What is naprotechnology?

The scientific-sounding name naprotechnology comes from Natural Procreative Technology, which translated means a method of natural procreation. It is a method of family planning based on the observation of a woman's monthly cycle. The so-called Creighton model (the Creighton Model Fertiliy Care) is used for this. It is used to determine a woman's fertile days on the basis of daily observation of cervical mucus, menstrual bleeding or spotting, the length of the pre- and post-ovulatory phase. The observation chart, which is kept in collaboration with a special instructor, helps to structure the observations. Women using this system are able to spot any abnormalities and thus, as the promoters of this method emphasise, become equal partners for doctors, which is highly questionable. While the method, allows a woman to get to know her body better, it certainly does not cure infertility. Supporters of Creighton also claim that it can be used as a safeguard against unwanted pregnancy. However, it is not a substitute for contraception, as a woman's body can function differently and certain changes in the cycle can occur from month to month, shifting the fertility window.

Effectiveness of the naprotechnology method

Naprotechnology was developed with women in mind. However, not those with low ovarian reserve, serious hormonal problems, endometriosis, polycystic ovary syndrome, obstructed fallopian tubes, have undergone serious illness or early menopause. These are the real problems with which women come to the infertility clinics. Furthermore, statistics show that for half of infertile couples, it is the men who have problems that prevent conception. Naprotechnology is ineffective for them, whether they are struggling with azoospermia (a complete lack of sperm in the semen) or with a relatively minor decline in semen quality. This method does not take into account the observation of the man at all.

Is naprotechnology an alternative to IVF?

Definitely not. It is not only an alternative to in vitrobut also for any other method of combating infertility - hormone therapy, insemination or surgery. It can only support a healthy woman who is trying to get pregnant quickly and is hampered by an irregular cycle. They are therefore two completely separate issues that should not be placed side by side. Even though proponents of napro-technology claim that it helps to detect conditions that cause infertility, the diagnosis in this model is much more prolonged and less precise. This can significantly delay necessary treatment. There is also no chance that napro-technology will solve severe cases of infertility, caused, for example, by lesions in endometriosis, severe damage to the fallopian tubes or anatomical defects in the woman or the man.

Comparing apples to pears - the effectiveness of the method

Comparing the results of the 'treatment' of healthy and infertile women is pointless, although proponents of the method from the Pope Paul VI Institute in the United States, where it originated, claim that it can be used to cure such serious diseases as endometriosis, which is not confirmed by other medical centres for the study and treatment of infertility.

For this reason, naprotechnology clinics are worth being wary of. The long observation time and the required frequent visits make the cost of naprotechnology comparable to the price of treatment in an infertility clinic, which is much more effective. These types of facilities omit the crucial diagnostics for fertility. In the case of fertility problems, one of the most important tests is to check a woman's ovarian reserve (AMH hormone level test). If the result is low, specialist treatment must be initiated. Observing the mucus will not help. You will only waste valuable time.

Naprotechnology clinics do not take into account that the causes of infertility can be numerous and difficult to detect. Experienced infertility clinics work with specialists in gynaecology, endocrinology and immunology to detect the causes of the problem as quickly and accurately as possible.

Time is at a premium

"Natural" approaches to the subject of infertility unfortunately do not always work, especially when napro-technological observations take many months or even several years, costing no small amount of money. Then, when a woman is trying to get pregnant and she is over 35, the time spent analysing her mucus based on the chart may be lost. Each additional month means a further, inevitable decline in fertility, and postpones the moment when the woman will swap her fertility instructor for an experienced doctor specialising in infertility treatment.