Bishop Henry ... It's Been A While

For those who don't live in Calgary in the fair province of Alberta, you may not have heard the uproar over a doctor refusing to prescribe birth control pills to patients.  Unsurprisingly, a lot of people are upset by this.  

Equally unsurprising is Bishop Fred Henry's contribution to the discussion, published as a "Letter to the Editor" in today's Calgary Herald.

Re: "Doctors' ability to say no must be limited," Naomi Lakritz, Opinion, July 2. Physicians will sometimes prescribe the pill to treat problems like heavy menstrual bleeding, painful periods, pre-menstrual syndrome, endometriosis or severe acne. In these cases, the pill is used not as a contraceptive, but as a therapy for a medical condition. 

This can be morally permissible under the principle of double effect, which allows for the treatment of a serious medical problem (good effect) while tolerating its unintended consequences, when other less harmful treatments are not available. In this case, the unintended consequences would be the impeding of fertility and the pill's potential health risks and side-effects (evil effect). 

Some medical professionals insist that the pill, taken purely to avoid pregnancy, is "health care." It is not health care, but a lifestyle decision. This lifestyle decision is frequently made in the midst of a cultural backdrop that sanctions the misguided view that "health" means we have the right to practise consensual indiscriminate sex without consequences. 

The pill, when chosen strictly for these contraceptive purposes, fails the test of being health care because it does not heal or restore any broken system. It breaks a smoothly working system - the reproductive system - by disrupting the delicate balance of hormonal cycles regulating a woman's reproductive wellbeing and fecundity. 

When taken for lifestyle purposes, the pill is quite the opposite of health care - being detrimental to women's health - in light of its frequent side-effects of weight gain, headaches and depression, as well as its heightened and well-documented risk of thrombotic stroke, heart attack and breast cancer. 

We need more information from the professionals as to how the pill works. Does it prevent fertilization or is it an abortifacient? Or both? 

Bishop Fred Henry 

Calgary
Fred Henry is bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Calgary.

It comes as no surprise that the local Catholic Bishop would be objecting to the idea of contraception.  Last I checked, the official position of the Catholic Church was still that contraception is unacceptable - including condoms.  So, no big surprises there.

However, I take considerable exception to several aspects of the Bishop's arguments.

First, he claims that the contraceptive action of the pill is an "evil effect".  For those who choose to believe what the Bishop preaches, that's just fine.  Go ahead and believe that there is an "evil" associated with the pill.  The issue is not that the medication has effects on the body - that is both well documented and well understood.  To call them "evil" is something of a reach ... but we'll come back to this in a moment or two.

He then moves on to the old saw about how sex must have consequences.  Again, if you bought into the old guilt trip routine that the Catholic Church has been teaching about sex for the last several centuries, that's one thing.  On the other hand, some people actually like sex for its own sake.  I'm certain the Bishop will find this terribly appalling - we aren't supposed to actually enjoy it.  Especially not women.

This is, of course, complete nonsense.  Human beings have used sex as a means of pleasure, social bonding and goodness knows what else for far longer than the Catholic Church has existed.  For at least that long, men have been trying to regulate women's sexuality ... unsuccessfully for the most part.  I for one don't exactly think terribly highly of a bunch of supposedly celibate males trying to dictate how we should experience sex.

Accordingly, because it is "a lifestyle choice", Bishop Henry figures that the Pill isn't "medical care". Is the pill "medical care"?  That's a matter of perspective.  In some countries, it's an over-the-counter medication - walk in and ask for it and off you go.  In Canada, we still require a doctor's prescription. I suppose from the perspective of monitoring the patient for possible side effects and consequences, a visit to a doctor for a prescription isn't a bad idea.  In claiming that it is a "lifestyle choice" and therefore not "care", the Bishop is overlooking the obligation of the physician to ensure that the patient is in fact not experiencing serious side effects from the medication.

Perhaps most annoying about the Bishop's argument is his attempt to muddy the waters further by questioning whether the pill is "contraceptive" or "abortifacient".  This latter claim is relatively recent, and has been used to argue that certain medications are in fact essentially "chemical abortions" and therefore should be suppressed as violently as abortion itself.  It is part of the wedge politics approach to regulating women's sexuality.

Frankly, I don't think it matters which way (or both) that the Pill works.  The decision isn't the Bishop's to make, nor is it the Church's.  Women have a right to administer their bodies as they see fit, and manage their lives as they see fit.  (and that may just include enjoying sex now and then too)

As the old joke goes:  If the Bishop no playa da game, he no make da rules

Dear Pope Ratzinger: WTF?

How utterly, ideologically blinded can you possibly be?

Pope Benedict XVI says in a new book that condoms can be justified for male prostitutes seeking to stop HIV, a stunning turnaround for a church that has long opposed condoms and a pontiff who has blamed them for making the AIDS crisis worse.

Okay ... that's sort of a step in the right direction - at least the Pope seems to be acknowledging that condoms do have an effect on the spread of HIV. However, to limit the use of condoms to male prostitutes is stunningly short sighted.

Condoms have the same effect for women, but it would seem that under this Pope, women are not considered important enough to protect from STIs. Does this man think that women do not get infected by STIs? Or is it just that fertilizing an egg is so much more important than the risk of a life-shortening disease like HIV/AIDS? Has he not clued in yet that the vast majority of Catholics in developed countries ignore him entirely on the subject of birth control? Not to mention the moral vacuity of his insistence that women must always take the risk of not just pregnancy but also of STIs? (I would argue that it is an immoral act to demand that someone take such risks without their full knowledge and consent regarding the consequences)

The double standards and misogyny that are so clearly embedded in this Pope's theology are disappointing to see in this day and age.

Ah - So Women's Health Only Matters When You're Pregnant

Birth control won't be in G8 plan to protect mothers, Tories say

In no uncertain terms, Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon yesterday ruled out any kind of family-planning programs being included in Canada's "signature" initiative at June's G8 summit - a strategy to improve the health of mothers and young children in poor countries.

"It does not deal in any way, shape or form with family planning. Indeed, the purpose of this is to be able to save lives," Mr. Cannon told the Foreign Affairs committee.

So, in short, the HarperCon connection to the ultra-conservative "base" of religious fanatics has surfaced once again - this time with respect to women's health.

I'm sorry, Mr. Cannon, but you are doing nothing for women's health if you are taking out of their hands the ability to control their fertility. (and telling women to 'keep their legs crossed' doesn't work - especially in many of the third world countries where women are more chattel than equal members of society)

Women's health must include all dimensions - not just when they are pregnant, but also family planning, contraception and other forms of birth control. To do anything less is political dogma, not good government or policy.

Of course, this comes as little or no surprise to those who have been paying attention to the Harper government. There's been more 'dog whistles' put out in their policy in the last few months than I care to count. Whether we talk about Jason Kenney's lying deceit about his role in the content of this country's new citizenship book, the 2006 "cuts" that targetted women and minorities, or this issue, they are intended to signal to the squirming mass of extremism that had control over the Reform/Alliance party policy that they have not been forgotten.

Why The Pope Is DEAD WRONG About Condoms

It's not like Pope Ratzinger hasn't been swatted around already for his statements about condom use in Africa, but then again, today I spotted a story on BBC's website that puts the whole tragedy into into human terms.

Zenthu lives in a shack where she sleeps in the same room as her father and adult older brothers. She says that they are often drunk and sometimes there is no food for the family in the evenings.

The moment I ask her about her mother she bursts into tears, sobbing and sobbing.
...
Her mother gave birth to her baby sister two years ago, but months later still looked pregnant.
...
Despite the presence of other adults in the household, the care for both the new baby and her dying mother fell to Zenthu, then just 12 years old.

She began skipping school to tend to her mother.

Eventually, in Zenthu's words her mother "succumbed to the excruciating pains".

She had died from HIV/Aids. One in three pregnant mothers in some townships has the virus - so everyone must surely know someone with HIV. But the stigma means it is not discussed.

Imagine being twelve, and being the primary caregiver to the person who brought you into this world. Watching her wither away and die day by day - slowly and painfully.

Why? Because she had sex with someone who was HIV+...whether or not they knew it.

What's worse, is that the tragedy repeats itself with the next generation:

Or perhaps once they have been orphaned they are more likely to develop relationships with older men who can give them clothes and mobile phone time, but whose age makes them more likely to have HIV.

Or that without their parents' protection they might be more vulnerable to rape, a crime so common that some mothers living in the townships take their daughters to have long-lasting contraceptive injections at the age of 12 or 13, not because they think they're going to choose to have sex, but because the likelihood they'll be raped is so high.

Think about these things a bit. The dogmatic insistence of the Pope on "abstinence" is rooted in some fantasy world where everybody follows the same rules. Out in the real world, it's a much harsher, grittier picture. Condoms are a necessary part of the fight against HIV/AIDS, just like realistic sex education is. Sticking your head in the sand isn't going to do it.

Unfortunately, people in Africa are dying, and because old men in cassocks don't want to face the reality of that situation, simple things that could be done are being suppressed. This isn't just wrong, it's a moral failing far beyond that which they are so quick to criticize others for.

Confusing Correlation With Causality

I'm always amused by various attempts at linking birth control and abortion to cancers in women. Inevitably, some combination of statistics come out and and some people start trying to claim that there is a causal relationship, and therefore both should be outlawed.

The first article cited is this article which describes a statistical correlation between hormone-based birth control pills and cervical cancer. The correlation is interesting in itself, but of course no story is ever so simple:

For women in developed countries who took the pill from age 20 to 30, the number of cases of cervical cancer by age 50 rises to 4.5 per 1,000 women, from 3.8 cases per 1,000 in women who did not take the pill.

The incidence rises to 8.3 cases per 1,000 for pill users in less developed countries, compared with 7.3 cases per 1,000 for women who did not take the pill.
But this extra risk is outweighed by a reduction in the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers, the researchers said in a statement.

In other words, one risk is traded for another risk. Unsurprising, as this is true of most medical treatments these days. However, it is important to note that the researchers are quite clear in pointing out the "other side" of the risk coin - a factoid that is conveniently ignored by the so-called "pro-life" advocates.

The second article is more egregious as it is a purely statistical analysis which suggests a relationship between abortion rates and breast cancer rates in women. The sad part about this is that the trends shown do not necessarily imply any kind of causal relationship. The trends are parallel, but there are also a myriad of other factors that could be at play.

I will grant that statistical correlation is a valid point from which to launch more in-depth investigations to establish whether there is any causal relationship. However, it is folly in the worst sense of the term to simply assume causality.

Additionally, when an article by one person is only cited by people with obvious "axes to grind" politically speaking (and Patrick Carroll is certainly in that category), it's worthwhile to start digging a bit to see what can be found about the researchers involved.

It's hard to tell what Mr. Carroll's credentials really are. He seems to have a fairly solid background in statistical analysis, which fits with references to actuarial research, but it's not clear if he holds an advanced degree in that field, or has any significant medical research background. He's clearly not exactly "widely published", and certainly not as a co-author of papers in journals of Oncology, which should give anyone reading his work pause before placing too much weight on the conclusions or inferences made.

However, I would be reluctant to make any kind of policy decision based simply on these limited points of data, without significantly more in-depth causal analysis being made.