Talk:Creighton Model FertilityCare System

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Proposed Infobox for individual birth control method articles[edit]

Let's all work on reaching a consensus for a new infobox to be placed on each individual birth control method's article. I've created one to start with on the Wikipedia Proposed Infoboxes page, so go check it out and get involved in the process. MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 12:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The infobox information appears to be taken from the Billings page. When statistics for Creighton are added to the page, the box can be updated, however, for the meantime, it would be innaccurate to attribute the same information to both methods, so I am removing some of the info in the infobox. Wanfactor 17:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Categorization - what articles should this one be grouped with?[edit]

This article has been categorized with other articles on fertility awareness since July 2006. It was recently removed completely from the birth control tree of categories (diff). The editor who removed this category nominated the periodic abstinence category for deletion. A statement made at the deletion discussion was that including this article in a sub-cat of Category:Methods of birth control such as Category:Periodic abstinence was opposed because the editor was "concerned that Catholic theological concepts are being categorized as discrete methods of birth control".

I do not see any evidence in this article that the Creighton Model is applicable specifically to Catholics. My understanding was that it, like every other method of fertility awareness, was developed by observant Catholics (I think it says something about the hold money-hungry drug companies have on our society that it takes a group of people who actually believe methods that cost money are immoral (!) to develop a virtually free method of birth control), but is applicable to anyone who cares to learn. As such, I believe it should be grouped with other specific methods like Billings ovulation method, Rhythm Method and the overview article of fertility awareness. What do others think? Lyrl Talk C 20:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I have placed a fact tag on the statement "as a form of natural family planning". I understand the method is called NFP in promotional materials. And this is being used to categorize this article differently than the other FA articles (despite the fact that the structure of the method may be used as FA, which I find itself a compelling reason to categorize this article with the others). However, I have seen no evidence that the teaching of this method meets the definition in the Wikipedia article natural family planning, "NFP excludes the use of birth control, as well as all orgasmic acts outside of those achieved through unprotected vaginal intercourse with the user's spouse." The citation request is for such evidence. Lyrl Talk C 03:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
It is not clear that the definition of NFP used by Creighton promoters is the same as the definition of NFP used by Wikipedia. See especially [1]. See also [2] "“natural family planning” is a defined terminology (World Health Organization)... “natural family planning” is well-established in the medical literature... “natural family planning” is a search term used by the medical literature databases." I really doubt the AAFCP would be using these arguments if they included religious restrictions as part of the definition of NFP. The Billings Method was also "developed as a method of NFP" by strongly observant Catholics. But WOOMB does not teach Billings with morality content. And, as far as I have seen, neither does Creighton. I have requested that a source be found that says Creighton "excludes the use of birth control" (not just promotes abstinence, which is inarguably the most effective way of avoiding pregnancy) and "orgasmic acts outside of... unprotected vaginal intercourse". I'm not a stickler for that exact wording - something obvious like saying they provide "sexual morality education" ([3]) would be acceptable by me.
The provided reference also says nothing about funding from the Catholic Church. If anything, the funding appears to have come from American universities [4]. [5]: "...the St. Louis University Natural Family Planning Center, a research center funded by research grants from the National Institutes of Health and the Missouri Division of Health." Lyrl Talk C 10:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Recent edits have improved the article, but have still not provided any rationale for not categorizing this article with fertility awareness. If I understand correctly, Joie de Vivre believes that this method is only or almost only taught alongside religious restrictions, and this is the basis for categorizing it seperately. 1)I disagree with that reasoning - it's like saying that Engineers Without Borders (UK) and Habitat for Humanity should not be put in the same category (they are both in Category:Development charities) because one is run by secular college students and the other is overtly Christian - and 2)no evidence has been provided (despite my repeated requests, above), that these religious restrictions are actually any part of the instructional materials used in Creighton classes. Lyrl Talk C 19:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It is categorized with fertility awareness. Joie de Vivre 22:38, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
My apologies. How embarrassing. I'll just back out of the room now... Lyrl Talk C 23:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
No, don't feel bad. I was the one who removed them originally a few days ago. When I got into editing the articles in-depth I realized that they ought to be included and I reinstated them. I should have alerted you, please excuse me. Joie de Vivre 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a rough consensus at Categories for discussion to put this article into a new Category:Fertility awareness. I'll leave this notice here for a couple of days, and if there are no objections, go ahead and create the new category. Lyrl Talk C 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

See also - Toni Weschler[edit]

Toni Weschler has recently been added to the see-also sections of a group of related articles. I'm not sure this addition is appropriate; my reasoning is at Talk:Billings ovulation method#See also - Toni Weschler? Lyrl Talk C 03:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

History section[edit]

Creighton Model, FertilityCare, CrMS, NaProTechnology -- I found these terms to be very confusing. Following research, I expanded and moved up the History section in order to clarify these various terms surrounding usage of this method. I have also created redirects from the terms to Creighton Model FertilityCare System. Joie de Vivre 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Category move[edit]

This article has been moved to Category:Fertility tracking as part of a planned deletion of Category:Periodic abstinence, Category:Fertility awareness, and Category:Natural family planning. Please bring up any concerns at Category talk:Periodic abstinence. If there are no objections within four days, these three categories will be tagged for speedy deletion. Lyrl Talk C 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: The old discussion at Category talk:Periodic abstinence is now located at Category talk:Fertility tracking/Periodic abstinence. Joie de Vivre 11:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Linking to "Birth Control" inappropriate for this topic[edit]

Most people who subscribe to NFP in general and CrMS would find the link to birth control to be inflammatory and objectionable. "Fertility awareness" is a great category for CrMS, but cross-linking to birth control is not, particularly with respect to such terms as "anal sex." WikiBarrister 16:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be better to edit that navigation template to remove the explicit sexual acts. Try bringing it up at Template talk:BirthControl. LyrlTalk C 02:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Questioning the Claim of Questionable Effectiveness Figures[edit]

There may be a misinterpretation of the research in the article. This was mentioned about the effectiveness: "In clinical studies of the CrMS conducted at the Pope Paul VI Institute, researchers excluded most pregnancies from the typical-use rate calculation, on the grounds that they believed the affected couples had used the method to deliberately attempt pregnancy", referring to the paper by Fehring et al. (1) The authors are from Marquette University, not Pope Paul VI. (2) There is a subtle unsubstantiated presumption of dishonesty in that statement. The proper venue for doing that is during the peer review of the publication, or a counter-claim in another scientific publication that provides its superior data. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jefferson.tan (talkcontribs) 15:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


Is there information from several independent and objective sources (that are not related to any group promoting this particular method) regarding the effectiveness of this method in preventing pregnancy? Can you add urls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Away1known (talkcontribs) 12:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


This article only references citations published by the creator of this method, and does not cite any "cons" to this method. It reads exactly like other pro Creighton pieces found on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

And what You want? Wizikj (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree, this article is more an advertisement than a encyclopaedia article. It is not neutral. Neither does it actually explain what the woman or the couple are supposed to do, only that CrMS teaches them to identify the rhythms. It should at least include a summary of what is thought. OxygenBlue (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I am a user of the method and intend to teach it when I can take the class required. What information would you like to know?Jemadi1121 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


so it was developed by a dr HILGERS, and based on an earlier BILLINGS method. why the heck is it called CREIGHTON?! (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Dr Hilgers has worked on a Creighton University, when he developed this method. More info [6]. Wizikj (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


I think the terminology 'perfect use' and 'typical use' is non-standard. My understanding is that what is here called 'perfect use' is technically known as 'efficacy' and what is here called 'typical use' is technically called 'effectiveness'. (The Wikipedia page on efficacy seems to agree with me.)

"Efficacy measures patient benefit and short term harm in scientific, usually experimental, studies. Effectiveness, by contrast, is concerned with patient benefit and harm in everyday practice." The Advanced Handbook in Evidence-Based Medicine, Edited by Stevens, et al. Sage Publications 2001. Blaise (talk) 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Blaise, you are right about the terms efficacy and effectiveness. However, with respect to birth control, perfect use and typical use is the standard. It is also the terminiology used by ACOG (American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists). Cogorno (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Source for Effectiveness Dispute[edit]

How is this a source? As far as I can tell, the paper mentions that they make a distinction between those who have sex on fertile days to achieve pregnancy and those who have sex on those days because they misidentified the day as a fertile day. Obviously if the couple was intending to get pregnant then we should exclude them since they are not using the method to prevent a pregnancy. However, those couples who mistakenly identified a non-fertile day and mistakenly got pregnant were included. So I don't see the source of the problem. Phattonez (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)