*Would hysterectomy be justified for contraceptive reasons if and only if pregnancy is 100% guaranteed to be fatal for both mother and child?
CA Apologist Answer: A hysterectomy could be done if there were a medical problem with the uterus itself that endangered the life of the mother (e.g., cancer, unstable or ruptured uterus). In such a case sterilization would be an unintended side effect and therefore the procedure would be morally licit. But a hysterectomy cannot be performed if the intention itself is sterilization, which appears to be the case in the hypothetical situation posed. A woman facing such a situation should contact the organizations listed below for help in determining licit courses of action that would do what is possible to protect her life.*
Here is the problem with this answer, as I see it. The author cites CA and unstable/ruptured uterus as reasons to have a hysterectomy. The author does not realize that the mechanism of death resulting from pregnany would be a “ruptured uterus”. To say that a person must wait for the uterus to rupture before taking action is no only imprudent and barbaric, but immoral, IMO. A ruptured uterus can easily kill the mother within an hour, which may be longer than it’ll take to get into an OR even if paramedics were at the scene of rupture and taking for granted that someone will be able to diagnose the rupture at the scene (not likely if the doctor does not know the history.)
If you forsee rupture, would you risk the woman’s life before taking action? Would you do it if it were your wife?
The confounding factor here is that there would be an umborn child involved as well.
To be honest, I can’t say that the uterus will rupture with 100% certainty. I didn’t see the uterus itself, I only heard the surprised expression of the surgeons during the operation and heeded their advice for a tubal ligation/vasectomy. I’ll give the Paul VI foundation a shot and see if they have any other suggestions. Ther are a few things of which I am certain: I am not willing to gamble with this issue. To start taking temps again and start looking at cerevical mucus seems too risky for me.
Someone illuded to autoimmune/CA/heart related side effects of vasectomies. I’d just go on the record as saying that I don’t believe that. Those types of claims seem intended to scare ppl into acting morally and, IMO, do not help the faith but hurt it. I practice in a military environment where many ppl get vasectomies as a matter of public health and to avoid abortions (military does not do them). I have never heard of these types of claims and suspect there is no real science behind them. (I’ll check out the link to be fair).
Someone else mentioned that vasectomies are not a 100% guarantee. That is true. But to equate them with NFP simply because neither are 100% guaranteed is folly as well. Vasectomies, when done with appropriate follow up, are darn near 100%, (I’m not aware if experience of the surgeon makes a difference, but to have it redone 3 times is unheard of). I’ve heard that NFP can be near 100% but I don’t believe it when it comes to the irregularily of my wife’s menses. Again, I’ll see what the Paul VI ppl suggest as far as lactating.
Here’s the bottom line, we don’t mind abstinence for a time. I’m siimply not willing to take a chance with my wife’s life. If you could guarantee that intercourse at some part of the month will not produce a baby, that would make me happy (after all, that is generally what NFP tries to do). I did not trust NFP 100% after our second child but we wanted a third and wanted God to have the say in that part of our relationship. All that changed when we found out that we cannot have more babies. This is what the hardliners (not anyone at this site
) fail to understand. I’m not just looking for a way to diminish our responsibility with regard to our sex life.
Sorry for rambling. Lot’s of repressed feelings at the moment.
Martin
