R
rpp
Guest
Sorry, but I think the FDA, the agency that approves drugs, is a more reliable source of information that a drug company-sponsored organization whose purpose is to promote the drug and other forms of contraception.
Catholic Bioethics Center examines Connecticut Plan B legislation, HLI calls for reversal of bishops’ decision
- Status
L
Lady_D_I
Guest
Where do you think the package insert information comes from? Who do you think conducts the clinical studies on medications?
As a clinician, I will continue to go by the evidence especially since I understand the process. There is a reason most health care professionals practice EBM. There is no direct evidence that EC or OCs prevent implantation which even NFP only physicians recognize. I stated “this is true. The evidence on Plan B supports that it DOES NOT alter the lining of the uterus but acts by suppressing ovulation. It is not an absolute fact that Plan B prevents or has ever prevented implantation, but IMHO the indirect evidence supports this as potentital effect”, which was a reply to “Yes, there is much controversy over the mechanisms of Plan B”. Not sure what the problem is.
What I posted doesn’t contradict the FDA approved prescribing information and is consistend with the scientific evidence:
CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Emergency contraceptives are not effective if the woman is already pregnant. Plan B ® is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization
(by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun.
No calumny intended or issued. Apologies if I was unclear.
Just an observation of the decisions they have made juxtaposed on what is normal church teaching: that if there is doubt or question, the benefit of doubt must be given to life.
In this instance, the benefit of doubt appears to be given to death instead.
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
Thanks for the answers.
Assuming this is correct and it only suppresses ovulation then its still contraceptive right?
So how does this reconcile with Humanae Vitae and the moral aspect of contraception?
Is rape a moral exception to using contraception? Anyone.
Is a contraceptive an actual abortive? If not of the life itself isn’t it a prevention of the chance and Gods design?
Is the Church going to teach this is acceptabile in such a violent crime? Though the deliberation of Rome is still out this would be the statement from the Bishops in Ct. It seems they are forced into it though.
This raises another question for me. Whats the Churches teaching on contraception for health reasons or abortion when the life of the mother is at risk?
I think I already know the teaching on sterilization and when that is allowable for health reasons.
J
Joab_Anias
Guest
Thanks, that answers my question.
H
Holly3278
Guest
E
Elzee
Guest
Bravo Fr. Tom Euteneuer!!!
We need to hear from Rome on this - and fast.
We need to hear from Rome on this - and fast.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
I want to stress what I said earlier: I think that the Bishop’s should have been more cautious until the science was more clear. This is why the National Catholic Bioethics Center said the following:
According to the NCBC, the ethical objections center on the possibility that medical treatment will prevent the embryo from implantation in the uterus. The statement declares “to intend and to do such a thing is immoral.” However, the statement noted significant scientific debate over whether emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, actually has that effect in the womb.
In the absence of scientific consensus, the NCBC acknowledged the reasonableness of the Connecticut bishops’ decision that “the administration of a contraceptive medication in the absence of an ovulation test is not an intrinsically evil act.”
As much as we might desire the intervention of Rome, they will not act until they get more clear evidence of the science. They are not likely to make another “Galileo” mistake.
Additionally, Rome is likely to watch the outcome of the effort to require an ovulation test prior to the administration of the drug.
E
Elzee
Guest
I just don’t see the connection between this and Galileo. All the Holy See has to say is that they are making their decision based on the sanctity of human life which must take precedence - if there is any doubt, they cannot condone the use of this pill. From all I’ve read, this pill can cause a baby to die by not allowing it to implant in the uterus. I honestly don’t see why this is such a hard decision to make, if we are truly pro-life. If there is a doubt, we cannot allow this in a Catholic institution.
M
manualman
Guest
This thread is an interesting example of why catholics need to learn moral principles, rather than just lists of sins to avoid.
I posted earlier to try to calm folks down about the difference between the behavior of bishops and the veracity of the church itself. Now it is obviously time to talk about the principles. There are two distinct issues here that need to be separated in discussion:
#2. So how does this pill work? Does it only prevent ovulation or might it also prevent implantation of a young embryo? We don’t know. Scientifically, you can’t answer the question without doing experiments too hideous to contemplate! So I have a problem with those who say “Scientifically, we have no evidence that it is abortifacient.” Thank GOD nobody has done such inhuman experiments - yet. So there is a quandry. As a bishop, do you tell a rape victim she cannot take it because there is reason to believe that it MIGHT cause an abortion? Ouch, hard duty. I think the bishop’s response IS inadequate and gives the appearance of undermining church teaching. They should IMO have done the following:
A. Banned the practice for the very short term.
B. Funded some intense medical research to find a quick and reliable blood test by which doctors can determine if a woman has ovulated yet (theoretically should be possible).
C. Once B is done, allow the use of the Plan B only for rape victims if they have a blood test come back showing no ovulation yet or equivalent NFP documentation showing the same. BUT such women should be advised that there IS an unknown level of risk that a breakthrough ovulation could occur anyways and that the resulting child might die. Such an occurence would probably fall under ‘remote material cooperation with evil’ and would possibly not be inherently evil, but would surely need at least a moment of prayer and discernment.
In short, the bishops would seem to be doing a bad job of pastoral care in this decision, but they are not necessarily totally off course from a moral theology perspective.
I posted earlier to try to calm folks down about the difference between the behavior of bishops and the veracity of the church itself. Now it is obviously time to talk about the principles. There are two distinct issues here that need to be separated in discussion:
- Is it morally acceptable for a rape victim to take non-abortifacient measures to prevent pregnancy?
- Does ‘Plan B’ always act by supressing ovulation or does it also achieve effectiveness by preventing implantation of an embryo (btw, fertilized eggs don’t implant. Implantation occurs after MANY cell division already have taken place)
#2. So how does this pill work? Does it only prevent ovulation or might it also prevent implantation of a young embryo? We don’t know. Scientifically, you can’t answer the question without doing experiments too hideous to contemplate! So I have a problem with those who say “Scientifically, we have no evidence that it is abortifacient.” Thank GOD nobody has done such inhuman experiments - yet. So there is a quandry. As a bishop, do you tell a rape victim she cannot take it because there is reason to believe that it MIGHT cause an abortion? Ouch, hard duty. I think the bishop’s response IS inadequate and gives the appearance of undermining church teaching. They should IMO have done the following:
A. Banned the practice for the very short term.
B. Funded some intense medical research to find a quick and reliable blood test by which doctors can determine if a woman has ovulated yet (theoretically should be possible).
C. Once B is done, allow the use of the Plan B only for rape victims if they have a blood test come back showing no ovulation yet or equivalent NFP documentation showing the same. BUT such women should be advised that there IS an unknown level of risk that a breakthrough ovulation could occur anyways and that the resulting child might die. Such an occurence would probably fall under ‘remote material cooperation with evil’ and would possibly not be inherently evil, but would surely need at least a moment of prayer and discernment.
In short, the bishops would seem to be doing a bad job of pastoral care in this decision, but they are not necessarily totally off course from a moral theology perspective.
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
Manualman, thank you for the very concise catechesis lesson described in #1. I had to “snip” parts of your post to get it into the allowed size limits. I hope that I didn’t delete any essentials. As you appear to be more knowledgeable than most, I have some questions of you.
First, in B. you propose that we do research to find a way to determine if ovulation has occurred. I believe that the Connecticut Bishops wanted to get into the legislation the step to be able to perform an ovulation test and deny administering of the drug if ovulation has occurred because of the possibility that fertilization may have already occurred. Their rationale was related to the uncertainty regarding the affect of the drug on implantation.
Second, you do raise a good point regarding “remote “possibility” (my addition) of material cooperation with evil”. While the life of sperm is longer than that of the egg, the timing has to be precise for an ovulation to have occurred at the ideal moment prior to the rape. If ovulation can be stopped, the extended life of the sperm becomes irrelevant.
Which leads me to my main question: Because of the “remote possibility”, the Double Effect Theory may come into play. If the intent is to prevent ovulation (licit action), does it mitigate the moral consequences if there is a remote unintended consequence of preventing implantation?
This is similar to the logic that if a women has a cancerous uterus that must be immediately removed to save her life, she is morally allowed to have such surgery even if her uterus contains an unborn baby.
I believe you and I essentially agree that the Bishops should have delayed with this letter. My rationale was that they should have waited until either the science was more clear with regards to the implantation effect. However, I now think your “remote material cooperation” statement plus the fact it is a “remote possibility” makes your position better- They should have delayed the letter until the legislation allowed for the ovulation test which makes the administering of the drug both “remote cooperation” and a “remote possibility”. And more importantly, they maybe should have combined their letter with greater teaching to ensure that there isn’t a reaction that it is a softening of our Pro-Life stance as a Church.
J
Joe_Kelley
Guest
I don’t think the bishops had the option of waiting. The law was going into effect. They either had to adapt their teaching to the law; or hold fast, defy the law, and accept the penalties. They chose to go with Caesar. 
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
OK lets be honest. If your daughter was raped, would you not want her to take whatever measures necessary, to prevent becoming pregnant?
I think its a no brainer. Not only would I want her to take a Plan B pill, I’d want her to use a spermicide in addition.
Jim
I think its a no brainer. Not only would I want her to take a Plan B pill, I’d want her to use a spermicide in addition.
Jim
O
Orionthehunter
Guest
As a father of three daughters and grandfather of one granddaughter, I would want her to take all measure necessary to prevent fertilization (of which spermicide is already licit and acceptable protocol). I would not want her to take any action that results in death of a baby.
H
He_Man
Guest
The USCCB comes down on the wrong side of almost every major issue these days. The Church won’t get any stronger in this country until the Bishops who came through seminari4es in the 60s and 70s finally retire and/or pass away. I don’t wish death on anyone, but they are a detriment to the faith at all angles, and we will be better off without them in control.
Hopefully within the next ten years, their ilk will be gone from power.
Hopefully within the next ten years, their ilk will be gone from power.
P
Petergee
Guest
Yes, in fact pregnancy tests rely on detecting the presence of Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (HCG), the hormone which is secreted by the baby’s placenta into the mother’s bloodstream to modify her body as required for the baby’s needs. HCG does not reach detectable levels in the mother’s blood and urine until several days AFTER the baby has finished implanting him/herself onto the wall of his/her mother’s womb.
By the time a preganancy test shows positive, “Plan B” would probably have no effect on the baby. But "Plan B"could well stop a baby implanting him/herself if taken after a preganancy test shows “negative”.
So requiring a pregancy test actually makes the situation WORSE. It means that the hospital actually targets the use of “Plan B” at those situations where it is more likely to kill a baby.
P
Petergee
Guest
The Church teaches that contraception, sterilization and abortion are NEVER “allowable for health reasons”. All three are always immoral.
(As explained, killing/immobilizing sperm or suppressing ovulation after a rape [or even in anticipation of it by a non-sexually active woman] is not really contraception.)
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
Huh?
Tubal Ligations or hysterectomies for health reasons are immoral?
I don’t think this is true.
Jim
S
Socio_Momma
Guest
There is never an acceptable health reason for sterlization; if possible health of the mother in a future pregnancy is an issue very conservative NFP or totally abstaining from sex would be an option. Tubal ligations are not ever permissible, neither are vasectomies. The direct purpose is not to treat a medical ailment but to sterlize (to prevent pregnancy).
There are medical cases where hysterectomies would be permissible. The direct purpose here is to treat the medical condition which may require removal of the diseased organ, indirectly it can lead to sterlization (not the direct intent but indirect–double principle).
- Status