Can I use a barrier for medical reasons?

[Rau]

Technically they are both performed to redress a blocked fallopian tube of potentially fatal blockage. But that is essentially the crux of the debate between to two parties trying to refine the Church position.

I think that’s the wrong issue in the context of the position of On_the_hill - he would be ok with an undisputed direct attack on the baby, and sees it as no different to tube removal, in its effect on the baby, which is true. In his reasoning, the intent of “kill baby now before things get worse” is ok in these circumstances. Skysmother likewise. The subtleties of methotrexate, and what it actually does are not his or her point.

For the record, a “kill baby now” (direct attack) is explicitly ruled out by the Church. The debate on-foot is whether that is what a methotrexate injection is.

 

[Corki]

In an earlier post I linked to the official Catholic position on the use of methotrexate in treating ectopic pregnancy. Catholic practitioners using this procedure on the basis that* it does not constitute direct abortion*, are within the bounds of Catholic teaching.

“Resolution of this debate will depend on further specification of the exact nature of these medical procedures and further refinement of the arguments about the moral object of each act. Generally, if there are two competing but contrary bodies of theological opinion about a moral issue, each held by experts whose work is in accordance with the magisterium of the Church, and if there is no specific magisterial teaching on the issue that would resolve the matter, then the decision makers may licitly act on either opinion until such time that the magisterium has resolved the question.”

Edward J. Furton, et al., eds., Catholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Practitioners, Philadelphia, PA: The National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009, p. 123.

chausa.org/docs/default-source/general-files/c6776764f3cc4624a8ea2a31037e9b111-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0

For clarification, this is not the “official Church position”. It is the opinion of a moral theologian.

 

[on_the_hill]

I think that’s the wrong issue in the context of the position of On_the_hill - he would be ok with an undisputed direct attack on the baby, and sees it as no different to tube removal, in its effect on the baby, which is true. In his reasoning, the intent of “kill baby now before things get worse” is ok in these circumstances. Skysmother likewise. The subtleties of methotrexate, and what it actually does are not his or her point.

For the record, a “kill baby now” (direct attack) is explicitly ruled out by the Church. The debate on-foot is whether that is what a methotrexate injection is.

No, I did not state that I would be ok with a direct attack on a baby.

What I’d like to know is why we say it’s ok in one case and not the other. I have my suspicions, but I’ll keep those to myself.

Secondary consequences, direct, indirect, these things are splitting hairs.

I’m going to play Angry Birds now.

 

[Rau]

No, I did not state that I would be ok with a direct attack on a baby.

What I’d like to know is why we say it’s ok in one case and not the other. I have my suspicions, but I’ll keep those to myself.

Secondary consequences, direct, indirect, these things are splitting hairs.

I’m going to play Angry Birds now.

So your question is why is direct attack not ok, but tubal removal is, when outcome for baby is the same? The answer has been given a few times…direct attack intends to kill the baby. Removing the tube does to the mother what will save her, but the baby dies as a side-effect because we have no capability to save the baby while treating the mother. It is a question of morality, not solely outcomes. Consequently, the Church teaches unequivocally that we may not directly attack (kill) the baby.

 

[Reverie]

. The only reason to remove a Fallopian tube (in this case) is to end a life threatening pregnancy.

It also removes a damaged Fallopian tube. I don’t know about anyone else, but if I had an ectopic pregnancy, I wouldn’t want that defective tube inside me anymore.

 

[maryjk]

For clarification, this is not the “official Church position”. It is the opinion of a moral theologian.

Thank you.

And NONE OF THIS has to do with someone using a condom TO PREVENT pregnancy.

(Sorry, Corki, but I am not yelling at you. Starrsmother, on the other hand, seems to have successfully created enough smoke to totally obfuscate the issue. )

Remember guys???

The OP, wanted to know if she could use NFP to prevent pregnancy while she is taking methotrexate. She isn’t taking the methotrexate to terminate a pregnancy. She said she is taking 10 to 15mg, once a week. For an abortion, she would receive 50mg, as in injection.

 

[LongingSoul]

For clarification, this is not the “official Church position”. It is the opinion of a moral theologian.

I’m just saying that the Magisterium has no official position on the use of methotrexate in Catholic hospitals for treating ectopic pregnancies as yet. The issue is still subject to debate between Catholic ethicists attempting to define if the procedure constitutes a direct abortion. I don’t know one way or the other since I’m not an ethicist, theologian, medical practicioner or have ever suffered ectopic pregnancy. I was just interjecting with something to correct one particular accusation being made against Starrsmother.

 

[Corki]

I’m just saying that the Magisterium has no official position on the use of methotrexate in Catholic hospitals for treating ectopic pregnancies as yet. The issue is still subject to debate between Catholic ethicists attempting to define if the procedure constitutes a direct abortion. I don’t know one way or the other since I’m not an ethicist, theologian, medical practicioner or have ever suffered ectopic pregnancy. I was just interjecting with something to correct one particular accusation being made against Starrsmother.

That’s waffling. The Church has a very clear position on the use of any procedure or medication to directly end the life of a fetus.

The paper you linked is taking the position that since the drug stops the growth of cells rather than kill them, it isn’t a direct abortion. It really doesn’t matter. If the drug is acting directly against the fetus rather than having an unwilled side effect of harming the fetus, it does not meet the moral theology criteria for the principle of double effect.

Again, the action must be morally good or at least morally neutral. A drug that halts the growth of a fetus is just as immoral as a drug that kills the cells. Either way, it’s a direct attack on the fetus.

 

[St_Francis]

That’s waffling. The Church has a very clear position on the use of any procedure or medication to directly end the life of a fetus.

The paper you linked is taking the position that since the drug stops the growth of cells rather than kill them, it isn’t a direct abortion. It really doesn’t matter. If the drug is acting directly against the fetus rather than having an unwilled side effect of harming the fetus, it does not meet the moral theology criteria for the principle of double effect.

Again, the action must be morally good or at least morally neutral. A drug that halts the growth of a fetus is just as immoral as a drug that kills the cells. Either way, it’s a direct attack on the fetus.

I totally agree with you, but it seems the Church’s current position is that since the question is undecided, it is permitted.

The reasoning of the ethicists seems to be that the drug attacks cells that form the outer lining, which is not a part of the baby. This part is the part which attaches–when it attaches to the womb wall, all is well, but when it attaches elsewhere, it causes a problem.

Since the drug is said to attack these attaching cells, and since the problem for the Fallopian tubes is that they are being attached to, using methotrexate is opined to be morally all right as the baby is not directly attacked and dies as a side effect of the drug.

(I heartily disagree with this on a number of points, but accept that this is what the Church’s current position is.)

 

[Corki]

I totally agree with you, but it seems the Church’s current position is that since the question is undecided, it is permitted.

The reasoning of the ethicists seems to be that the drug attacks cells that form the outer lining, which is not a part of the baby. This part is the part which attaches–when it attaches to the womb wall, all is well, but when it attaches elsewhere, it causes a problem.

Since the drug is said to attack these attaching cells, and since the problem for the Fallopian tubes is that they are being attached to, using methotrexate is opined to be morally all right as the baby is not directly attacked and dies as a side effect of the drug.

(I heartily disagree with this on a number of points, but accept that this is what the Church’s current position is.)

A direct attack on the baby is still a direct attack regardless of which cells are attacked. A direct attack on the baby would not meet the criteria for the principle of double effect.

I have yet to see anything in this thread or anywhere else that confirms that the Church’s position is that it is acceptable. Battling letters from moral theologians are not official Church teaching.

But if I wanted to play that game, I would post this statement by the John Paul II bioethics organization which reached the conclusion that using methotrexate was NOT a legitimate or moral therapy in the case of ectopic pregnancy.

johnpaulbioethics.org/FinalProofs.pdf

Neither the Church nor the Pontifical Academy for Life have made any statements that would reverse the traditional understanding of the principle of double effect.

 

[St_Francis]

A direct attack on the baby is still a direct attack regardless of which cells are attacked. A direct attack on the baby would not meet the criteria for the principle of double effect.

I have yet to see anything in this thread or anywhere else that confirms that the Church’s position is that it is acceptable. Battling letters from moral theologians are not official Church teaching.

According to the article Longing Soul linked to, because the ethicists disagree and the Church has not made a pronouncement, it is currently permissible.

But if I wanted to play that game, I would post this statement by the John Paul II bioethics organization which reached the conclusion that using methotrexate was NOT a legitimate or moral therapy in the case of ectopic pregnancy.

Which exactly the problem–ethicists have come to different conclusions and Rome has not yet spoken.

johnpaulbioethics.org/FinalProofs.pdf

Neither the Church nor the Pontifical Academy for Life have made any statements that would reverse the traditional understanding of the principle of double effect.

Because the Church has not yet decided, it is not, from the Church’s point of view, anythijg at all other than a question.

 

[Starrsmother]

I have checked and you are wrong. Sorry. Now they may not name methotrexate at the medication. But they do talk about chemical abortions. And they do state that they are wrong. The abortion is the side effect of the surgery. Removing the tube is not an abortion. Taking a medication/chemical to abort the pregnancy, is.Using any medication to cause an abortion, is just that, an abortion.

An abortion is morally wrong. Period.

There is nothing in Church teaching that will say that abortion is okay.

Perhaps you should learn a little more about the Church and what she teaches.
10 years?

Reread my post. I said 3 years.

Regardless. All of this is smoke and mirrors.

The question is: Is there ever a reason to take or use birth control for and as birth control. And the answer is: NO.

No, the church has never authorized any chemical medication for ABORTION. But it has accepted that in an ectopic pregnancy it is acceptable to end the pregnancy to save the mother’s life. So. What do you call “ending a pregnancy to save a mother’s life”? I call it aborting the fetus–and so would anyone else with even half of a working brain! I am not going to argue with you. Basically, I think you believe–deep down inside–that the woman with the ectopic should simply accept her fate and lay down and die like a good little martyr. Good for you. If you are female and should have the misfortune of having such a thing occur to you-- I truly hope you follow your conscience and do just that! But to say that it’s acceptable to eliminate a pregnancy using a scalpel but a sin if you use a ring forcep instead is the exact same logic–or NO LOGIC–as your idea that removing a tube to abort the ectopic prgnancy is somehow different than using methotrexate to do the exact same thing! HINT HERE: BOTH ways the goal is to get rid of the pregnancy that is in an incorrect place! You can candy coat it any way you want–but the goal in the removal of the tube is NOT to get rid of a woman’s tube! It never was! The loss of the pregnancy is NOT a secondary goal subsequent to the removal of the tube. Infact, it is exactly the other way around! The PRIMARY goal is to eliminate the pregnancy which had attached outside the uterus. The secondary effect is that in a salpingectomy–or surgical approach to the dilemna–the woman loses her tube as well as the baby! But make NO mistake–the goal–the PRIMARY goal–is ALWAYS to end the pregnancy! It has to be ended or the mother dies. Nobody has a tube removed just because it’s Thursday and they feel like it! They are removing the tube to get rid of the baby before it kills the mother–and that–is a FACT!

 

[maryjk]

No, the church has never authorized any chemical medication for ABORTION. But it has accepted that in an ectopic pregnancy it is acceptable to end the pregnancy to save the mother’s life. So. What do you call “ending a pregnancy to save a mother’s life”? I call it aborting the fetus–and so would anyone else with even half of a working brain! I am not going to argue with you. **Basically, I think you believe–deep down inside–that the woman with the ectopic should simply accept her fate and lay down and die like a good little martyr. ** Good for you.

Which confirms that you haven’t been reading what I have been writing.

If you are female and should have the misfortune of having such a thing occur to you-- I truly hope you follow your conscience and do just that!

Well, that is very Christian of you. Hoping for my death? Really. Wow. Disagreeing with me is one thing. But hoping for my death, well, that is quite another.

But to say that it’s acceptable to eliminate a pregnancy using a scalpel but a sin if you use a ring forcep instead is the exact same logic–or NO LOGIC–as your idea that removing a tube to abort the ectopic prgnancy is somehow different than using methotrexate to do the exact same thing! HINT HERE: BOTH ways the goal is to get rid of the pregnancy that is in an incorrect place! You can candy coat it any way you want–but the goal in the removal of the tube is NOT to get rid of a woman’s tube! It never was! The loss of the pregnancy is NOT a secondary goal subsequent to the removal of the tube. Infact, it is exactly the other way around! The PRIMARY goal is to eliminate the pregnancy which had attached outside the uterus. The secondary effect is that in a salpingectomy–or surgical approach to the dilemna–the woman loses her tube as well as the baby! But make NO mistake–the goal–the PRIMARY goal–is ALWAYS to end the pregnancy! It has to be ended or the mother dies. Nobody has a tube removed just because it’s Thursday and they feel like it! They are removing the tube to get rid of the baby before it kills the mother–and that–is a FACT!

And AGAIN AND AGAIN.

The topic is

Can I get approval from the Church to use condoms for birth control?

and the answer is still NO.

That is a FACT.

(It is also a fact that direct killing of a baby is wrong. Period. You can sugar coat it all you want.)

 

[LongingSoul]

No, the church has never authorized any chemical medication for ABORTION. But it has accepted that in an ectopic pregnancy it is acceptable to end the pregnancy to save the mother’s life. So. What do you call “ending a pregnancy to save a mother’s life”? I call it aborting the fetus–and so would anyone else with even half of a working brain! I am not going to argue with you. Basically, I think you believe–deep down inside–that the woman with the ectopic should simply accept her fate and lay down and die like a good little martyr. Good for you. If you are female and should have the misfortune of having such a thing occur to you-- I truly hope you follow your conscience and do just that! But to say that it’s acceptable to eliminate a pregnancy using a scalpel but a sin if you use a ring forcep instead is the exact same logic–or NO LOGIC–as your idea that removing a tube to abort the ectopic prgnancy is somehow different than using methotrexate to do the exact same thing! HINT HERE: BOTH ways the goal is to get rid of the pregnancy that is in an incorrect place! You can candy coat it any way you want–but the goal in the removal of the tube is NOT to get rid of a woman’s tube! It never was! The loss of the pregnancy is NOT a secondary goal subsequent to the removal of the tube. Infact, it is exactly the other way around! The PRIMARY goal is to eliminate the pregnancy which had attached outside the uterus. The secondary effect is that in a salpingectomy–or surgical approach to the dilemna–the woman loses her tube as well as the baby! But make NO mistake–the goal–the PRIMARY goal–is ALWAYS to end the pregnancy! It has to be ended or the mother dies. Nobody has a tube removed just because it’s Thursday and they feel like it! They are removing the tube to get rid of the baby before it kills the mother–and that–is a FACT!

Starrsmother, this is the point on which we have to keep critically aligned with what we do have of direct Church teaching. The primary goal can not be to eliminate the pregnancy for the procedure to meet the criterior required. Think of this situation in relation to the euthanasia issue. A practicioner may deliver a dose of morphine to a dying patient, knowing that the dose will directly suppress the vital organs which are generally weakened by disease, to the point of death. However, the practicioners ‘brief’ must always be the treatment of pain in that patient. They can never approach with the motive, that to shut down this patients life will relieve his pain. It always needs to be to relieve the pain of the patient although this might secondarily result in his death.

The qualification that ethicists who agree with the use of methatrexate in treating ectopic pregnancy, is that this procedure is primarily treating the diseased fallopian tube and that the loss of the pregnancy is secondary to that main goal. This, they say does not constitute a direct abortion in the same way that morphine shutting down the vital organs of a dying patient, does not constitute mercy killing or euthanasia. The treatment and attitude is a defensive one rather than an offensive one. It is a critical distinction in ethics.

 

[on_the_hill]

The topic is

Can I get approval from the Church to use condoms for birth control?

Yeah, but we left that topic pages ago..

I do agree with starrsmother that there probably are people out there (not nec. on this forum) who do believe that the mother ought to accept “God’s will” and die.

But regardless: ending the pregnancy is an abortion no matter how it happens.

 

[Starrsmother]

Which confirms that you haven’t been reading what I have been writing. Well, that is very Christian of you. Hoping for my death? Really. Wow. Disagreeing with me is one thing. But hoping for my death, well, that is quite another.

And AGAIN AND AGAIN.

The topic is

Can I get approval from the Church to use condoms for birth control?

and the answer is still NO.

That is a FACT.

(It is also a fact that direct killing of a baby is wrong. Period. You can sugar coat it all you want.)

Certainly not wishing for anyone’s death including yours–I don’t even know you (thank heaven). I’m only saying that if you happened to be female and ever are faced with an ectopic, then follow your conscience–but don’t judge or try to inflict your conscience on another woman!

Secondly–the only thing I suggested as to the use or non use of condoms during methotrexate therapy–is that based on what could happen to a pregnancy should it occur–that a Catholic woman using NFP and considering treatment for RA with methotrexate should speak with her priest or bishop and fully explain the treatment she is considering and the ramifications–FULLY–and follow his advice. Are you a priest? Perhaps you are a Bishop? No?–Nuff said!

Thirdly, I suggested that if the woman is advised or decides to only use NFP–which is fine–that she needs to be honest with her doctor–before he prescribes her the methotrexate so that he can decide if he is comfortable enough that she will use NFP faithfully–OR that he feels comfortable enough that if she should accidentally get pregnant on the oral version of the drug that the embryo would be eliminated-- rather than simply horribly deformed. Being honest would seem fair to me. To deliberately not let a provider know what your intentions are–then to accidentally get pregnant and have to deal with the results–often accomplished in the world today by suing a doctor for malpractice–seems somewhat unjust to me. Though perhaps it seems perfectly okay to you–I don’t know.

 

[maryjk]

Certainly not wishing for anyone’s death including yours–I don’t even know you (thank heaven). I’m only saying that if you happened to be female and ever are faced with an ectopic, then follow your conscience–but don’t judge or try to inflict your conscience on another woman!

No where have I said that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy should “just die.” No where have I indicated that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy should “just die.”

What I have said is that a chemical abortion is not the answer.

Secondly–the only thing I suggested as to the use or non use of condoms during methotrexate therapy–is that based on what could happen to a pregnancy should it occur–that a Catholic woman using NFP and considering treatment for RA with methotrexate should speak with her priest or bishop and fully explain the treatment she is considering and the ramifications–FULLY–and follow his advice. Are you a priest? Perhaps you are a Bishop? No?–Nuff said!

As I have asked before? Are you a doctor? Based on your comments here, I would have to say No. – Nuff said!

Thirdly, I suggested that if the woman is advised or decides to only use NFP–which is fine–that she needs to be honest with her doctor–before he prescribes her the methotrexate so that he can decide if he is comfortable enough that she will use NFP faithfully–OR that he feels comfortable enough that if she should accidentally get pregnant on the oral version of the drug that the embryo would be eliminated-- rather than simply horribly deformed. Being honest would seem fair to me. To deliberately not let a provider know what your intentions are–then to accidentally get pregnant and have to deal with the results–often accomplished in the world today by suing a doctor for malpractice–seems somewhat unjust to me. Though perhaps it seems perfectly okay to you–I don’t know.

No one has recommended that the OP keep the use of NFP a secret. Why would you think I would recommend that?

(Hint: Lying is a sin too. And withholding information from someone that has a right to it? That is a sin of omission.)

 

[His_angel]

Starrsmother,

There is a moral difference between a chemical that will kill a child, and the removal of a tube that will also indirectly result in the death of a child. We know that at the moment there is no way to save the child, maybe in the future there will be. It is not a huge distinction, but it is how the Church teaches. No one is being ‘a good little martyr.’

 

[Starrsmother]

No where have I said that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy should “just die.” No where have I indicated that a woman with an ectopic pregnancy should “just die.”

What I have said is that a chemical abortion is not the answer. As I have asked before? Are you a doctor? Based on your comments here, I would have to say No. – Nuff said!
No one has recommended that the OP keep the use of NFP a secret. Why would you think I would recommend that?

(Hint: Lying is a sin too. And withholding information from someone that has a right to it? That is a sin of omission.)

No. I’m not a doctor. I’m a Nurse Practitioner double certified as a Nurse Midwife also. As such, I see, advise treat and prescribe meds, though–for most anything that happens in a woman’s lifespan. Nowhere did I ever say I was a doc–I have discovered ectopic pregnancies however–and treated them. I also even had a patient arrive via ambulance at the hospital who died due to a ruptured one. Such a waste–she had two other kids and no husband as is so commonly the case these days. Sad… Anyway: Nuff said again.

 

[Evania]

Okay everyone, I think this thread has outlived it’s purpose. It has evolved into a totally different topic than that which the OP started.

Starrsmother, I understand you are frustrated, but to make comments such as the one listed below is reprehensible, ugly and mean-spirited. This particular comment has
been reported.

Quote:
If you are female and should have the misfortune of having such a thing occur to you-- I truly hope you follow your conscience and do just that!

You accuse of us things that are not true (see below) of which we have explained many times, in many different ways. Either you are doing this as a conscious effort to mislead by a constant stream of red herrings or maybe there is an honest reading comprehension issue.
I’m choosing to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.

“Basically, I think you believe–deep down inside–that the woman with the ectopic should simply accept her fate and lay down and die like a good little martyr.”

If you don’t agree with Church Teaching…fine. That is your right. Just don’t expect to come to a Catholic website and not get a little backlash when you exert your authority over the Church’s.