Research Fellow, Department of Humanities and Social Medicine, the Catholic University of Korea.
Uisahak. 2020 Apr;29(1):81-120. doi: 10.13081/kjmh.2020.29.81.
This article reviews the competition of two natural family planning methods in the mid-1970s when the Catholic Natural Family Planning program was underway in Korea. The Catholic Church, emphasizing the natural law, has recommended Natural Family Planning (NFP), a method of regulating childbirth by abstinence during the fertile period, since the mid-twentieth century. However, a group of gynecologists working at St. Mary's Hospital, a Catholic general hospital in Korea, questioned the utility of NFP. As an alternative, they proposed the method of Ovulation Regulation (OR), which regulates the menstrual cycle by inducing ovulation with steroids agents. This seemed to be no different than contraception with oral contraceptives disapproved of by the Catholic Church, but many doctors who advocated OR thought that this could be a new 'natural' family planning method to replace NFP. What is noteworthy here is the fact that not only NFP advocates, but also OR advocates attempted to justify their methods based on the authority of the 'nature.' In the debate over natural family planning methods, nature's legitimacy was given premise, not the object of doubt. Rather, the issue was the definition of nature. First, 'nature' in NFP signifies 'innate nature,' which excludes human intervention. According to this point of view, OR with steroids agents could not be natural. On the contrary, a group of doctors who advocated OR considered nature 'primal completeness.' If the natural order of the menstrual cycle could be restored, the artificial intervention of the administration of steroids was not a problem. Thus, both groups defended their arguments by redefining nature, rather than raising an issue of nature itself. The competition between 'innate nature' and 'complete nature,' a proxy war between NFP and OR, resulted in the victory of the former as the meaning of nature became fixed. Advocates of NFP pointed out that OR inhibits other physiological functions in the process of inducing ovulation, suggesting that the idea of 'complete nature' could never be achieved. The meaning of nature could no longer be controversial. Since the intervention was unnatural, nature meant innateness, the absence of intervention. Accordingly, the Catholic Bishops of Korea approved the Billings Method, a kind of the NFP, as the official family planning method, and gynecologists at St. Mary's Hospital of Korea also focused on the development and supplementation of the Billings Method. In short, the debate over the methods of natural family planning in mid1970s Korea was a clash of 'innate nature' and 'complete nature.' As a result, this confirmed the limitations of medical practice and reconfirmed the power of magisterium, the church's authority over medical practice.
这篇文章回顾了 20 世纪 70 年代中期两种自然计划生育方法的竞争,当时天主教自然计划生育项目正在韩国进行。天主教会自 20 世纪中叶以来一直推荐自然计划生育(NFP),这是一种通过在生育期禁欲来控制生育的方法。然而,在韩国圣玛丽综合医院工作的一群妇科医生对 NFP 的实用性提出了质疑。作为替代方法,他们提出了排卵调节(OR)方法,通过用类固醇药物诱导排卵来调节月经周期。这似乎与天主教教会反对的口服避孕药避孕没有什么不同,但许多提倡 OR 的医生认为,这可能是一种新的“自然”计划生育方法,可以取代 NFP。这里值得注意的是,不仅 NFP 的倡导者,而且 OR 的倡导者都试图根据“自然”的权威来证明他们的方法是合理的。在自然计划生育方法的争论中,自然的合法性被赋予了前提,而不是怀疑的对象。相反,问题是自然的定义。首先,NFP 中的“自然”表示“内在自然”,它排除了人为干预。根据这一观点,用类固醇的 OR 不可能是自然的。另一方面,一群提倡 OR 的医生认为自然是“原始的完整性”。如果能够恢复月经周期的自然秩序,那么管理类固醇的人为干预就不是问题。因此,两组人都通过重新定义自然来捍卫自己的论点,而不是对自然本身提出质疑。“内在自然”和“完整自然”之间的竞争,NFP 和 OR 之间的代理战争,导致前者的胜利,因为自然的意义变得固定。NFP 的倡导者指出,OR 在诱导排卵过程中抑制了其他生理功能,这表明“完整自然”的概念永远无法实现。自然的意义不再有争议。由于这种干预是不自然的,所以自然意味着内在性,即没有干预。因此,韩国天主教主教团批准了比林斯方法,一种 NFP,作为官方计划生育方法,韩国圣玛丽医院的妇科医生也专注于比林斯方法的发展和补充。总之,20 世纪 70 年代中期韩国自然计划生育方法的争论是“内在自然”和“完整自然”之间的冲突。因此,这证实了医学实践的局限性,并再次确认了教权的力量,即教会对医学实践的权威。