Medical Fertility Question

[Lil Red]

nevermind nothing to see here

[Lil Red]

and please, i know that this is a touchy subject for a lot of people, but let's keep the love and charity flowing, okay? thank you.

[thessalonian]

[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Dec 8 2005, 01:04 PM']The purpose of her taking the medicine now is to prevent the scarring and delay the fertility during her unmarried state, [/quote]

This is being open to life because she is protecting her fertility that is so far in tact.!

[quote]but the purpose after marriage becomes delaying fertility for the sake of the couple's convenience. The Catholic teaching on marriage isn't that you must be open to children at some point, but you must be open at all points.[/quote]

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.

[Colleen]

[quote name='The Joey-O' date='Dec 8 2005, 02:11 AM'] They don't want children immediately, so she plans on staying on the medication for a few years. [right][snapback]816517[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If they don't want kids right away, then maybe they should wait to get married.

[cmotherofpirl]

If I missed this point I am sorry, but what exqctly is wrong, what is she taking and why?

[N/A Gone]

you know where I stand and why

It sounds like he may be saying she has Endemtirosis (sp?). And if they have her on "medication" it would more than likely be a hormonal contraceptive (i.e. the pill).

I am thinkins she shouldn't be on it... but I do not believe that the Pill helps with female problems...as masking symptoms is NOT curing the problem. She should see a doctor that is more pro-active about actually TREATING her disease and not just giving her a chemical-abortificant band-aid.

As far as the church's position... I have nothing that will magically change his mind. But medically speaking, she would be better off looking into one of the newer surgical procedures for controlling Endemtriosis. (AND according to a new study from Yale, limiting the amount of "flow" during a woman's cycle, which the pill does, can actually speed up the scarring caused by endemitirosis... I know the heavy periods are painful and agrevating {mother and sister have this} but the membranes really need to remove themselves or they will back up and cause the endemitirosis to progress faster...I'll try to find the link to that for you.)
endometriosis is extremely painful and can cause infertility. I believe one of the treatments involves putting the woman into artificial menopause and once she finishes that treatment she should try to conceive or go on abc.they might try looking at other treatments. The best cure for endo is pregnancy, childbirth and long term nursing. The docs are guessing about the window - with endo, pregnancy is definitely not a sure thing (well it never is, right?) I'd ask if they had to make a choice of children now or no children ever, what would they choose? Why not finish the treatment and then try to conceive?

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 8 2005, 01:12 PM']This is the only thing that causes me to disagree with your answer phat.[quote]They don't want children immediately, so she plans on staying on the medication for a few years.[/quote]This seems to me to make staying on the medication to prevent pregnancy a primary purpose or at least an intended purpose. This is not okay. Further the Church says that one must have "grave" reason for delaying pregnancy. If they intend to have children but not right away, what is the "grave" reason for delaying having children? Getting to know eachother? Not grave. Finances? I believe that this is rarely "grave" as the Lord provides.[right][snapback]816942[/snapback][/right][/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:[list]also, i can see where, over a prolonged amount of time, one could unwittingly begin to view the medication as a type of birth control. this should be avoided. the couple should always remind themselves exactly why she is taking it, and she should quit taking it as soon as it is no longer needed for the scarring and pain, or as soon as another treatment that doesn't render infertility is found.
[/list]it appears we are in agreement


[quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' date='Dec 8 2005, 03:04 PM']I don't think double effect comes into play here even though the infertility condition is a secondary effect. She plans on coming off the medication eventually thus the fact that the medicine is treating her condition is secondary to the fact that she's making her decision based on when it is most convenient for her to have kids.  In other words, the two effects in the double effect become flipped.  The primary effect of the decision is to cause temporary infertility and the secondary effect is to allevaite her medical problem.[right][snapback]817089[/snapback][/right][/quote]
good point. the line about "we're not ready to have kids anyway" does imply a contraceptive intent. but, i don't think we have enough evidence at this point to definitively assert what their motivations are. some more info from joey would be helpful here.

[qfnol31]

I would like to mention now, without going into too much detail at this time, that they probably need to think about their attitude towards kids and the medication.

This may be my personal reading of the situation, but it looks as though the medication will at first work as a contraceptive, even though that's not its original intention. If this is the case, there is something that they need to probably reconsider before marrying. If they're looking to treat it as though it is a contraceptive, then they've misused the medication.

But that may just be what I see.

[morostheos]

Another thing to consider is if the medical treatment causes her to be infertile or is abortifacient as the birth control pill is. If it if abortifacient, then they definitely can't have sex while she is taking the medication.

[Balthazor]

As I see it no matter what she does she will still have a 15 year window of fetrility right? So I think that barring waiting until menopause that they should be ok. It sounds like the couple took a good route not only did they check with one priest after getting an opinion that would be desirable to even those with a "contraceptive mentatily" they went back for another opinion from a different priest to make sure that what they planned on doing was ok. I give them credit for it.
I give this couple the benefit of the doubt that they already explored other options. I mean they went out of their way to find out if their current situation was ok, so I am assuming they probably checked thoroughly about other options. I would not be shy in mentioning any other options that you hear about though .
She will have a 15 years now or fifteen years later; either way she will have the same amount of time to have kids. Unless she shortens this time span intentionally or starts using the medication for birth control I don't see a problem.
But I would like to know exactly what her condition is and what she is taking to really be able to make a better judgement.

[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