Gallo, P., & Tham, J. (2022). How NaProTechnology compares with assisted reproductive technology. Revista de Medicina y Ética, 33(1), 205-238. https://doi.org/10.36105/mye.2022v33n1.05
Gallo P, Tham J. How NaProTechnology compares with assisted reproductive technology. mye. 2022;33(1):205-238. doi:10.36105/mye.2022v33n1.05
Gallo, Pasquale, and Joseph Tham. "How NaProTechnology compares with assisted reproductive technology." Revista de Medicina y Ética, vol. 33, no. 1, 2022, pp. 205-238.
For EndNote, Zotero or Mendeley:
Open access
No open license is recorded for this paper. Reuse terms are set by the publisher.
Paper argues NaProTechnology is less risky and less costly than ART
The paper argues NaProTechnology is less risky, less expensive and more ethical than assisted reproductive technology (ART). Two authors wrote this 2022 argument and report no new data. It cites one Irish series of 1072 couples, where about 4 out of 10 conceived.
Key Findings
In the Irish series the authors cite, 1072 couples had an average female age of 35.8 years and were treated from 1998 till 2002. Approximately 40% conceived using NaProTechnology.
Of the live births in that series, 4.6% were twins and 88% reached term. Low birth weight (less than 1.5 Kg) affected 1.4%.
The authors say a Cochrane review found too little data to show that ART works better than gentler treatment for infertility.
They cite multiple pregnancies at 1-3 in 50 with ART, even at a 3-embryo limit, against 1 in 80 natural. They put ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome at up to 30% of ART cycles.
Interpretation
The paper is a narrative argument. Its abstract says NaProTechnology "seems to be a better solution" for infertility. The authors report no new data and describe no systematic literature search. Their ethical case rests on Catholic teaching, which they state openly. The ART risk figures come from cited secondary sources. The outcome series comes from one Irish general practice. The authors write that success rates are hard to compare because methods and study populations differ.
RRM Context
Restorative reproductive medicine treats infertility as a symptom with findable causes. The paper describes NaProTechnology that way. Couples learn to track cycles. Thyroid and hormonal causes are diagnosed, and male causes are investigated too. The authors call it a couple therapy. They contrast its commitment to identify and treat correctable causes, so the couple may conceive through intercourse, with the approach of standard ART.
Our editorial summary of this paper, not the article's abstract.
Abstract
La progresiva medicalización de la infertilidad en las últimas tres décadas se corresponde con una creciente difusión de las Tecnologías de Reproducción Asistida (TRA), que han dejado en la sombra, casi por completo, otros enfoques más fisiológicos del tratamiento de la infertilidad, que tienen menos riesgos, son más económicos y, a la vez, igualmente efectivos. Este trabajo presenta un enfoque sistemático e integrado: la NaProTecnología (NPT), que tiene como objetivo optimizar las condiciones fisiológicas en cada ciclo menstrual, para permitir, de esta forma, una concepción por métodos naturales. Este método se postula como una mejor solución para el tratamiento de la infertilidad, desde un punto de vista que no sólo es más ético, sino que, además, es compatible con otros puntos de vistas religiosos, médicos, sociales, legales y ambientales. Los gobiernos deberían promover y financiar la NPT y, al mismo tiempo, las sociedades médicas y científicas deberían diseñar estudios para comparar de una manera justa la tasa de éxito, los costos y las complicaciones de la NPT en contraposición al método TRA tradicional.
