Medical Fertility Question

[qfnol31]

Well, it is okay to wait, but probably they should wait for marriage as well...it seems like this has become an excuse to allow them to marry now (with a contraceptive mentality), but that's only what I see at the outset.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='Dec 8 2005, 06:02 PM']you know where I stand and why
[right][snapback]817313[/snapback][/right][/quote]
actually, i don't know your stance. why don't you share it with us?

[Paphnutius]

Principle of double effect anyone? (I know others have used here already but it sometimes helps to spell it out)

1) Is the act good?

The act is to take medication to prevent scarring in organs. This is a good act for the preservation of health is good.

2) Is the evil (the result of the medication as contraceptive) willed in itself or merly permitted?

If the contraceptive effects are not desired or willed in themselves, but are allowed as a side effect then it is okay. That is the intention of taking the medication is only for the preservation of health and not for contraception.

If, on the other hand, the contraceptive effect is indeed desired and willed in itself, then this is not permissible. This is because one is desiring a bad end(not being open to life in the married life which Catholic teaching) and the intention is enough. The end of the agent is enough to vitiate an act even if the act is objectiely good for the good is from the entirety and evil is from any defect.

3) Is the evil (contraceptive result of medication) a means to prevent scarring?

I cannot honestly answer this question because it would need one educated in medicene. From the sound of it, the answer would be "no the contraceptive effect is not a means to preserving health." If this is the case, that is contracpetion is not the means to preserving heath, then it is okay. As long as the evil is not a means or way of producing the good then it will work.

4) Is the good commensurate of the evil?

It would appear as though the physical health, and possibly spiritual and emotional health as well, are commensurate of the contraceptive result. Meaning the good is greater than the evil brought about. (Note this is not the end justifying the means, but rather the good outweighing the evil)



As said, it seems as though the second principle is what people are discussing. In order for double effect to work, one cannot will the evil of contraceptive directly. If the wife is taking the medication she can permit the evil result, but she must not will it in itself.

As Phatcatholic said, it would be best and most ideal to look into other forms of medication that would not have this side effect. The only thing that I would watch out for is that before the marriage is valid, they must consumate it in the conjugal act. If the couple is not ready for kids then it is best to wait until they feel as though they can honestly be open to kids and to life. This is a tough subject especially since feelings are involved.

Edited December 9, 2005 by Paphnutius

[thessalonian]

[quote]what part of my post do you disagree with? i wasn't trying to guess what i thought their primary purpose was. i just said that if their primary purpose is to use the treatment as a contraceptive this is wrong:[/quote]

I guess I took your post to mean that if the primary was for health issues the secondary didn't matter. If I was mistaken my apologies.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 8 2005, 08:13 PM']actually, i don't know your stance. why don't you share it with us?
[right][snapback]817552[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I meant JoeyO..

Im very strict with this doctrine because i feel that in our society we are pushed towards sining with our bodies, it is perhaps our strongest pull. yet, as scripture tells us sins against our body is perhaps the worse kind. So, I dont take any risks in this doctrine. im very, very strict with it.

Basically I feel that any form of birth control is wrong because it treats fertility as an illness, allows a cafeteria view of the wife where you can choose what you want. I feel that only in matters where the wives life is at danger can this even become a matter of discussion, and then it is still up to the conscience and the clergy.

I feel in situations to "delay fertilitiy" or "make something convient" are wrong. We live in a culture that loves comfort and gets what it wants. But this is not life. We shouldnt be sacrificing an ethical doctrine for some comfort. This issue is important to me, as I do have some possible things that would be viewed as a health objection. But I feel that my testemony in obedience to the church, as well as the experience in this will assist in my faith.

Now, I admit there are areas in which I am liberal within this doctrine yet still within the church. namely matters of foreplay and the more conjucial aspects of sex. I am still within orthodoxy, just more liberal.

Also, i support NFP, but i also consider it dangerous and perhaps an opening into other forms of birth control. For sometimes I still see it as treating fertility as an illness, and causing an unhealthy barrier. But I respect the church and I will use it as well.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 8 2005, 10:57 PM']I guess I took your post to mean that if the primary was for health issues the secondary didn't matter.  If I was mistaken my apologies.
[right][snapback]817651[/snapback][/right][/quote]
oh, well you are mistaken, but that's ok i agree w/ you that the secondary effect still matters. that's why i said "we should want to always avoid placing artificial barriers in the way of life, even when our primary motive is to care for the mother" and that the treatment in question should always be used as a last resort and stopped as soon as it is no longer needed. if the secondary effect did not matter to me then i would not have placed these restrictions on the use of the medication, even tho the primary objective is to ensure the health of the mother.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Dec 9 2005, 02:47 AM']oh, well you are mistaken, but that's ok i agree w/ you that the secondary effect still matters. that's why i said "we should want to always avoid placing artificial barriers in the way of life, even when our primary motive is to care for the mother" and that the treatment in question should always be used as a last resort and stopped as soon as it is no longer needed. if the secondary effect did not matter to me then i would not have placed these restrictions on the use of the medication, even tho the primary objective is to ensure the health of the mother.
[right][snapback]817913[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Great. I should have trusted my instincts about you a bit more. I didn't think you would have said what I thought you said that you didn't say. But had you said it I would have said what I said and so I said it.

[thessalonian]

One point I have not seen addressed is if this is the pill that is being used to keep her ueteris from scaring, the pill has a secondary effect of being an abortifacient. i.e. if it does not supress ovulation it is likely to keep the zygote from implanting in the lining of the uteris. This is an often forgotten effect and one not known by priests in general that I've talked to. Doctors don't talk much about it either. Dr. Janet Smith has a tape out called "contraception why not" that goes in to it. I highly recommend it. Should be available online.

Here is apparently a transcript of it:

[url="http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html"]http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/...ity/se0002.html[/url]

"Now, I haven't really told you the worst reality about the pill which really is that it's an abortifacient. I've been talking about it as though it were a contraceptive, but it also works as an abortifacient. At least it says so in the insert that's in with the pill. It says that it works in three different ways: One is it stops ovulation, and again, that's clear enough. If it makes your body think it's pregnant, the body will not ovulate because when you're pregnant, you can't get pregnant. "

*
*
A woman doesn't know month by month, how her hormones are acting, whether she's not ovulating when she's on the pill or if there's breakthrough ovulation. The pill can change the 'viscosity' of the mucus. There's a certain mucus that helps the sperm get to the egg and a certain mucus that prohibits the sperm from getting to the egg. The pill sometimes changes the mucus. [b]Or, it will prevent the nidation of the fertilized ovum. That means, the fertilized ovum, new little human being, working down the fallopian tube, try to implant itself in its mother's uterine wall but fails to nest. Nidation. The pill prohibits that and then the uterus sloughs off the new fertilized ovum. A woman doesn't know how the pill is working in her system. Norplant works as an abortifacient, the IUD and Depo-Provera do as well. "[/b]



Secondly I hate to mention this but I've known priests who have advised in favor of sterilization so I hate to say it but these days I would most definitely ask for a second or third or fourth opinion in such matters. Seeking out orthodox Catholic priests. I can find quite easily priests who will confirm what I want to hear.



Blessings

Edited December 9, 2005 by thessalonian

[argent_paladin]

I agree. The best course of action is for her to take the medicine and for them to postpone their wedding until they are in a position to welcome new life into the world, a natural consequence of their wedding vows. It is perfectly legitimate for her to take the medicine if she is unmarried. that is a simple moral issue.
it is also a simple moral issue to say that if the couple doesn't want to have children (immediately) they shouldn't get married (immediately). Perhaps a betrothal ceremony?

And Dancer, you are incorrect to say that both using and not using the medicine (for whatever intention) are morally equivalent. If she choses not to take the medicine and becomese infertile, it is not the same as artificial contraception, even if it is her intention to become infertile because she is closed to life. It may still be immoral, but it is not an equivalent act. It would be like the difference between not saving a drowning person when you could easily do so and actually drowning a person. Culpability exists in the former case, but not to the same degree.

[N/A Gone]

hmm, the only time im a strict fundi and I dont get lectured..sad.

How about afor a convert what is something they can read on it for s situation like this? Theology of the body is ok, but not in this aspect..anyone got any ideas

[argent_paladin]

I think the couple should contact the Tepeyac Family Center:
[url="http://www.tepeyacfamilycenter.org/contactus.asp"]http://www.tepeyacfamilycenter.org/contactus.asp[/url]
Check it out.
There's a lot of stuff here:
[url="http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philosophy/sophia/ethics/medical_ethics.htm"]http://www.molloy.edu/academic/philosophy/...ical_ethics.htm[/url]

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Colleen' date='Dec 8 2005, 01:17 PM']If they don't want kids right away, then maybe they should wait to get married.
[right][snapback]817106[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Colleen is awesome.

[DancesforLove]

But they aren't married yet, she didn't say if they would still be on the medicine when they got married. Maybe they are planning to stay on it while they are engaged.....
[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 8 2005, 01:09 PM']This is being open to life because she is protecting her fertility that is so far in tact.!
Excellent point.  The mentality becomes contraceptive and therefore not open to life in the marriage.  This cannot be moral.  Your point is well taken that the couple must always be open to life and have serious reason even when using NFP to delay preganancy.
[right][snapback]817099[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[Colleen]

[quote name='DancesforLove' date='Dec 9 2005, 08:40 PM']But they aren't married yet, she didn't say if they would still be on the medicine when they got married. Maybe they are planning to stay on it while they are engaged.....
[right][snapback]819142[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Actually, from what he said, it seems that she would intend to stay on the medicine when they were married:

[quote]This medication has the effect of making her infertile. However, if she gets off the medication she'll be fertile again (after a while). [b]Sheila and Robert (also not his real name) want kids eventually, but not right away.[/b] The doctors say that she has a fertility window of roughly 15 years once she's off the medication. After that, the scarring and other complications will cause infertility. However, the longer she's on[b] the medication that makes her temporarily infertile[/b], the longer she pushes back the window. [b]They don't want children immediately, so she plans on staying on the medication for a few years.[/b] [/quote]
If she stays on it while she is not married, there is no problem. But if she does not want to have children right away when she gets married, and partly because of this, she intends to stay on the medication for a few years (while married), then I think there is an issue there.

My issue isn't so much with the medication; my issue is with the mentality that they seem to be taking in regards to having children. It would seem that in this case, the medication could be used as a form of contraception. I don't think that people should marry if they plan on not having children for a few years. If it is best for her to continue taking the medication for a few years, then maybe the wedding should be postponed as well.

Edited December 10, 2005 by Colleen