Another vasectomy question

[Brain]

this may have already been said, but arent there like tons of different nfp methods? have you looked into other methods, or combinations thereof?

 

[JeffAustralia]

Brain:

this may have already been said, but arent there like tons of different nfp methods? have you looked into other methods, or combinations thereof?

No doubt! But would YOU risk the life of your wife on any of them??

 

[Lorik]

I think your wife should get a second opinion. I have had 4 sections and was concerned with the possibilty of rupture b/c of burning at the the scar sight in my 3rd trimester in my last pregnancy, so I asked my Dr. if it was possible to rupture if you are not in labor. He told me that there is no chance, it does not happen and not to spend a second worrying about rupture while not in labor.

 

[Brain]

JeffAustralia:

No doubt! But would YOU risk the life of your wife on any of them??

Im not married, but i do see your point.
I guess it would depend on how effective the methods are (wouldnt risk it for anything less than very high 90’s %), if she was willing (BIGGEST concern), how defnite the complication would be.

but realistically, I would probably end up sacrificing the marital act at any time where chances are possible that she might be fertile using a VERY conservitave estimate.

But again, not married, so I admit I lack perspective.

 

[JeffAustralia]

Again, I think we all need to consider this situation in its proper context. If the risk was something simple, like a disruption in lifestyle, or the need to put off putting in the swimming pool, then yes it would be correct to think of offering methods like NFP. But this isn’t the case. We’re talking about an educated medical professional who’s practiced Catholic methods for many years, and has found himself up against a brick wall.

I think we need to ask ourselves “What would Christ do?” He was always clashing with those who insisted on the letter of the law being followed no matter what. He himself was criticised for healing people on the Sabbath. When you have Catholics saying horrible things like “Oh, well. Your wife may die tomorrow anyway…” as justification for why he should take an unacceptable risk, then maybe we have our OWN pharisees? Would Christ say he should disregard human life rather than break “the rules”? Not the Christ that I know!

 

[Granny_D]

Jeff, I don’t think we should assume that being a doctor makes one all knowing… all wise etc. Dr.Hilgers from Pope Paul VI is the world’s leading FERTILITY/INFERTILITY SPECIALIST… and he is also a doctor… The fact is…that even with a vasectomy the tissue can regrow…and reconnect… and a pregnancy could happen… Would then the couple consider an abortion? If they believed the wife was in danger of dying they very well might… but is she REALLY in danger of dying… We know her husband is a doctor… and overheard other doctors describing her condition. Well, I have been in the Crisis Pregnancy arena for years… and I have heard this over and over again… and I have found that it just wasn’t the case… It was at best a medical opinion… and maybe even a hasty one at that. Even in my own family there have been such dire medical predictions… and none of them have happened
It has become COMMONPLACE to have doctors tell women … or there husbands… that they might DIE if they were to become pregnant again… and they can use pre-existing conditions to give backing to their statements…but I believe that many…many of these predictions are fear tactics to limit family size. Now I would suggest that the couple get SECOND OPINIONS from doctors who are PROLIFE… Then I would have them become well educated on ALL THE SIDE EFFECTS of sterilizations… such as the possibililty of sperm…being absorbed into the blood stream… The difference between haploid and diploid cells in the blood stream …is that SEX CELLS…which have only 23 chromosomes instead of 46 chromosomes… ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE THERE…they are supposed to exit the body This causes confusion in the brain…which recognizes SELF/NON-SELF material… but SELF must have 46 chromosomes…not 23 therefore the confusion can cause an AUTOIMMUNE DISEASE
plus … just the effect of the body trying to reject this tissue increases blood pressure etc. along with the many deadly consequences that are listed in the COUPLE TO COUPLE LEAGUE… pamphlet… So HE MIGHT DIE… even though the death certificate would show cause of death…to be something else. The same is true for the woman who gets a tubal. Then we know that synthetic steroids are ARTIFICIAL… and so the body has an ARTIFICIAL REACTION to them… plus…estrogen is to cancer what fertilizer is to soil… and many of them are ABORTIFACIENTS…and that causes BREAST CANCER… so the options are 1) USE N.F.P (many different methods… can combine methods …such as in the MARQUETTE METHOD…which uses a FERTILITY MONITOR…plus SYMPTOTHERMAL SIGNS) include the NaProTechnology from Pope Paul VI Institute… or…
ABSTAIN… this is not the end of the world or intimacy or love…
or choose to do something to either one that will have a cause and effect of damaging health…PATHOLOGY…and possibly damaging the MARRIAGE… and one must assume damaging the SOUL. Nothing in Life is easy… but the rewards for seeking the TRUTH and LIVING IT… are out of this world.

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D

 

[setter]

*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”.
FrOg,

I believe that you are talking about a potential life threatening health risk associated with a future pregnancy.

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.
I agree that any concerned and responsible husband would act to preserve the physical welbeing of his wife to the point of laying down one’s won life to save her. That being said, being a Catholic husband/couple demands recourse to only moral means to preserve the health and to not introduce assessed lethal health risks to the wife. If there is an absence of moral means to choose from, then one has the moral recourse to choose the lesser of two evils.

Based on your presentation that the lethal health risks is only associated/potentialized with a future pregnancy and the “physical health of the mother in not threatened by their [oviducts] continued existence” (see post #8), then condition 1) the preservation or functioning of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete organism, is not met. Condition 2) that this damage cannot be avoided, or at least notably diminished, except by the amputation in question and that its efficacy is well assured, is also not fulfilled, as marital continence is a avaialble moral option (however demanding that this may seem) to avoid, and NFP may or may not be an option to “notably diminish” the likelihood of future pregnancy.

To clarify further, I offer you these competent source citations that clarify that a potential pregancy that is assessed would introduce serious/lethal health risks does not morally allow for a couple to introduce contraceptive intercourse (via either direct sterlization of Artifical Birth Control methods):

“In the contraceptive act, one freely and deliberately chooses to attack a great human good. The motive for this act may be upright; one may wish to avoid for oneself and others the harms that would be inseparable from the untimely realization of that good. But there are many ways in which those harms could be avoided, some good and some evil”, *(*Catholic Sexual Ethics,Updated, p. 162, Lawler, Boyle, and May, with Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, Our Sunday Visitor, 1996).

The American bishops have noted, to prevent an act of intercourse from being procreative is a rejection of the “life-giving meaning of intercourse”; and “the wrongness of such an act lies in the rejection of this value”, (National Conference of Catholic Bishops, To Live In Christ Jesus: A Pastoral Reflection on the Moral Life, [Washington, D, C.: U. S. Catholic Conference, 1976], p. 18).

From Humane Vitae, “On the other hand, the Church does not at all consider illicit the use of therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.”

setter

 

[setter]

(Continued)

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.

If you forsee rupture, would you risk the woman’s life before taking action? Would you do it if it were your wife?

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.
FrOg,

The key point that I am emphasizing back to you is whether the potential health risk to mother (and child) associated with a future event (pregnancy), provides a moral basis to presently act the procreative good. This is a key point that the Paul VI foundation or clergy need to address in determining what moral options are available to any Catholic couple in your medical situation.

I will represent this document from the Vatican Doctrine of the faith as the delineation of moral options is clear and explicit:

In response to its query on sterilization, the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s statement of March 13, 1975 replied to the United States National Conference of Catholic Bishops as follows:

“Any sterilization, that is, of its own nature and condition, has the sole immediate effect of rendering the generative faculty incapable of procreation, is to be considered direct sterilization, as the term is understood in the declarations of the pontifical magisterium, especially of Pius XII. Therefore, notwithstanding and subjectivity right intention of those whose actions are **prompted by the care of prevention of physical **

or mental illness which is foreseen or feared as the result of pregnancy, such sterilization remains absolutely forbidden to the doctrine of the church. And indeed the sterilization of the faculty itself is forbidden for an ever graver reason than the sterilization of individual acts, since it induces a state of sterility in the person which is almost always irreversible.”

I offer this information on the Priciple of Double Effect as relevent to your situation:

ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/key_principles/double_effect.asp

Principle of Double Effect

An action that is good in itself that has two effects–an intended and otherwise not reasonably attainable good effect, and an unintended yet foreseen evil effect–is licit, provided there is a due proportion between the intended good and the permitted evil.

When there is a clash between the two universal norms of “do good” and “avoid evil,” the question arises as to whether the obligation to avoid evil requires one to abstain from a good action in order to prevent a foreseen but merely permitted concomitant evil effect. The answer is that one need not always abstain from a good action that has foreseen bad effects, depending on certain moral criteria identified in the principle of double effect. Though five are listed here, some authors emphasize only four basic moral criteria (the fifth listed here further specifies the third criterion):

1.The object of the act must not be intrinsically contradictory to one’s fundamental commitment to God and neighbor (including oneself), that is, it must be a good action judged by its moral object (in other words, the action must not be intrinsically evil);

2.The direct intention of the agent must be to achieve the beneficial effects and to avoid the foreseen harmful effects as far as possible, that is, one must only indirectly intend the harm;

3.The foreseen beneficial effects must not be achieved by the means of the foreseen harmful effects, and no other means of achieving those effects are available;

4.The foreseen beneficial effects must be equal to or greater than the foreseen harmful effects (the proportionate judgment);

5.The beneficial effects must follow from the action at least as immediately as do the harmful effects.

See: Ashley, B. and Kevin O’Rourke, Healthcare Ethics: A Theological Analysis, 4th Edition (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1997), 191-95. See also: Marquis, D.B., “Four Versions of Double Effect,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 16 (1991): 515-44; Cataldo, P.J., “The Principle of the Double Effect,” Ethics & Medics, 20 (March 1995): 1-3.]

I hope this is helpful.

setter

 

[Granny_D]

The Principle of Double Effect would only apply to the wife having a hysterectomy… and not to the husband having a vasectomy
Is that correct?

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D

 

[setter]

(continued):

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%, …

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.
The only way to 100% guarantee avoiding future pregnancy is either by 1) castration or removal of ovaries, or 2) marital continence/abstinence.

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

FrOg,

I commend your intellectual honesty in seeking to know and live the truth in the vocation of your marriage. You fortunately have time on your side to gather all the information needed to guide your moral choices in this most challenging medical situation in your marriage.

God bless.

setter

 

[setter]

Granny D:

The Principle of Double Effect would only apply to the wife having a hysterectomy… and not to the husband having a vasectomy
Is that correct?

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D

Yes, in the sense that I know of no medical condition that threatens the life of the organism that requires a procedure that has the unintended consequence of male sterilization (vasectomy). Any procedure that has sterilization as it’s direct and intended effect is considered direct sterlization and in never morally permissible by Catholic moral theology.

 

[setter]

JeffAustralia:

Again, I think we all need to consider this situation in its proper context. … We’re talking about an educated medical professional who’s practiced Catholic methods for many years, and has found himself up against a brick wall.

I think we need to ask ourselves “What would Christ do?” He was always clashing with those who insisted on the letter of the law being followed no matter what. He himself was criticised for healing people on the Sabbath. When you have **Catholics saying horrible things like ** “Oh, well. Your wife may die tomorrow anyway…” as justification for why he should take an unacceptable risk, then maybe we have our OWN pharisees? Would Christ say he should disregard human life rather than break “the rules”? Not the Christ that I know!

You present a false dichotomy here: Either make choices that are permissible within the bounds of Catholic moral theology (which you negatively portray as a pharisaical adherence to the “letter of the law”); or to act as Jesus would understand and compassionately endorse (which is to say that Jesus is some how individuated from the Church and would make an “exception” for someone based on the “context” of their situation to make a grave sin choice).

There is not conflict with the compassion of Jesus and following Jesus faithfully and fulfilling the “letter of the law” in matters of Catholic faith and morals. Period. To propose otherwise does a vast disservice to the one who is emotionally vulnerable and seeking sound answers. I also will remind you that by doing so, this brings down upon the one knowingly offering false counsel a degree of culpability for promoting and coaching others away from sound Church teaching in matters of faith and morals.

Whatever the perceived cursory tone of some Catholic posters, this does not in any way diminish or eliminate the need for a faithful and sincere Catholic to seek to know and do what is right in regards to the sound principles for Catholic morality.

It may seem like a brick wall, but God always provides a [moral] way out or the grace to endure the trial (1 Cor.10:13). Also, what may seem impossible for man, is possible with and by God’s grace (Matt. 19:26).

 

[Granny_D]

setter:

Yes, in the sense that I know of no medical condition that threatens the life of the organism that requires a procedure that has the unintended consequence of male sterilization (vasectomy). Any procedure that has sterilization as it’s direct and intended effect is considered direct sterlization and in never morally permissible by Catholic moral theology.

Thank you for explaining this … it is important then to note that the Church can never give permission or a blessing on vasectomies… This should help anyone who might be anticipating a change in Church teaching regarding this procedure

I think it is also important to note that there are NO GUARANTEES in Life… one of the reasons we work out our salvation …“in fear and trembling”… but also by forming our conscience to what the Church teaches.

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D

 

[gardenswithkids]

JeffAustralia:

Again, I think we all need to consider this situation in its proper context. If the risk was something simple, like a disruption in lifestyle, or the need to put off putting in the swimming pool, then yes it would be correct to think of offering methods like NFP. …

Hi Jeff It’s me, the one whose post you responded to with the “” sign.
First, I didn’t suggest NFP; I suggested celibacy, which is what the op and his wife currently practice. I find NFP extremely difficult when monitoring for return of fertility following pregnancy while breast feeding; that’s why if it were my life, I’d want total abstinence.

Second, I believe we are already talking about “something simple, like a disruption of lifestyle”. Abstinance is a simple answer and would disrupt the typical lifestyle of most married people. Notice I didn’t say it was easy; it’s not an easy solution, but it is simple.

JeffAustralia:

When you have Catholics saying horrible things like “Oh, well. Your wife may die tomorrow anyway…” as justification for why he should take an unacceptable risk, then maybe we have our OWN pharisees?

Don’t misquote me, Jeff. I was the one who reminded all of us that we will die. But again, I didn’t recommend any unacceptable risk–I suggested the least risky of all options–celibacy. And while I’m not in any hurry to die, I don’t think it’s horrible to think about death–it helps me live better when I remember I will one day die.

JeffAustralia:

Would Christ say he should disregard human life rather than break “the rules”? Not the Christ that I know!

Jesus said in yesterday’s Gospel reading, “Whoever loves his life will loose it, but whoever looses his life will gain it.” Was He disregarding human life? I don’t think so, nor do I believe the Church teachings on these matters disregard human life.

The original poster asked a question about the teachings of the Church. He even said he was “expecting the worst and was ready for the cold shoulder”. I think it is compassionate to share with him what the Church teaches. You may think you are being compassionate towards his situation by encouraging him to do something else, but I think you are like those who encouraged Jesus to come down off the cross. God gave this man and his wife a difficult cross. Their cross can bring glory to God and salvation to others. I pray that he and his wife pick up their cross and follow Jesus.

 

[kamz]

FrOg:

I thank everyone for their replies. I’ve learned a lot and received some great ideas. At this point I will not post on this thread anymore as it is becoming less about solutions and…

I’ll let yall know what happens in another thread. Thank you all especially for the objective quotes and links…

Martin

I understand what your going through because I have gone through it. You and your family are in my prayers during this very difficult time. Lean on God he is always there for you.
God bless you.

 

[Granny_D]

Celibacy is never easy … for someone who is married…but I was forced into it myself… many years ago… and God will not allow you to have more hardship than there is Grace to Bear…

N.F.P is difficult when breastfeeding and just after a baby…but the FERTILITY MONITOR… available at most drug stores… at a cost of about $150.00 plus $50.00 for 30 strips… is a really good addition to the N.F.P…for those who are having trouble… This way you get to SEE when you BECOME FERTILE…AND WHEN YOU OVULATE… and then you employ the rule…of the EVENING OF THE FOURTH DAY…(Decoloros)

Yours for “LIFE” Granny D