Fertility Awareness · Methods

Two methods of natural family planning

Billings JJ

Published March 1980 American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 136(5), 697-698
DOI 10.1016/0002-9378(80)91034-0 PMID 7355954
Read our synopsis

RRM Academy Synopsis

Doctors debated how to test natural family planning fairly

In this journal letter exchange, Dr. John Billings pushed back on a 1979 trial that compared the ovulation method with the sympto-thermal method. He said the trial judged a fertility awareness method by contraceptive rules, and the study team wrote back to defend how they ran it.

Key Findings

  • Billings said close to 1 in 4, or about 25%, of the couples signed up for the trial were unmarried, and asked if that fit what abstinence-based methods need.
  • Billings raised the trial's higher dropout rate for the ovulation method as his main concern. He attributed it to the design issues he described.
  • He wrote that some staff signing couples up had reportedly told them to use barrier birth control during a learning phase, which goes against the method's own rules.
  • Wade and coauthors denied telling anyone to use barrier methods or spermicide, in training or during the study.
  • Wade and coauthors said their final numbers showed similar pregnancy and dropout rates for married and unmarried couples alike.

Interpretation

This is a back-and-forth letter. The exchange presents no new study with its own data. The one real number here, close to 1 in 4 couples being unmarried, is a fact about the original 1979 trial. So it cannot tell us how well either method actually works. What this letter shows is an argument over rules: can a method built around skipping sex on fertile days be scored the same way as a contraceptive? Was teacher training explained clearly enough to judge the results? Take each side's claims here, about staff behavior and about how subgroups did, as their own account. Neither side's account is proven fact.

RRM Context

This letter shows an early clash over how to study a fertility awareness method. Should it be scored by contraceptive rules, or judged on its own terms? The method relies on timed abstinence and involves no device or drug. The disagreement still shapes how these methods get studied today.

Abstract not indexed.

Topics

By this author

Related research

Fertility Awareness › Methods › Billings Ovulation Method · Ethics and Policy › Reproductive Ethics › Conscience Protections
PMID 7355954 7355954 DOI 10.1016/0002-9378(80)91034-0 10.1016/0002-9378(80)91034-0 Billings et al. 1980, Billings 1980

Cite this article

Billings, J. J. (1980). Two methods of natural family planning. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 136(5), 697-698. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9378(80)91034-0