Are there exception to the use of contraception for medical issues?

[Mannyfit75]

Is there a medical exception for medical uses for contraception, that use primarily for the serious medicial conditions? What medical condition would be consider acceptible?

If you can answer this, I would like a source document. I heard from Catholic Answers, a there is exception to the policy.

 

[1ke]

No, there is no such thing as an exception for the use of contraception. The purpose of contraception is always to prevent pregnancy, and this is never licit.

If however, you mean to ask if it is morally licit to use a **medication **to treat a disease that has the unintended side effect of temporary or permanent sterility the answer is yes. See Humanae Vitae which addresses this.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Is there a medical exception for medical uses for contraception, that use primarily for the serious medicial conditions? What medical condition would be consider acceptible?

Anything sufficiently serious as not to be patently obviously a pretext.

 

[StCsDavid]

A birth control pill is really nothing more than a specific dosage of specific hormones. Those same hormones might be used in the treatment of other ailments, but the person taking those hormones wouldn’t be taking them to use as a birth control means but rather to treat what ails him.

The use of contraception requires that one engages in a deliberate act to interfere in the natural reproductive process whether that be pharmaceutically or mechanically. So if one has to take a certain dosage of a hormone to treat whatever, and the side effect is the inability to conceive, that’s unfortunate, but not immoral. The intent of using that drug is not to prevent pregnancy. Obviously, one would have to weigh all the options available before embarking on such a treatment regimen.

As a side note, my godson who was born at 25 weeks gestation and is entering his 5th month in the NICU is given Viagra to help blood flow to his lung tissues so they can better develop. Apparently they’ve been using this drug in the NICU long before it became a treatment for ED. So there’s a case where the same drug has two different intended purposes. Instead of helping an older man feel younger, it helps a younger fellow get older.

 

[Mannyfit75]

No, there is no such thing as an exception for the use of contraception. The purpose of contraception is always to prevent pregnancy, and this is never licit.

If however, you mean to ask if it is morally licit to use a **medication **to treat a disease that has the unintended side effect of temporary or permanent sterility the answer is yes. See Humanae Vitae which addresses this.

I overheard an exception when I was listening to Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers. A female caller had a medicial condition that permits her to use contraception. I don’t recall what medical condition she had but the medical condition was not use as means to prevent pregancy.

 

[Mannyfit75]

A birth control pill is really nothing more than a specific dosage of specific hormones. Those same hormones might be used in the treatment of other ailments, but the person taking those hormones wouldn’t be taking them to use as a birth control means but rather to treat what ails him…

I have a friend who has that issue. She was given a specific dosage because of her ailment. She is also Catholic and active in the Church, by volunteering for the choir and she is also a Eucharistic Minister.

 

[1ke]

I overheard an exception when I was listening to Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers. A female caller had a medicial condition that permits her to use contraception. I don’t recall what medical condition she had but the medical condition was not use as means to prevent pregancy.

This is incorrect. There is NO exception for contraception. Contraception is intrinsically disordered and is never morally licit.

People inaccurately state that there is an exception for medical use. This is not correct. It is correct to say that one may take hormones to treat an ailment, even if those hormones inhibit the proper working of the reproductive system. It is incorrect to state one may use “contraception” for a medical reason.

Please do not state there is an exception for contraception-- there is no such thing.

 

[Mannyfit75]

This is incorrect. There is NO exception for contraception. Contraception is intrinsically disordered and is never morally licit.

People inaccurately state that there is an exception for medical use. This is not correct. It is correct to say that one may take hormones to treat an ailment, even if those hormones inhibit the proper working of the reproductive system. It is incorrect to state one may use “contraception” for a medical reason.

Please do not state there is an exception for contraception-- there is no such thing.

Let me get this straight. Contraception for the use of preventing pregnancy is never acceptible and there is no an exception to the teaching.

A drug that uses those hormones to treat those ailments isn’t consider an exception. Is this correct?

 

[agapewolf]

Let me get this straight. Contraception for the use of preventing pregnancy is never acceptible and there is no an exception to the teaching.

A drug that uses those hormones to treat those ailments isn’t consider an exception. Is this correct?

No, its a semantics issue that is causing confusion, and on top of that, there is an exception that is missed.

1ke was defining the word contraception. That does not include “medicine”.

There are some hormonal chemicals that one can take that some docs think will help physical ailments. .An unintended side effect of this is that it may cause infertility. (temporarily or permanently). This itself would not be considered “contraception” because that isn’t the intention. It’s taken as a “medicine”.

Those same hormonal chemicals also are used by others as actual contraception in consensual sex. THis is morally wrong.

Here 's the exception: A woman is raped, she may use a contraceptive to prevent conception…but only to prevent, not to abort (there is debate whehter this is possible to do after the fact).

 

[Mannyfit75]

No, its a semantics issue that is causing confusion, and on top of that, there is an exception that is missed.

1ke was defining the word contraception. That does not include “medicine”.

There are some hormonal chemicals that one can take that some docs think will help physical ailments. .An unintended side effect of this is that it may cause infertility. (temporarily or permanently). This itself would not be considered “contraception” because that isn’t the intention. It’s taken as a “medicine”.

Those same hormonal chemicals also are used by others as actual contraception in consensual sex. THis is morally wrong.

This clarify the issue very much. I do appreciate the information. So a Catholic who uses hormonal chemicals to combat ailment, can still received Holy Communion then?

Here 's the exception: A woman is raped, she may use a contraceptive to prevent conception…but only to prevent, not to abort (there is debate whehter this is possible to do after the fact).

Well, we aren’t discussing this issue, so let’s not go there.

 

[Syele]

Here 's the exception: A woman is raped, she may use a contraceptive to prevent conception…but only to prevent, not to abort (there is debate whether this is possible to do after the fact).

ermm Contraception requires prior planning, you have to acquire it in advance and then you have to have a chance to use it. How is a woman being raped going to get contraception in order to use it? And if a woman plans in advance to be raped, is it still rape? If she can convince her rapist to use contraception, why can’t she convince him to not rape her in the first place? This example makes no sense.

 

[agapewolf]

ermm Contraception requires prior planning, you have to acquire it in advance and then you have to have a chance to use it. How is a woman being raped going to get contraception in order to use it? And if a woman plans in advance to be raped, is it still rape? If she can convince her rapist to use contraception, why can’t she convince him to not rape her in the first place? This example makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense. It doesn’t always require prior planning. We’re not talking about the “pill” or condoms. We are talking about the controversial “morning after pill”.

If there is no conception taken place yet, this pill can be used after a rape to prevent one from happening. The Bishops just dealt with this in Connecticut.

 

[agapewolf]

This clarify the issue very much. I do appreciate the information. So a Catholic who uses hormonal chemicals to combat ailment, can still received Holy Communion then?

*Yes…morally, its ok.

As a side note, However, please look into possible other alternatives. There are many many docs who will not prescribe any of these hormonal chemicals as they believe them to be all harmful and actually not helpful at all. Usually these chemicals just mask the symptoms rather than fixing the problem. In no other way do we take “medicine” to make the body stop working the way its suppsed to". PM me if you want to know more*

Well, we aren’t discussing this issue, so let’s not go there.

*well, there were comments made about no exceptions,so it had to be corrected. *

 

[1ke]

Let me get this straight. Contraception for the use of preventing pregnancy is never acceptible and there is no an exception to the teaching.

Contraception is any action before, during, or after sexual intercourse that attempts to frustrate its natural end. Contraception takes many forms, but it is always an action or device to thwart the natural fruition of an act of intercourse.

A drug that uses those hormones to treat those ailments isn’t consider an exception. Is this correct?

Using a drug to treat an ailment is not contracepting, even if the drug has an effect of making a person sterile. Radiation to treat cancer does make a person sterile, but that is not its primary purpose. This is not contraception, it’s cancer treatment.

A drug that uses hormones to treat a disease is also not contraception. It’s hormone therapy.

 

[Mannyfit75]

Contraception is any action before, during, or after sexual intercourse that attempts to frustrate its natural end. Contraception takes many forms, but it is always an action or device to thwart the natural fruition of an act of intercourse.

I have no disagreement there.

Using a drug to treat an ailment is not contracepting, even if the drug has an effect of making a person sterile. Radiation to treat cancer does make a person sterile, but that is not its primary purpose. This is not contraception, it’s cancer treatment.

A drug that uses hormones to treat a disease is also not contraception. It’s hormone therapy.

I was coming to that same conclusion after reading the responses made in this thread.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Is there a medical exception for medical uses for contraception, that use primarily for the serious medicial conditions? What medical condition would be consider acceptible?

If you can answer this, I would like a source document. I heard from Catholic Answers, a there is exception to the policy.

Depends upon what you mean. Within the context of deliberately engaging in conjugal acts, one cannot ever intend to contracept. In other words, for those deliberately engaging in conjugal acts, contraception can never intentionally be a means, nor an end.

 

[Syele]

It makes perfect sense. It doesn’t always require prior planning. We’re not talking about the “pill” or condoms. We are talking about the controversial “morning after pill”.

If there is no conception taken place yet, this pill can be used after a rape to prevent one from happening. The Bishops just dealt with this in Connecticut.

Are you serious? The morning after pill is deemed acceptable by Catholics?? Blood tests for pregnancy don’t even show accurate till at least 8 days later. You can’t even do appropriate testing “the morning after.” The morning after pill is an abortificant! I am scandalized by the very idea of the Catholic Church condoning an abortion in ANY form.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I overheard an exception when I was listening to Jimmy Akin on Catholic Answers. A female caller had a medicial condition that permits her to use contraception. I don’t recall what medical condition she had but the medical condition was not use as means to prevent pregancy.

If it was “not used as a means to prevent pregnancy” then it was not a contraception.

For example, I you’d like to use condoms as waterballons, go for it. If you are prescribed medication which has an unintended side effect of preventing pregnancy, and that side effect is neither an intentional means or ends, then it is morally licit.

The **principles of double effect **has four conditions–all four must be met:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:

1. 
   *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
   *]The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
   *]The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   *]The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect” (p. 1021).

 

[agapewolf]

Are you serious? The morning after pill is deemed acceptable by Catholics?? Blood tests for pregnancy don’t even show accurate till at least 8 days later. You can’t even do appropriate testing “the morning after.” The morning after pill is an abortificant! I am scandalized by the very idea of the Catholic Church condoning an abortion in ANY form.

Calm down and read what I wrote. THey are not condoning abortion at all. THey are saying that to PREVENT CONCEPTION in a rape, that it is ok.

The controversy, of whether the morning after pill actually does prevent conception rather than abort is not relevant to this particular discussion.

I’m not saying i buy the fact that it doesn’t abort…I don’t know… I’m just saying what was said by the bishops

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ermm Contraception requires prior planning, you have to acquire it in advance and then you have to have a chance to use it. How is a woman being raped going to get contraception in order to use it? And if a woman plans in advance to be raped, is it still rape? If she can convince her rapist to use contraception, why can’t she convince him to not rape her in the first place? This example makes no sense.

You can’t use an aborticient, but after being raped, you can use what is called a “spermicidal wash.” It kills sperm, but is not an abortificant. This is morally licit only in the case of rape.

From the US Conference of Catholic Bishops:

“Compassionate and understanding care should be given to a person who is the victim of sexual assault. Health care providers should cooperate with law enforcement officials and offer the person psychological and spiritual support as well as accurate medical information. A female who has been raped should be able to defend herself against a potential conception from the sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum.”

“Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services”, Fourth Edition, #36, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

There exists non-abortifacient measures.

From…
sffaith.com/ed/articles/2002/0702so.htm

One faithful theologian who comes down squarely on the side of emergency contraception as abortifacient is Dr. Germain Grisez, professor of Christian Ethics at Mount St. Mary’s Seminary in Emmitsburg, Maryland. He claims that douching with spermicide as an immediate post-rape intervention would be morally licit since such means are not abortifacient in nature.

From the same article,

In keeping with the Directives’ admonition to do appropriate testing and thus prevent these unwitting abortions, the Catholic Health Association in St. Louis observes that two doctors in Illinois have recently devised a method known as the "Peoria protocol." Using this process, doctors can accurately measure whether and when a woman has ovulated. “[T]he obstetrician first gives the rape victim a progesterone level test and then uses a urine ‘dip stick’ (Ovu Kit) to test for the presence of luteinizing hormone (LH). If the LH test is negative and supported by progesterone level findings, ovulation is not occurring and Ovral [a type of emergency contraceptive containing synthetic progesterone and estrogen that delays ovulation] may be used. If the LH test is positive, the process of ovulation is under way and Ovral should not be used. The method seems to obviate the quandary that occurs when a rape victim is unsure whether she has ovulated.”