Birth control pill used as cancer prevention?

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Let’s say we have a Catholic couple in their 30s who have three kids. The woman has a family history of ovarian cancer, and is taking the bc pill. The pill, in this case, is being taken to lessen her risk for developing the cancer (which I guess several scientific studies suggest it does) later in life, and not as a birth-control substance.

If the pill is being used for these positive health effects and not for birth control (although addmittedly this is a side-effect) is it still moral for the couple to have sexual relations while she is taking the bc pill?

 

[puzzleannie]

in general if the pill, or any medicine or therapy, is prescribed for a valid medical reason, rather than for contraception it may be used, and the contraceptive effect is an unintended side effect. there is question whether it is effective for many of the conditions for which it is commonly used, however, discussed in several threads here. News roundup tonight on catholicexchange.com had an article under health & science knocking down as invalid research which claims pill prevents heart disease and cancer. apparently the research is flawed, so you might want to ask your doctor for more info

 

[abcdefg]

bc pill can prevent cancer? If this is true then another researcher’s claiming that masturbating can prevent prostate cancer also sounds reasonable. In both cases I think these claims should be discarded

 

[Benedictus]

abcdefg:

bc pill can prevent cancer? If this is true then another researcher’s claiming that masturbating can prevent prostate cancer also sounds reasonable. In both cases I think these claims should be discarded

On what basis should they be discarded? Studies have shown that the Pill reduces the risk of ovarian cancer (and possibly raises the risk of other types of cancer, esp. in smokers).

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Tom of Assisi:

Let’s say we have a Catholic couple in their 30s who have three kids. The woman has a family history of ovarian cancer, and is taking the bc pill. The pill, in this case, is being taken to lessen her risk for developing the cancer (which I guess several scientific studies suggest it does) later in life, and not as a birth-control substance.

If the pill is being used for these positive health effects and not for birth control (although addmittedly this is a side-effect) is it still moral for the couple to have sexual relations while she is taking the bc pill?

This situation has been asked and some very pro-life/pro-nfp/Catholic thinkers have agreed that the common answer may be wrong. If the use of the pill is allowed then it must be under the principle of double effect whose conditions I am listing below.
Conditions for double effect as listed by Catholics United for the Faith www.cuf.org

The Church teaches that one may legitimately choose to carry out an act that is morally good, but which has one or more unintended side effects that are morally evil. The principle of double effect has several guideline that must be met for an act to be morally acceptable:

1 The intended act must be good in itself. The intended act may not be morally evil.

2 The good effect of the act must be that which is directly intended by the one who carries out the act. The bad effect that results from the act may be foreseen by the agent but must be unintended.

3 The good effect must not be brought about by using morally evil means.

4 The good effect must be of equal or greater proportion to any evil effect which would result.

5 Acts that have morally negative effects are permissible only when truly necessary, i.e., when there are no other means by which the good may be obtained.

 

[CatholicMatthew]

As you can see above the first three points are easy to meet. However, due to the abortifacent potential of this pill number 4 and 5 would not be able to met.
Number 4: weight of a child’s life versus alleviation of discomfort. This would be obvious. However, versus the risk of getting cancer then it becomes muddier.
Number 5: This is one that could never be met. Pregnancy, Lactational Amenoreha, pseudo-menopausul drugs or actual surgical removal (if you are worried about cancer their take it out rather than kill your child).

I have discussed this with a few prominent Catholic thinkers and they agree that a married woman should abstain. Also, I have a dear priest friend working in Rome that says this issue is often misunderstood when dealing with a married woman who continues to have relations and the gravity of why she is taking the pill is so important.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

Remember what Mother Teresa said about an unborn child’s death? Look at the alternatives hard before you kill your child.

 

[Trelow]

Their can be other alternatives to the pill.

I refer anyone with any problems to the Pope Paul VI Institute. They have done wonders on getting my wife figured out.

In med school the pharmaceutical companies push the pill as the end all be all to female problems.

It’s not the answer.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

The birth control pill is an abortifacient.

That means that the Pill causes the egg which has been released from the mother’s ovary from embedding in the womb == even if her egg has already been fertilized by his sperm == and instead be projected out of her body along with the menstrual lining which would have developed already for that month.

Please consider this quote from:

priestsforlife.org/brochures/fruitsofsametree.htm

Some “contraceptives” have a backup mechanism whereby a newly-developing life may be destroyed in its microscopic stages. These drugs and devices are abortifacients, capable of causing early and usually unknown abortions. The morally relevant point here is that “it is objectively a grave sin to dare to risk murder” (Declaration on Procured Abortion, 1974, n.12-13
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/quaestiodeabortu.htm). If your action might kill a person, and you do it, you declare your willingness to kill a person (like shooting at what is behind the bush when you are uncertain whether it is a bear or a man).

I really DO wish I’d known that years ago back when I took the Pill. I took it as prescribed for a medical reason having to do with regulating my period so that I wouldn’t get anemic like my mother did with her period, causing her to have to have a complete and total hysterectomy when she was 34 years old (and I was just 14 having just started having my own periods).

Since then, I’ve gone to Confession over it. Still… I’m still haunted by the thoughts that 'who knows how MANY babies of my own I’ve aborted without knowing that I could have been pregnant but had taken the Pill that month?"

====
**For those who have been affected by abortion, please visit:

silentnomoreawareness.org/**

 

[renee1258]

The most reacent study have been debunk as bad sceince.

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2002116425_pill11m.html

Scientists refute study touting pill’s benefits

By Julia Sommerfeld
Seattle Times staff reporter

A recent study touting a list of unexpected health benefits for the birth-control pill was wrong and should be discounted, say scientists with the landmark Women’s Health Initiative, whose database was used for the study.

The report was front-page news across the U.S. in October with its conclusion that using the pill cuts the risk of heart disease, heart attack, stroke and certain types of cancer later in life. This came as a surprise to many women who’d heard the contrary from their own doctors for decades.

It came as an even bigger surprise to the group of Seattle scientists responsible for collecting the data upon which the study was based.

Epidemiologist and statistician Ross Prentice nearly spit out his cereal when he saw The Associated Press report in The Seattle Times: Researchers at Wayne State University in Detroit were using Women’s Health Initiative data to overturn the common wisdom on the pill.

Prentice is the chief number cruncher for the health initiative and this was news to him. His team at Seattle’s Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center gathers and analyzes the data on more than 160,000 women. It’s the biggest women’s health study ever done and best-known for showing that the risks of hormone-replacement therapy outweigh its benefits. Prentice knows the database better than anyone and did not believe it could bear out such sweeping conclusions about the pill. First of all, the data were collected on women 50-79 years old — many of whom would have been around 40 when the pill hit the market.

So he and his colleagues reanalyzed the numbers to verify the Wayne State findings. They found that the association between the pill and a lower incidence of disease was really a factor of age. The older the women, the more health problems they were likely to have, and the less likely they were to have used oral contraceptives.

“When you’re comparing a 79-year-old women who never used oral contraceptives to a 62-year-old woman who did, the age difference is much more likely to explain things than who used the pill,” said Garnet Anderson, a biostatistician at Fred Hutch who helped examine the data. …

 

[renee1258]

Tom of Assisi:

Let’s say we have a Catholic couple in their 30s who have three kids. The woman has a family history of ovarian cancer, and is taking the bc pill. The pill, in this case, is being taken to lessen her risk for developing the cancer (which I guess several scientific studies suggest it does) later in life, and not as a birth-control substance.

If the pill is being used for these positive health effects and not for birth control (although addmittedly this is a side-effect) is it still moral for the couple to have sexual relations while she is taking the bc pill?

I believe that actually being pregnant and breast feeding reduces the chances also. Unless she is willing to abstain from sex while on the pill ( I doubt it) then it is still immoral.

 

[Brad]

puzzleannie:

in general if the pill, or any medicine or therapy, is prescribed for a valid medical reason, rather than for contraception it may be used, and the contraceptive effect is an unintended side effect.

This is not true. The pill is often an abortifacent, which is never permissible, and even if it were not, it would still be wrong.

An intrinsically moral evil (contraception, abortion) is never allowed for a good (potential or otherwise).

There are other medicines to take, other foods to eat, modifcation of lifestyles to make etc. that can be looked into without resorting to contraception and abortion.

I could go shoot all the farmers that use pesticides on their products because that may reduce my cancer risk but it would be wrong nonetheless.

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

Veronica Anne:

The birth control pill is an abortifacient.

Are we sure it is? Some people assert that is is not an abortifacient.

If it weren’t an abortifacient and only contraceptive, would it still be wrong?

 

[renee1258]

Such as only supressing ovulation, but didn’t make the uterus a hostile place for a fertilized egg?

Would you take a pill for health reasons that eliminated your production of sperm? Or let’s say this pill didn’t allow you to have an erection.

The preparationf or ovulation even in non-fertile days is very important to sexual satisfaction and being a sexual being?

I guess this is a difference with sexual function between man and woman. Woman can still have sex withoug being sexual, because the vagina is still functional. But a man can’t have intercourse with an unerect penis.

(sorry for being graphic)

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Tom of Assisi:

Are we sure it is? Some people assert that is is not an abortifacient.

If it weren’t an abortifacient and only contraceptive, would it still be wrong?

Kick out the name of a pill and I will go to the manufacturer website and show it to you. Everyone that i have looked at has stated this in one fashion or another.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

renee1258:

Such as only supressing ovulation, but didn’t make the uterus a hostile place for a fertilized egg?

)

Yes that’s my question. And I know it’s cliche, but really, I am not asking for my family. I already am convinced, but I am investigating on behalf of a friend.

So then, even if the pill were not abortive…is it still wrong to use it (while engaging in sexual relations) as a potential cancer prevenitive for a woman with a family history of ovarian cancer?

Your answer (which was a good) seems to speak to natural law…is it also Church teaching (for sure)?

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

CatholicMatthew:

As you can see above the first three points are easy to meet. However, due to the abortifacent potential of this pill number 4 and 5 would not be able to met.
Number 4: weight of a child’s life versus alleviation of discomfort. This would be obvious. However, versus the risk of getting cancer then it becomes muddier.
Number 5: This is one that could never be met. Pregnancy, Lactational Amenoreha, pseudo-menopausul drugs or actual surgical removal (if you are worried about cancer their take it out rather than kill your child).

I have discussed this with a few prominent Catholic thinkers and they agree that a married woman should abstain. Also, I have a dear priest friend working in Rome that says this issue is often misunderstood when dealing with a married woman who continues to have relations and the gravity of why she is taking the pill is so important.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

Remember what Mother Teresa said about an unborn child’s death? Look at the alternatives hard before you kill your child.

This is very informative–thank you

 

[CatholicMatthew]

Tom of Assisi:

Yes that’s my question. And I know it’s cliche, but really, I am not asking for my family. I already am convinced, but I am investigating on behalf of a friend.

So then, even if the pill were not abortive…is it still wrong to use it (while engaging in sexual relations) as a potential cancer prevenitive for a woman with a family history of ovarian cancer?

Your answer (which was a good) seems to speak to natural law…is it also Church teaching (for sure)?

If the conditions of double effect (posted above) were met then it would be licit to use as the contraceptive effect was not wanted or intended if the pill was not abortive. However, current hormonal BC is potentially abortus conceptus and thus can kill.

Under the Mercy,

Matthew

 

[Tom_of_Assisi]

My interactions with my friends continue…

I’ve done some internet “research” over the past two days and found pretty convincing evidence that hormonal birth control pills are abortive as their secondary method for preventing pregnancies. So it’s pretty clear the pill cannot morally be used because the possibility that it might function as a sort of vitamin seems to be cancelled out by the possibility that it causes death to small children, but…

…what about condoms? What are some arguments maybe for or against their use since they are not abortive?

The argument I’m getting from people now is that “birth control” is anything that is done to stop conception…so nfp is the same philisophically as a condom…any thoughts on this point. Especially really persuasive points…my friend is very doubtful on Church teachings on contraceptives.

 

[renee1258]

Tom of Assisi:

My interactions with my friends continue…

The argument I’m getting from people now is that “birth control” is anything that is done to stop conception…so nfp is the same philisophically as a condom…any thoughts on this point. Especially really persuasive points…my friend is very doubtful on Church teachings on contraceptives.

The difference is interupting the sexual compared to postponing the sexual act. Most men don’t like condoms. Excuse me all men. The natural consequence of being fertile is abstinance, we are not in any way interupting an act. The unnatural act is wasting “seed” into a condom.

 

[khkhk]

Tom of Assisi:

Let’s say we have a Catholic couple in their 30s who have three kids. The woman has a family history of ovarian cancer, and is taking the bc pill. The pill, in this case, is being taken to lessen her risk for developing the cancer (which I guess several scientific studies suggest it does) later in life, and not as a birth-control substance.

If the pill is being used for these positive health effects and not for birth control (although addmittedly this is a side-effect) is it still moral for the couple to have sexual relations while she is taking the bc pill?

Except that using the bc pill increases risk for breast cancer…