Can a medical purpose justify an act?

[seekerz]

The use of a condom in an act of natural intercourse is the deliberate choice of an inherently contraceptive, and therefore inherently immoral, act. The good effect of preventing an allergic reaction is obtained by means of a barrier contraceptive. So an evil means is being used to a good end. The end does not justify the means. The deliberate choice of an intrinsically disordered act cannot be justified by a medical purpose (intention), nor by difficult circumstances.

How does their existing infertility fit into the equation or does it not? IOW, how can the condom in this case be acting as a contraceptive when the condition in and of itself inhibits procreation?

 

[Bookcat]

Here’s one circumstance for you: I was reading on another thread of a wife who is allergic to her husband’s sperm, a condition for which condoms were prescribed. In considering the morality of condom use in such a case, it’s important to note that this allergy, when severe, is associated with infertility and such couples would need special fertility procedures in order to conceive. Condoms are only one treatment option, but supposing all else had proved futile, would their use in this case be immoral? I’m leaning toward no, because the intent here is to prevent a harmful allergic reaction from recurring and because procreation by natural means is already rendered unfeasible by the condition itself. I have seen arguments to the contrary though.

One could perhaps say simply that the marital act is not occurring here due to the barrier that prevents it from taking place. Such would be my first thought. For sure one needs to find a moral solution to such a problem…from those who are the “experts”.

For a detailed treatment and advice one may contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center. When one gets into such medical-moral questions they are a good source.

(for medical help for one in such a situation --contact the Paul VI Institute).

 

[Bookcat]

How does their existing infertility fit into the equation or does it not? IOW, how can the condom in this case be acting as a contraceptive when the condition in and of itself inhibits procreation?

The martial act must be open to life. No matter if the couple is judged infertile…it still needs to happen properly.

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI:

1. What is the meaning of the conjugal act?

2362-2367

The conjugal act has a twofold meaning: unitive (the mutual self-giving of the spouses) and procreative (an openness to the transmission of life). No one may break the inseparable connection which God has established between these two meanings of the conjugal act by excluding one or the other of them.

1. When is it moral to regulate births?

2368-2369
2399

The regulation of births, which is an aspect of responsible fatherhood and motherhood, is objectively morally acceptable when it is pursued by the spouses without external pressure; when it is practiced not out of selfishness but for serious reasons; and with methods that conform to the objective criteria of morality, that is, periodic continence and use of the infertile periods.

1. What are immoral means of birth control?

2370-2372

Every action - for example, direct sterilization or contraception - is intrinsically immoral which (either in anticipation of the conjugal act, in its accomplishment or in the development of its natural consequences) proposes, as an end or as a means, to hinder procreation.

---

again a couple in such circumstance can contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center…and also the Pope Paul VI Institute (in terms of the medical problem)

 

[Jaaanosik]

Surgical Amputation

Again remember there is an intent that is “embedded” within a particular object.

The Church teaches that the circumstance or intention* cannot change an intrinsically evil moral object into a good*. It cannot justify it. But such does not mean there is not “intents” or “circumstances” that* go into making up a moral object*.

Note that the marital act, fornication and adultery are all “sexual intercourse” (as mutilation and amputation can both be “cutting off an arm”…or murder and just capital punishment are both “killing a man”)…but all three are different moral objects.

Fornication is an intrinsically evil moral object. No intention or circumstance can make it good. But certainly the very definition of Fornication -sexual relations between to unmarried persons who are not married to others …involves that very “circumstance” etc…embedded in the object. The circumstance that is being addressed in the three sources of morality --that cannot change an intrinsically evil into a good are things like “we love each other and are planning to get married this year”…etc or take the example of “Adultery” …well yes the “circumstance” of it being at least one married person having relations with another they are not married too is part of “Adultery”…again that is not what is meant by “circumstance” …whereas the circumstance that someone would seek to change the evil into a good would be things like “well my spouse does not love me anymore” etc etc…can never make it good.

No good intention can make a moral object that is evil “in itself” into a good. Can not justify it.

Do “moral objects” involve certain “intentions or circumstances” within their very nature…yes sure…but it is not the “intentions or circumstances” that being referred to in the Catechism in the sources of morality.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm

Surgical amputation is a name for the act. What is moral object, intention and circumstances?
Thanks.

 

[Bookcat]

Surgical amputation is a name for the act. What is moral object, intention and circumstances?
Thanks.

Well it is hard to state per se the “object” here otherwise…in the abstract…so I use that.

(examples of “moral objects” are Fornication, adultery, murder, theft)

And the intention and circumstance…well that all depends on the facts of the case.

 

[edwest2]

From the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=347

Peace,
Ed

 

[fix]

I am reposting the Vatican statement on uterine isolation again to show that there is a moral difference between direct and indirect sterilization.

Q. 3.In the same situation as in no. 2, is it licit to substitute tubal ligation, also called “uterine isolation,” for the hysterectomy, since the same end would be attained of averting the risks of a possible pregnancy by means of a procedure which is much simpler for the doctor and less serious for the woman, and since in addition, in some cases, the ensuing sterility might be reversible?

R. Negative.

The end of avoiding risks to the mother, deriving from a possible pregnancy, is thus pursued by means of a direct sterilization, in itself always morally illicit, while other ways, which are morally licit, remain open to free choice.

If you read the entire piece it draws a distinction between choosing to treat a medical condition in which it is foreseen that permanent sterility will result and treating a medical condition with the aim of achieving sterility.

In each case presented sterility will result, but the object chosen is different.

That is why in the other links both from priests, and one a moral theologian, they state why treating medical conditions with medication that will suppress fertility is morally licit. The object chosen is not contraception. The means used are not contraception.

The issue of the condom and allergy is a different matter.

 

[Jaaanosik]

Ron,
the answer to your original post and the thread title is clear. Yes!
I’ll try to explain it on the surgical amputation.

The circumstances: a life is in danger, an infection is spreading. It is good to fight it.
The moral object: well being of a patient, survival.
The intent: to help healing, to perform a surgery in order to address the issue, if there is no other option cutting a limb will remove the source of infection.

There is a thin line between survival and well being of a patient in case of euthanasia.
There is also a tricky situation when an abortion is required to save mother’s life.
God bless,
Jano

 

[Bookcat]

Yes!
I’ll try to explain it on the surgical amputation.

The circumstances: a life is in danger, an infection is spreading. It is good to fight it.
The moral object: well being of a patient, survival.
The intent: to help healing, to perform a surgery in order to address the issue, if there is no other option cutting a limb will remove the source of infection.

What you describe above would not be doing an intrinsically evil thing.

(Also the moral object would be something like “surgical amputation”)

What he meant I think in the question “can a medical purpose justify an act?” – was can a medical purpose justify a directly intrinsically evil act. Or can a medical purpose alone justify an act.

The answer would be no.

One can never do an “intrinsically evil action”.

The ends do not “justify the means”

Catechism:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it

 

[Jaaanosik]

**What you describe above would not be doing an intrinsically evil thing. **

(Also the moral object would be something like “surgical amputation”)

What he meant I think in the question “can a medical purpose justify an act?” – was can a medical purpose justify a directly intrinsically evil act. Or can a medical purpose alone justify an act.

The answer would be no.

One can never do an “intrinsically evil action”.

The ends do not “justify the means”

Catechism:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it

I know, I am answering the original post that kind of implies that a medical act could be an intrinsically evil act.
That is not a case. It can never happen. It seems that’s where the confusion was coming from.

A medical purpose act has a moral object which is well being of a patient, survival.
Circumstances bring you to the point when you start to think about a medical act.
The intent is to help healing.

The tricky part is to apply this framework to “euthanasia and abortion” as mentioned in my previous post where they should have different names as there are different names for mutilation and amputation.

 

[fix]

I know, I am answering the original post that kind of implies that a medical act could be an intrinsically evil act.

Direct abortion is described as a medical procedure. That is intrnsically evil. So is direct sterilization.

That is not a case. It can never happen. It seems that’s where the confusion was coming from.

It certainly can, and does, happen.

A medical purpose act has a moral object which is well being of a patient, survival.
Circumstances bring you to the point when you start to think about a medical act.
The intent is to help healing.

This is not Catholic moral theology.

The tricky part is to apply this framework to “euthanasia and abortion” as mentioned in my previous post where they should have different names as there are different names for mutilation and amputation.

Not sure what this means?

 

[Bookcat]

I know, I am answering the original post that kind of implies that a medical act could be an intrinsically evil act.
That is not a case. It can never happen. It seems that’s where the confusion was coming from.

A medical purpose act has a moral object which is well being of a patient, survival.
Circumstances bring you to the point when you start to think about a medical act.
The intent is to help healing.

The tricky part is to apply this framework to “euthanasia and abortion” as mentioned in my previous post where they should have different names as there are different names for mutilation and amputation.

Actually there are many things that are considered “medical acts” in the medical profession that are intrinsically evil…such as “sterilization” “Euthanasia” and “abortion” as you note.

One may never murder anyone. Or sterilize them. It may happen that as an unintended side effect a person may die or may become infertile…(assuming all the aspects here of the principle of double effect is in place)…but such is not the same thing. One is is not seeking to kill anyone or to cause someone to become infertile…one is attacking some other deadly disease. (the death of the child or the infertility here is not the means by which the disease is addressed but is a side effect…)

 

[Ron_Conte]

"An act is morally good when it assumes simultaneously the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances.

A chosen object can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety, even if the intention is good. It is not licit to do evil so that good may result from it.

An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself.

On the other hand, a good end does not make an act good if the object of that act is evil, since the end does not justify the means.

Circumstances can increase or diminish the responsibility of the one who is acting but they cannot change the moral quality of the acts themselves. They never make good an act which is in itself evil." (Compendium 368)

 

[seekerz]

Direct abortion is described as a medical procedure. That is intrnsically evil. So is direct sterilization.

It certainly can, and does, happen.

This is not Catholic moral theology.

Not sure what this means?

Feel free to correct me, but I was not aware that direct abortion described a particular medical procedure. It’s a question that’s been visited numerous times on previous threads, so I would love to have a source for that, if at all possible.

 

[fix]

Feel free to correct me, but I was not aware that direct abortion described a particular medical procedure. It’s a question that’s been visited numerous times on previous threads, so I would love to have a source for that, if at all possible.

I did not mean to imply that the phrase direct abortion is a medical term. I was trying to say that direct abortions are performed and called medical treatment. I hope that helps.

 

[seekerz]

I did not mean to imply that the phrase direct abortion is a medical term. I was trying to say that direct abortions are performed and called medical treatment. I hope that helps.

Got you. In the sense of actual procedures being immoral in and of themselves the only ones I’m aware of are those solely directed to achieving sterilization (vasectomy, tubal ligation). Just about every other procedure has licit and non-licit applications, so I challenge the idea that there are many intrinsically evil procedures (or even medications).

 

[Bookcat]

Got you. In the sense of actual procedures being immoral in and of themselves the only ones I’m aware of are those solely directed to achieving sterilization (vasectomy, tubal ligation). Just about every other procedure has licit and non-licit applications, so I challenge the idea that there are many intrinsically evil procedures (or even medications).

Another example is --abortion.

One can never do an abortion.

It can happen that say a child may die as an unintended side-effect but one may never “preform an abortion”.

( I know you where thinking of the case where there is an “indirect abortion” as I just noted --but such is not per se an abortion as a means)

(I imagine there are a whole catalog of things we have never heard of)

 

[seekerz]

Another example is --abortion.

One can never do an abortion.

It can happen that say a child may die as an unintended side-effect but one may never “preform an abortion”.

( I know you where thinking of the case where there is an “indirect abortion” as I just noted --but such is not per se an abortion as a means)

(I imagine there are a whole catalog of things we have never heard of)

Abortion is not a single procedure; it can be achieved through various procedures and with the use of multiple medications, most of which have other legitimate uses.

 

[Jaaanosik]

"An act is morally good when it assumes simultaneously the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances.

A chosen object can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety, even if the intention is good. It is not licit to do evil so that good may result from it.

An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself.

On the other hand, a good end does not make an act good if the object of that act is evil, since the end does not justify the means.

Circumstances can increase or diminish the responsibility of the one who is acting but they cannot change the moral quality of the acts themselves. They never make good an act which is in itself evil." (Compendium 368)

Ron,
Let’s define “medical purpose” - “medical”.
I’ll use www.thefreedictionary.com

med·i·cal (md-kl)
adj.

1. Of or relating to the study or practice of medicine.
2. Requiring treatment by medicine.

… practice of medicine.

med·i·cine (md-sn)
n.
1.
a. The science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind.
b. The branch of this science encompassing treatment by drugs, diet, exercise, and other nonsurgical means.
2. The practice of medicine.
3. An agent, such as a drug, used to treat disease or injury.
…

The science of diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease and other damage to the body or mind.

Please, show me an unjustified medical act.
Can it be called medical if an act does not diagnose, treat, prevent disease or other damage to the body or mind?
If an act is evil then it goes against the definition of “medical”.
God bless,
Jano

 

[fix]

Got you. In the sense of actual procedures being immoral in and of themselves the only ones I’m aware of are those solely directed to achieving sterilization (vasectomy, tubal ligation). Just about every other procedure has licit and non-licit applications, so I challenge the idea that there are many intrinsically evil procedures (or even medications).

Well I think you would agree that terminating a pregnancy because a woman does not want a baby is direct abortion and is done by medical people and is legal and accepted medical practice. So that is one example.

Medications can never be evil. Only acts can be evil. What I am trying to say is that there exist medical practices that are immoral. Another example would be IVF.