Are birth control pills considered wrong if used to manage a disease?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kindnessmatters
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
K

Kindnessmatters

Guest
Reading another string on birth control, I was thinking of a question I have had for sometime.

Years ago, I was put on birth control pills a few times to try to manage severe endometriosis and ultimately, to put off the necessity for hysterectomy given my husband and I wanted children. I also went through temporary, medically induced menopause a few times (a medication called Lupron) to try to improve the condition. Ultimately nothing worked , and the endometriosis worsened and became life threatening so I had to have the hysterectomy. I would have loved to have children but my medical issues, and scarring from an unrelated traumatic injury, caused at least six miscarriages…probably more. We adopted our son.

I was not in the church at the time and am wondering if the use of birth control pills, Lupron, or fertility drugs…all intended to address this disease and preserve/improve fertility was wrong to have done morally? I know hysterectomy is frowned upon but it was a life threatening situation, so I am sure that was permissable.
 
Last edited:
Not a moral theologian, nor do I play one on TV, so take my opinion for what it’s worth.

Your use of those drugs was designed to treat a condition. Your use was clearly not intended to be contraceptive - in fact, it was the polar opposite - so use of those drugs was not morally wrong.
 
One can take certain hormonal medications as birth control, or take those same medications to treat a bodily disease.

Surgery to heal your body is a gift from God.
 
Kindnessmatters said:
I was not in the church at the time and am wondering if the use of birth control pills, Lupron, or fertility drugs…all intended to address this disease and preserve/improve fertility was wrong to have done morally?
Click to expand...
Not wrong.
Kindnessmatters said:
I know hysterectomy is frowned upon but it was a life threatening situation, so I am sure that was permissable.
Click to expand...
It is not frowned upon when medically necessary for your health. A life-threatening emergency is not required.
 
Last edited:
It’s not the pills or the surgery that are bad, it is the use of anything for the purpose of contraception that is inherently sinful. You didn’t use anything for the purposes of contraception and everything you did seems to clearly fall under the doctrine of double effect.
 
The pills were being taken to treat a medical condition, not for contraception. That is morally licit.
 
Last edited:
These actions were not wrong morally because they try to preserve your fertility. i am sorry you had to have an hysterectomy at the end.

It is “moral” if it is done for serious medical reasons.
 
The medication you took was to manage a pathology and not to prevent conception, so the use of this medicine is licit.
 
I agree with the consensus here. Hormonal pills are morally neutral in and of themselves. Many women, like yourself, have or have had medical conditions that they are used to treat. What is sinful is not the medication, but the use of anything with the intent of rendering the marital act infertile. People are permitted to take medications even if they have the effect of rendering one infertile if they are used with the intent of treating a real medical condition (which was the case in your situation). Many medications can effect fertility in men or women. The Church does not prohibit people from taking these medications, provided that they are used for a morally neutral or good purpose.

Chemotherapy or radiation treatment for cancer, for example, can make both men and women permanently infertile, but the Church certainly allows people to get medical treatments for cancer!
 
Last edited:
Thank you all for kindly responding and putting my mind at ease.
 
I was raised Catholic…I didn’t use them for birth control.
 
1ke said:
Hysterectomy is not “frowned upon”. Not sure where that idea came from. It is not immoral to remove a diseased or damaged organ.
Click to expand...
It is not frowned upon for the reasons cited above.

The Church does not require one to die of cancer even if the cure was a hysterectomy.
 
Sarcelle said:
The Church does not require one to die of cancer even if the cure was a hysterectomy.
Click to expand...
The benchmark is nowhere near as high as “die of cancer”. It is never intrinsically wrong to address a medical threat, though the treatment should bear some proportion to the ailment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top