Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Peter Byass

GET UPDATES FROM Peter Byass
 

Why Do Contraceptives Save Lives?

Posted: 11/07/2012 09:16

Everyone knows that contraceptives are good at preventing pregnancies - but now there's a major global summit in London looking at how contraceptives can save lives. How does that work?

Some 1,292 organizations in 177 countries - including UCGHR - have signed a declaration published in the Financial Times under the heading "Family Planning Saves Lives".

The London summit, prominently supported by Melinda Gates and the UK Government is spearheading a global effort to make contraceptives more widely available at less cost to women around the world.
But the connections between contraceptive access and saving lives may not be so clear, even in some of the media coverage around at the moment. Let's look at the numbers.

In reality, every single woman who gets pregnant takes a risk. There are lots of ways of viewing the risks, but let's look at the ultimate bad outcome - women who die as a result of being pregnant. According to the United Nations, women who get pregnant in the UK face a 0.01% risk of dying as a result. This is a small, but not negligible, risk. Interestingly, in the USA, where there is no national health service, the risk is nearly twice as high.

However, like many other risks, the chances of bad outcomes increase with poverty - along with poorer access to good health care and other disadvantages. In a few countries, the risk of a woman dying due to a pregnancy is as high as 1%, and in many countries it exceeds 0.5%. So if 100 pregnant women turn up to a clinic in, for example, Somalia, there is every chance that one of them will die as a result of her pregnancy. These are astonishingly high figures, unacceptable in the 21st century. All sorts of actions like better hospitals, emergency transport and simply poverty reduction are needed to solve these problems. But why contraceptives?

The risks that I'm talking about here occur per pregnancy. Therefore it's a matter of very simple maths to see that if a woman gets pregnant less often in her lifetime, then she is less likely to die as a result of pregnancy. That's why contraceptives save lives.

There are other arguments too - children grow up healthier if there are bigger age gaps between siblings; unwanted pregnancies may lead to dangerous abortions, and so on. But the simple fact is that contraceptives do indeed save lives, and that's why the world needs them to be more widely available, cheaper, and accessible via user-friendly services.

 

Follow Peter Byass on Twitter: www.twitter.com/UCGHR

FOLLOW UK
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:25 PM on 07/16/2012
So what does? And don't you dare say abstinence. The majority of humans on this planet don't subscribe to the same book you do, and their ancestors were around a long time before your magic book.

C
03:15 PM on 07/12/2012
The solution to the problem is better maternal health care, not contraception!
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Peter Byass
04:39 PM on 07/12/2012
Not one or the other, but both are needed!
03:05 PM on 07/12/2012
Birth control does not reduce unplanned pregnancies:

http://www.1flesh.org/argument_page/artificial-contraception-reduce-unplanned-pregnancies/
09:43 PM on 07/11/2012
Contraceptives not only save women from getting pregnant but they save society from the wheel of poverty - endless children and no or very inadequate education and the chance of achieving economic independence. Pregnancy is not only risky - women can develop seizures or high blood pressure which can cause the retina to detach or she can bleed to death giving birth or endless other things. Pregnancy is an ordeal for most women causing sleepiness, nausea and ending in labor which is extremely painful and then childbirth which is still more painful if a qualified anesthetist isn"t able to give relief. Society as a whole benefits from birth control. It circles up from poverty to comfort. IIt is not easily misled by religulousness and makes good decisions for its children. America not only has more maternal deaths due to lack of birth control pills but it also lacks a good education system for the poor. The rich can buy birth control pills, the best doctors but they can buy the best schools for their children. And when birth control fails they can buy an abortion where abortions are legal and safe. China has been criticized for its control of population growth, but it is a fact that women there who are engineers or lawyers, do not want more than one child. Another fact re China is famines are history, traffic jams are a problem because of the rising incomes of China. Chinese children are educated and adored.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ttsgw
Atheist and secular humanist
05:51 PM on 07/11/2012
True Christians and their God are only interesting in children before they are born and after they have died. That's why he let them starve to death in Africa.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Peter Byass
09:58 PM on 07/11/2012
Not sure what you mean by "True Christians", but the Christians, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics and Atheists that I know care deeply about people's welfare at all stages of life, all around the world.
03:00 PM on 07/11/2012
Okay...but contraceptives don't help that risk for women who actually do become pregnant. Why don't we just focus on treating and preventing the underlying complications that lead to death? We can't use contraceptives to run forever from the "risks" of pregnancy (or rather, from the risks of complications). We already spend almost $4 billion globally on family planning in the developing world, and the U.S. contributes 5 times more to family planning than to nutrition aid.

The stats in the article above hide the fact that in the *very* least developed countries, the lifetime risk of maternal mortality is about 4.5%. In "less developed" countries, the lifetime risk is only 1.7% or slightly higher than the risk of dying in a fatal car crash in the United States By contrast, in the United States you have a 20% chance of dying from heart disease and a 14% chance of dying of cancer.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Peter Byass
03:34 PM on 07/11/2012
You're right of course - in places where one pregnancy has a 1% risk, then a lifetime of 4 or 5 pregnancies gives you the 4.5% lifetime risk. The difference between deaths from pregnancy and those from heart disease or cancer is that pregnancy-related deaths, which by definition happen to women and mothers in the prime of their lives, are almost all preventable if good services are in place. That's how, in Scandinavia, the risk is right down to about 0.005% of pregnancies. Unfortunately, deaths among older people from other causes like heart disease and cancer can't be postponed or prevented indefinitely - we're all going to die eventually! I've talked about that before: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/peter-byass/saving-lives-taking-risks_b_948262.html
04:49 PM on 07/11/2012
Yes, you're definitely right on that count. I do agree that 4.5% (or 1.7%) is still too high, although it's not as drastic as the some would make it sound (again: 1.7% isn't much higher than likelihood of dying in a car crash in the US), which is why I threw in the stats. 
However, I still believe it would be much more effective in the long-run to address the underlying causes of maternal death than using the band-aid of contraceptives. At the end of the day, even if we increase contraceptive usage, women are still going to get pregnant and keep having children. If we haven't addressed the underlying causes of maternal mortality, then women are still going to die. Sure, it may be a lower lifetime average (fewer pregnancies), but the per-pregnancy rate will still be way too high because the underlying issues will not have been addressed.  Women in developed countries don't just have low mortality rates because of contraception; it's also due to first rate medical facilities that can address serious (and not-so-serious) complications. 
When it comes to maternal mortality, we are better off focusing on midwife training and acceptance, opening health clinics, educating/distributing home delivery kits, and misoprostol for hemorrhaging. For example, I think Oxfam is taking the right approach with their Hadrahmout Governate program in Yemen. Like I said, I know the Gates probably have the best of intentions, but I believe the Summit's goals are extremely short-sighted.