The per-woman live-birth rate for couples starting NaPro treatment is 45% at one year and 60% at two years. IVF centers report pregnancy rates per cycle instead of per woman, and in 2008, the per cycle live-birth rate for IVF was 34%.
Reason #2: NaProTECHNOLOGY searches for the underlying causes of infertility and seeks to restore health to a woman’s fertility
Healthier women, healthier pregnancies, and more successful subsequent pregnancies result. Assisted reproductive technology (ART) does not typically address underlying women’s reproductive health issues, and in some cases ART can make the problems worse. For example, rather than repairing damaged fallopian tubes, IVF doctors will often “tie” or remove them to improve the success rate of IVF cycles, leaving the woman with little to no hope of a spontaneous conception if IVF fails.
Reason #3: NaProTECHNOLOGY is more effective than IVF at achieving a live birth
Because NaPro focuses on restoring health to a woman’s fertility, it lays the basis for a lower miscarriage rate. Moreover, NaPro has an effective protocol for the prevention of preterm birth, which is a major cause of newborn death. Where it has been implemented, this protocol has reduced the preterm birth rate from the typical U.S. preterm birth rate of 12% to 7%.
Reason #4: NaProTECHNOLOGY results in healthier pregnancy outcomes than IVF
Babies conceived via IVF have twice the rate of major birth defects than babies conceived without IVF (9% vs 4%). IVF-conceived babies are also more likely to have low birth weights, even at term. Finally, the multiple gestation rate for NaPro is only 3.2%, versus 35.9% for IVF. (Multiple gestations are high risk pregnancies that often involve serious complications for baby [preterm delivery, neonatal death, cerebral palsy and other disabilities, birth defects, and low birth weight] and mother [gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, hemorrhage at delivery, higher C-section rates, increased morning sickness, and depression].)
Reason #5: NaProTECHNOLOGY has helped failed IVF patients achieve a live birth
A study in Ireland of failed IVF patients who were subsequently treated with only Creighton Model charting and Medical NaPro (not in combination with Surgical NaPro) resulted in an overall live birth rate of 20.5% (This overall rate included a live birth rate of 28.9% for women that had 1 previous failed IVF cycle, 18.4% with two failed IVF cycles, and 13.3% with three or more failed IVF cycles). Although studies have not yet been done on failed IVF patients that were treated with Medical and Surgical NaPro, one can reasonably conclude that the success rates would be significantly higher if Surgical NaPro treatments were also utilized. In contrast, a 2005 Cochrane Database analysis could not definitively conclude that IVF’s live birth rates were better than expectant management or other common approaches to infertility.
Reason #6: NaProTECHNOLOGY is usually more affordable for couples than IVF
Most health plans don’t cover ART, or they have very limited ART coverage. One cycle of IVF alone can cost $10,000-$15,000. On the other hand, most NaPro treatments are covered by health insurance, because NaPro focus on diagnosing and treating the cause of the infertility, in addition to helping the couple get pregnant.
Reason #7: NaProTECHNOLOGY pursues conception in a manner respectful of the dignity of a baby’s life
Unfortunately, IVF often manipulates and destroys life in its attempts to create it and acheive a live birth. For example, 11,262 live births that resulted from IVF procedures in England were reported in 2005; however, 191,000 embryos were created to bring about these 11,262 live births. That means only 5.9% of the created embryos resulted in live-birth deliveries. Most embryos are frozen if they are not immediately implanted. If they are no longer desired by the couple who created them, they are often manipulated and destroyed for scientific research, or thawed and discarded without burial. Even if a particular embryo is thawed for implantation, it may still be screened out and discarded for any perceived weaknesses or anomalies. Finally, when triplets or higher are conceived, many IVF doctors will recommend aborting one or more of the babies to try to decrease the complications associated with higher numbered multiples (called selective abortion, or selective reduction). On the other hard, NaPro completely avoids the issue of “frozen babies,” and when multiple gestations do occur, NaPro utilizes various protocols to help couples bring the pregnancy to full term, without selective abortion.
Reason #8: NaProTECHNOLOGY respects and promotes the marriage relationship
By assisting couples in conceiving children through their natural sexual relationship, NaPro helps couples keep their marriage healthy and intact by keeping their life-making sexuality tightly interwoven with their love-making sexuality. Unfortunately, ART separates the married couple’s fertility from their intimacy, and the “technology” involved in ART devalues the act of marital intercourse.
Reason #9: The only “ethical” concern with NaProTECHNOLOGY is picking a baby name!
ART raises a whole host of ethical problems that involve either destroying a person’s life or attacking human dignity and sexual integrity, including masturbation, abortion, use/disposal of frozen babies, surrogate pregnancy, gender selection, financial manipulation of gamete donors or recipients, genetic manipulation in attempts to conceive the “perfect baby,” and more.
Reason #10: NaProTECHNOLOGY does not offend religious convictions of the patient
IVF and several forms of ART are expressly forbidden by several religions. NaPro is universally acceptable, however, because conception occurs through normal intercourse and the new baby is treated with the full respect due to all human life.
Why is NaproTECHNOLOGY Better than ART?
It is more effective, healthier, safer,
more affordable, ethical, and it respects
the dignity of the couple and any children they may conceive!
This list was created by http://www.mysticalroseobgyn.com/napro_vs_ivf.htm
