Birth Control to stop pain

[Xantippe]

I spent thousands on NaPro (wasn’t covered by insurance), for them to say “we don’t know what causes your pain”. So yeah, we will take your money and offer a hysterectomy. If I took their advice, I wouldn’t have my son. NaPro is great, but doesn’t work for everyone.

And yes, the pain was so bad I couldn’t walk. I would be in the feral position and just screams. Diet changes, exercise, over the counter meds, massage,etc didn’t help. I could take the highest dose of prescription painkillers and be “okay” but unable to do anything.

The Pill means I’m able to function. I treat it like any medication, it enables me to be the best wife and mother. We did talk to our priest who is fine with it.

If someone wants to judge me for it, then they can watch my son for two weeks every month while I’m in agony.

I feel like if somebody is going to go the Na-Pro route, they need to figure out in advance how far they’re going to go that direction, how much time, how much out-of-pocket medical expenses–because given that women can morally use conventional medicine in many circumstances, it ultimately boils down to effectiveness and expense.

Also, while I’m not qualified to speak about the quality of their medicine (but I have heard a number of stories that give me concerns about how long they continue with methods that are not working), I do know enough to speak to their moral theology, and it isn’t very good. “Never use hormonal medication” is not actual church teaching.

This is also a case where I would steer the person away from just going to a random parish priest, because it is a question in moral theology and the stakes are so high. I don’t think it’s that hard as a question, but I think that it’s better to seek out more authoritative advice. (I have great confidence, though, in the average priest’s answer to questions like, “should I stop speaking to my mother?” or “Is my husband being fair?”)

 

[Sarcelle]

According to Napro Doctors who are trained based on Catholic morals and ethics, BC is not the solution.

And you know this how?

I recommend the OP consult her doctor. Her doctor may also have other non hormonal solutions available.

 

[Sarcelle]

Napro doctors are known to fix problems such as the one the OP has. Napro Doctors also know the repercussions of using BC. BC can cause more damage and good. For those who are not educated on Napro Doctors, educate yourself. I don’t know why there are those who are opposed to Napro Doctors.

Because they are not the silver bullet approach to these problems. They provide at best an alternative but they cannot cure everything.

 

[goout]

Please let’s get this straight:
**Medication is not necessarily “birth control”. **

That’s like calling a hammer a murderer because someone has used a hammer to kill someone. Sometimes a hammer is used to drive a nail, sometimes it is used to bash a skull.

Please…think.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Napro doctors are known to fix problems such as the one the OP has. Napro Doctors also know the repercussions of using BC. BC can cause more damage and good. For those who are not educated on Napro Doctors, educate yourself. I don’t know why there are those who are opposed to Napro Doctors.

Because a lot of us have had either bad experiences with Napro doctors or with those associated with them.

It’s gotten to the point that I can’t mention having had PPD in most Catholic mom groups without having Napro shoved down my throat. A standard conversation is as follows:

Me: mentioning PPD experience

Them: Have you tried Napro? You have to! It’ll fix your PPD immediately!

Me: There is one Napro doctor in my area, and I’ve heard nothing but horror stories about her from her patients in terms of her lack of professionalism and rudeness. She won’t even see me unless I stop using the method of NFP that works best for me and use her method for several months first, although her method would be a bad fit for my personality and my body and I absolutely must not get pregnant due to health reasons. (But, of course, if her method fails, it’s my fault and I must not have been motivated enough!) Then, she doesn’t accept my insurance, so I’m looking at thousands of bucks out of pocket to see her and get the every-two-week treatments she requires. To top it all off, my combination of diet, exercise, and a $1/month antidepressant keeps my PPD well in hand, so why would I stop it?

Them: Well, her solution is the Catholic solution, but I guess you just aren’t willing to try it.

Nice.

I also know one woman whose Napro doc’s solution for a similar condition was “pay me out of pocket for a major invasive surgery every three months, said surgery leaving you unable to do much due to recovery for 4 weeks or so of that timeframe.” That’s just not feasible for ANYONE, and painting someone as a bad Catholic for not being a millionaire or unwilling to spend most of their life either preparing for, having, or recovering from surgery rather than taking a hormonal treatment to do the same thing is wrong. Very, very wrong.

And yep, there’s plenty of shaming in Napro circles if it doesn’t fix your PPD, doesn’t get you pregnant (you must not have tried hard enough/eaten just right/etc, you must not have REALLY wanted a baby or it would have worked), doesn’t cure your pain, or if the NFP method associated with it doesn’t work for you and you get pregnant when you had serious health etc reasons to avoid.

 

[UbiCaritas]

Please let’s get this straight:
**Medication is not necessarily “birth control”. **

That’s like calling a hammer a murderer because someone has used a hammer to kill someone. Sometimes a hammer is used to drive a nail, sometimes it is used to bash a skull.

Please…think.

This.

Tell me, are Catholics also not allowed to get chemotherapeutic or radioactive cancer treatments, since those things can also adversely affect fertility?

If a Catholic woman has ovarian or uterine cancer, should she die from it rather than have a hysterectomy?

Of course not.

 

[Xantippe]

Because a lot of us have had either bad experiences with Napro doctors or with those associated with them.

It’s gotten to the point that I can’t mention having had PPD in most Catholic mom groups without having Napro shoved down my throat. A standard conversation is as follows:

Me: mentioning PPD experience

Them: Have you tried Napro? You have to! It’ll fix your PPD immediately!

Me: There is one Napro doctor in my area, and I’ve heard nothing but horror stories about her from her patients in terms of her lack of professionalism and rudeness. She won’t even see me unless I stop using the method of NFP that works best for me and use her method for several months first, although her method would be a bad fit for my personality and my body and I absolutely must not get pregnant due to health reasons. (But, of course, if her method fails, it’s my fault and I must not have been motivated enough!) Then, she doesn’t accept my insurance, so I’m looking at thousands of bucks out of pocket to see her and get the every-two-week treatments she requires. To top it all off, my combination of diet, exercise, and a $1/month antidepressant keeps my PPD well in hand, so why would I stop it?

Them: Well, her solution is the Catholic solution, but I guess you just aren’t willing to try it.

Nice.

I also know one woman whose Napro doc’s solution for a similar condition was “pay me out of pocket for a major invasive surgery every three months, said surgery leaving you unable to do much due to recovery for 4 weeks or so of that timeframe.” That’s just not feasible for ANYONE, and painting someone as a bad Catholic for not being a millionaire or unwilling to spend most of their life either preparing for, having, or recovering from surgery rather than taking a hormonal treatment to do the same thing is wrong. Very, very wrong.

And yep, there’s plenty of shaming in Napro circles if it doesn’t fix your PPD, doesn’t get you pregnant (you must not have tried hard enough/eaten just right/etc, you must not have REALLY wanted a baby or it would have worked), doesn’t cure your pain, or if the NFP method associated with it doesn’t work for you and you get pregnant when you had serious health etc reasons to avoid.

Yeah.

 

[edwest2]

No need to argue. From an article from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"Is there ever a time “contraceptives” may be used for medical reasons?

"Catholic teaching does not oppose the use of hormonal medications – such as those found in chemical contraceptives – for legitimate medical purposes, provided there is no contraceptive intent.

"But artificial hormones typically treat only the medical symptoms. They do not correct the underlying disease or condition. They also carry the same physical health risks as hormonal contraceptives.

“Thankfully, with growing advancements in understanding fertility, knowledgeable gynecologists can often prescribe non-contraceptive drugs and recommend safer and healthier treatments to correct underlying problems or eliminate discomfort.”

Source: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/love-and-sexuality/index.cfm#medical

Best,
Ed

 

[ymartinez1015]

No need to argue. From an article from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

"Is there ever a time “contraceptives” may be used for medical reasons?

"Catholic teaching does not oppose the use of hormonal medications – such as those found in chemical contraceptives – for legitimate medical purposes, provided there is no contraceptive intent.

"But artificial hormones typically treat only the medical symptoms. They do not correct the underlying disease or condition. They also carry the same physical health risks as hormonal contraceptives.

“Thankfully, with growing advancements in understanding fertility, knowledgeable gynecologists can often prescribe non-contraceptive drugs and recommend safer and healthier treatments to correct underlying problems or eliminate discomfort.”

Source: usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/love-and-sexuality/index.cfm#medical

Best,
Ed

Good read! Finally someone with common sense!

 

[UbiCaritas]

Good read! Finally someone with common sense!

Where is the common sense in dropping thousands of dollars, sometimes on a monthly basis, or having major surgery every few months when in the former case, lifestyle changes plus a minimal copay (most antidepressants now have under-$10 generics available) will accomplish the same purpose? Or in the latter case, when a prescription of less than $10/month will both preserve a woman’s fertility and allow her to live a normal life?

 

[Xantippe]

Where is the common sense in dropping thousands of dollars, sometimes on a monthly basis, or having major surgery every few months when in the former case, lifestyle changes plus a minimal copay (most antidepressants now have under-$10 generics available) will accomplish the same purpose? Or in the latter case, when a prescription of less than $10/month will both preserve a woman’s fertility and allow her to live a normal life?

I also don’t think that the quote from the US bishops carries more weight than Humanae Vitae.

In case it hasn’t been quoted yet, here’s a quote: "On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. "

 

[edwest2]

I also don’t think that the quote from the US bishops carries more weight than Humanae Vitae.

In case it hasn’t been quoted yet, here’s a quote: "On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. "

The comparison is that since Humanae Vitae (1968), improvements in treating certain medical conditions such as that described here are now available.

Ed

 

[DarkLight]

The pulls won’t treat the suicidal problem so medical and mental intervention is a must!

I would point out that PMDD is a thing that for some women can in some cases be cured by hormone pills. Severe pain can also produce or greatly exacerbate suicidal ideation in people who would not otherwise have it.

So while she should certainly discuss things a doctor, it’s not outside the realm of possible or even likely given her symptoms that a hormone treatment such as birth control pills may be all that is necessary.

 

[Xantippe]

The comparison is that since Humanae Vitae (1968), improvements in treating certain medical conditions such as that described here are now available.

Ed

I suggest you read this blog post:

nowealthbutlife.com/napro-not-for-me/

A quick snip:

"I want healthcare which treats me as efficiently as possible without being unnecessarily invasive or experimental.

“It is good that NaPro tends toward the experimental side of things. After all, if no one ever tried anything new… BUT at the same time, I am tired of being a lab rat. Also, I had just a little dose of the NaPro approach this summer and the invasiveness is the last thing that I need at this point. I was quite willing to have surgery because I needed it, but the fact is that the NaPro style seems heavily geared toward invasiveness in every area. This goes along with the experimental aspect and makes sense for figuring out new treatments, but my body has been through enough without subjecting it to pointless over-treatment.”

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Because there are some laity on these forums who propose to be experts in Church teaching, when they are not. They utilize highly specious arguments and legalism to promote their personal agenda. And they give advice that is both medically unsound and spiritually harmful.

I saw none of that on this thread. Though I agree it is no place for medical opinions.However, it IS a place for stating the church’s teaching ON medical matters.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There are a ton of these threads. The advice posters should give is simple.

1. Point out that the drug taken, if not to intend birth control, is just like any other drug and is fine.
2. Point to approved methods or medical professionals that are in line with the church ( like napro)
3. Understand that treatment us different for everyone and some things may need to be treated differently. That napro may not work but we should at least encourage the op to find the information.
4. Leave the medicine to doctors. Not forum posters. And not be emotional because if our own struggles.

 

[paperwight66]

No need to argue. From an article from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

“Thankfully, with growing advancements in understanding fertility, knowledgeable gynecologists can often prescribe non-contraceptive drugs and recommend safer and healthier treatments to correct underlying problems or eliminate discomfort.” Quote.

‘Discomfort’. Don’t you just love them using that word? Discomfort is having a piece of grit in one’s shoe, or perhaps a mouth ulcer.

It comes nowhere near the type of pain that some women suffer.

 

[StGerardMajella]

I saw none of that on this thread. Though I agree it is no place for medical opinions.However, it IS a place for stating the church’s teaching ON medical matters.

The issue is that some laity hide their personal agenda under the guise of “Church teaching”.

To advance their ideology, they will cite general Church doctrine and try to apply that doctrine without taking into account context, mitigating factors, and unique facts. This is especially true with highly controversial topics, such as birth control.

This is why we have priests and ecclesiastical courts. Each individual situation needs to be evaluated carefully by competent medical and spiritual authorities for its unique circumstances.

This is exactly why Moses instituted tribunals. Church law doesn’t operate in a vacuum.

 

[UbiCaritas]

The issue is that some laity hide their personal agenda under the guise of “Church teaching”.

To advance their ideology, they will cite general Church doctrine and try to apply that doctrine without taking into account context, mitigating factors, and unique facts. This is especially true with highly controversial topics, such as birth control.

This is why we have priests and ecclesiastical courts. Each individual situation needs to be evaluated carefully by competent medical and spiritual authorities for its unique circumstances.

This is exactly why Moses instituted tribunals. Church law doesn’t operate in a vacuum.

And yet if you ask three priests to interpret this stuff for you, you may well get three different answers.

I know one traditional, albeit with full diocesan faculties, priest who routinely says that the use of the Marquette NFP method, no matter what the reason, is by definition sinful because the fertility monitor is too accurate and therefore contraceptive.

And we’ve all heard of priests who tell a couple that it’s okay, just go get sterilized because the Church doesn’t mean for things to be so difficult on them.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

I also don’t think that the quote from the US bishops carries more weight than Humanae Vitae.

In case it hasn’t been quoted yet, here’s a quote: "On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever. "

Hi everyone, been gone for a while but this isn’t the first time I’ve gotten the impression that some Catholics see “birth control” the same way some evangelical Christians see “Demon Rum”, or even how some secular humanists demonize firearms. That the fact that a substance/object has been used for immoral reasons, means it is illicit to use them even for moral reasons. Or that somehow, people are obligated to use ABC only as an absolute last resort.

However, I also realize that some of this antipathy toward “birth control” is a backlash towards those who use “health reasons” to actually approve the use of “birth control” for expressly contraceptive purposes. Even some priests have counseled that it’s OK to use ABC to avoid pregnancy if that would put a “woman’s health at risk”.

I even recall a number of posts from CAFers proudly proclaiming that they were taking advantage of the “health exception” to use ABC and were happy they didn’t have to worry about getting pregnant. That attitude seems to fly in the face of the idea from Humane Vitae that medicinal use of hormones that have contraceptive effects is only licit if “such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever”.

Though interestingly, even during Prohibition in the US, there was a legal exception for alcohol used for therapeutic means. And certainly, many of the “medicinal tonics” containing alcohol (and sometimes other drugs such as opium, cocaine, etc.) were used for recreational purposes even before Prohibition.

But I doubt anyone would question the morality of using, say, Oxycontin to treat pain if nothing else will work, even though there’s a lot of evidence that the company making it actually INTENDED for it to be used inappropriately, even for people who didn’t need it.

It also seems the Church does not disapprove of using marijuana to treat pain even though I think it’s pretty obvious that most people growing and using it are doing so for recreational purposes.