allowing people with chemical imbalances or mental illnesses to have casual sex is something that is good for them.  They believe that men and women naturally need to have sexual relief and pleasure in order to be happy.  That it is not only ok but therapeutic to engage in such behavior.  The only “problem” in their minds is the need not to get STDs nor to get pregnant.  Hence, the “solution” to this “problem” is to get sterilized and then to practice “safe sex” by using condoms to avoid diseases.  They believe that satisfying the biological urges will make that person somehow better, more stable, and happier.

Well, let’s talk a bit about sex.  The sexual act is an act so personal, so intimate, that our very beings unite in some way with our partner….that we do become “one” in some mysterious way and that there is a tremendous bonding that takes place which is permanent and deep.  That this happens seems pretty clear.

When a person who suffers from low self esteem, rejection, failed goals, and constant turmoil in their emotional lives are suddenly lifted above all this for a momentary time, one would think that this is a good.  However, the down side to this is that the great emotional bond and spiritual link to this person is not real, not lasting, and without any commitment for the future.  The net result is that this person is now even worse off due to the stress and strain of yet another rejection at the most profound level of his or her soul.  To set up a situation whereby a person is encouraged to gratify sexual urges as a positive end in itself ends up turning around what appears to be a good thing into a trap for furthering depression, guilt, and even lower self esteem.

There was a case that I knew of where a friend of mine had a boy with Downs Syndrome and they had him institutionalized after a certain age.  Well in this facility they sterilized all the clients and then paired them up and each week they had “sex night” which they spent together with their partner.  The idea here is to offer sexual gratification to these people with no apparent down-side.  Who are we to believe that we can do this with people?  Have these adults no dignity and who are we to allow this?  Who is the one to say that without sexual gratification that life is not worth living?  Who is to say that no man or woman is able to live without it?

My point is that there is a great danger to a person’s emotional well being to engage in casual sex for fun when the impact on a person is so serious and deep.

Would it not be better to take a higher road and strive to work on a person’s self esteem through progress in very human activities such as creative expression, providing mechanisms whereby the stronger ones can help and instruct the weaker ones?  Can we not encourage positive actions to deepen our internal feelings about our own self worth….first in God’s eyes and then in our fellow man’s eyes?  It is quite known that people who are close to God and pray carry a special peace in their hearts which helps them get through life.  Could we not help these people draw closer to God and fill their hearts with his love rather then to satisfy sexual urges?

God created sex to propagate the human species.  His plan according to my understanding is to structure a secure STABLE environment for a man and a woman to join, reproduce, and care for the offspring.  The best way for this to be done is with one couple, their children, one home, over a long period of time.  Out of this stable environment called marriage the sex act is brought out.  Next God allows the intercourse to be pleasurable to support the drive to reproduce because raising a kid is hard.  God also turns off the ability to have kids on a regular basis and for good after a certain age.  The first purpose of intercourse is procreation…whether or not a child is conceived.  The point is that the union is open to procreation.  There actually is a very good form of birth control which is practiced by Catholics and it is called NFP….Natural Family Planning and the success rate of those who properly utilize this process is higher than that of condoms for example….the difference here is that there is NO sex during the times that the woman could become pregnant.  To block procreation by sterilization (permanently) or with birth control goes against God’s plan for the marriage union.

As a side point, there are natural results of going against God’s will for using abortion, sterilization, or birth control and that is that nations will literally disappear and the people are not reproducing enough to replace themselves and the nation will just wimp away.  Also, in the US, with 50 million babies killed through abortion….guess what?  The money to support the parents who aborted their kids will not be there for them to live on as the kids are not there to pay taxes.

God has a plan for us.  This plan is pretty much known, or could easily be known, to us; but, we, like our freedom to do whatever we want, particularly stuff which is fun or pleasurable, and blow-off such talk of God’s plan to religious “nut-jobs”.  But there is a price to pay for ignoring the way God wants us to live…..and that price involves things which go on deep within our heart.

Casual sex will not improve my daughter’s life.

Sterilizing her could seriously impact her self esteem as a woman and drive her into deeper depression….a dangerous thing for her fragile state.

My daughter needs to focus on healing, being productive through volunteer or paid work, be encouraged to stay active in her faith which HAS demonstrated to be of benefit to her, to have wholesome and uplifting relationships, to be closer to her family after this pregnancy, and to establish goals which demonstrate that she can be successful in some limited way…but enough to bring her peace and tranquility in her life.

Anonymous