Cervical Cancer Cut by more than 40% by IUD

[Rock_Happy]

Here is the popular press article from Reuters: reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-cervical-cancer-idUSTRE78C4E020110913

To many people’s surprise, a large (20,000 women over 10 year) study indicates that the use of an IUD reduces risk of cervical cancer by more than 40%.

In light of this, is there any reason in Catholic theology for post menopausal women not to use an UID?

 

[LilyM]

Here is the popular press article from Reuters: reuters.com/article/2011/09/13/us-cervical-cancer-idUSTRE78C4E020110913

To many people’s surprise, a large (20,000 women over 10 year) study indicates that the use of an IUD reduces risk of cervical cancer by more than 40%.

In light of this, is there any reason in Catholic theology for post menopausal women not to use an UID?

Every marital act needs to be open to life if God wishes to create life from it. Elizabeth and Sarah in the bible were both thought to be past the age of childbearing, yet God gave them children and for good reason.

Less obviously miraculous cases happen to women who think they aee past menopause every day.

So being post menopausal is not adequate reason for the use of an IUD. nor is cancer prevention. After all, we can eliminate all testicular cancer right now by surgically removing the testes of every male on the planet, can we not?

We cannot use immoral means such as surgical or chemical interference with a normally functioning human reproductive system even for good ends such as prevention of disease.

 

[1ke]

I disagree with the assessment that this is immoral in the situation you describe. I think it much more likely that there would be medical issues with such an idea due to the mechanisms of the IUD including release of hormones and irritation of the uterine lining.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Every marital act needs to be open to life if God wishes to create life from it. Elizabeth and Sarah in the bible were both thought to be past the age of childbearing, yet God gave them children and for good reason.

Less obviously miraculous cases happen to women who think they aee past menopause every day.

So being post menopausal is not adequate reason for the use of an IUD. nor is cancer prevention. After all, we can eliminate all testicular cancer right now by surgically removing the testes of every male on the planet, can we not?

We cannot use immoral means such as surgical or chemical interference with a normally functioning human reproductive system even for good ends such as prevention of disease.

Thanks for the clarification.

Though I don’t think the castration analogy applies, as nobody was talking about mutilation here. Besides, medically, it is not such a good idea to castrate a guy. Those hormones provide protection against a wide variety of illnesses, particularly cardiovascular disease.

Let me change the question then… how about a woman who has had her “tubes tied”? Before you jump on that, there are medical reasons for doing this at times. This study may not apply to that circumstance, but let’s say hypothetically, that an IUD would reduce or eliminate the risk of cervical cancer, or some other serious illness. Would you still consider its use immoral interference with the normally functioning human reproductive system. I hope I don’t seem like I am splitting hairs… I guess my question is that, if it is known that a contraceptive device is being used only by a non-reproductive person, then is its use still considered to be immoral?

 

[Corki]

Let me change the question then… how about a woman who has had her “tubes tied”? Before you jump on that, there are medical reasons for doing this at times.

This is not exactly accurate. There are medical reasons that a doctor may propose for a woman’s tubes to be tied. But they are all related to avoiding pregnancy. Tieing fallopian tubes does not treat or cure any disease or disorder.

As to the OP, if the woman was confirmed to be no longer fertile, and at high risk for cervical cancer, I don’t think that an IUD would be an immoral treatment. The IUD carries some serious risks itself, so I don’t think it would be a rational preventive treatment unless there was a very stong history or risk factors.

We cannot use immoral means such as surgical or chemical interference with a normally functioning human reproductive system even for good ends such as prevention of disease.

If the surgical or chemical treatment truly treats or prevents the actual disease, it is moral to use it even if it interferes with fertility. That’s why it is licit to use birth control pills to treat hormonal disorders, or to undergo radiation to treat prostate cancer, or to remove an ovary with precancerous tumors.

HV

1. 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. (19)

 

[Rock_Happy]

This is not exactly accurate. There are medical reasons that a doctor may propose for a woman’s tubes to be tied. But they are all related to avoiding pregnancy. Tieing fallopian tubes does not treat or cure any disease or disorder.

As to the OP, if the woman was confirmed to be no longer fertile, and at high risk for cervical cancer, I don’t think that an IUD would be an immoral treatment. The IUD carries some serious risks itself, so I don’t think it would be a rational preventive treatment unless there was a very stong history or risk factors.

If the surgical or chemical treatment truly treats or prevents the actual disease, it is moral to use it even if it interferes with fertility. That’s why it is licit to use birth control pills to treat hormonal disorders, or to undergo radiation to treat prostate cancer, or to remove an ovary with precancerous tumors.

HV

You avoided my question. Is it immoral according to Church doctrine for a sterile woman to use an IUD?

 

[Rock_Happy]

This is not exactly accurate. There are medical reasons that a doctor may propose for a woman’s tubes to be tied. But they are all related to avoiding pregnancy. Tieing fallopian tubes does not treat or cure any disease or disorder.

As to the OP, if the woman was confirmed to be no longer fertile, and at high risk for cervical cancer, I don’t think that an IUD would be an immoral treatment. The IUD carries some serious risks itself, so I don’t think it would be a rational preventive treatment unless there was a very stong history or risk factors.

If the surgical or chemical treatment truly treats or prevents the actual disease, it is moral to use it even if it interferes with fertility. That’s why it is licit to use birth control pills to treat hormonal disorders, or to undergo radiation to treat prostate cancer, or to remove an ovary with precancerous tumors.

HV

Yes, you are correct, I misspoke regarding tubal ligation, but my question was about the morality of IUD use in a sterile woman.

Is it safe to assume that a post menopausal woman will not bear a child, by other than artificial means?

 

[Trishie]

In a faithful marriage IUD wouldn’t necessarily be needed to reduce cancer. Fidelity is insurance enough in many marriages.
The statistics may refer to the general population and to consequences of the more general lack of chastity in those who don’t embrace Christian values faithfully?

 

[Corki]

Is it safe to assume that a post menopausal woman will not bear a child, by other than artificial means?

Not always, but generally. I believe there are tests that can confirm that fertility has definately ended. But that’s a medical question.

 

[Rock_Happy]

In a faithful marriage IUD wouldn’t necessarily be needed to reduce cancer. Fidelity is insurance enough in many marriages.
The statistics may refer to the general population and to consequences of the more general lack of chastity in those who don’t embrace Christian values faithfully?

Are you referring to the increased risk from HPV transmission?

I guess my question was too specific. It is a tricky question to give actual examples for without stirring up a hornet’s nest of commentary about specific sexual behavior. For example, if you ask about condom use for STD prevention in on procreative sex, then you start a whole different discussion.

The bottom line for is simply wondering that if two people are having sex within the scope of Catholic morality, then is it ever considered morally OK to use a contraceptive device, such as in the case of one partner being sterile? In other words, the contraception will not prevent a pregnancy, because pregnancy is not possible. In that case is it OK?

I guess to motivate the question as to why someone might do that, I used the cancer study as illustrative. I also had a buddy who happened to have a condom fetish. I won’t tell you how I found that out. But it is probably not what you are thinking. If he were to marry, it would not surprise me if he had the urge to use a condom during sexual relations. Now if his wife were sterile, or he were, then would it be OK for him to indulge in his fetish activity, assuming his wife had no objection?

 

[JohnAlexander]

Do people understand what a 40% reduction means? If your odds of getting cervical cancer is 1% then a 40% reduction means your odds are 0.6%. You are going from 1% to .6%

You must first look at what your chances of getting cervical cancer are. It is currently believed that cervical cancer is caused by a virus called HPV. How exactly does someone get the virus? It is transmitted to them by a partner when they engage in a certain close contact activity. If you are faithful and your spouse is as well then your chances of getting HPV are practically non existent.

HPV is only an issue for people who are already engaged in what the Church says is immoral. So what is the point in worrying about whether they will compound their sin by using an IUD?

 

[Rock_Happy]

Do people understand what a 40% reduction means? If your odds of getting cervical cancer is 1% then a 40% reduction means your odds are 0.6%. You are going from 1% to .6%

You must first look at what your chances of getting cervical cancer are. It is currently believed that cervical cancer is caused by a virus called HPV. How exactly does someone get the virus? It is transmitted to them by a partner when they engage in a certain close contact activity. If you are faithful and your spouse is as well then your chances of getting HPV are practically non existent.

HPV is only an issue for people who are already engaged in what the Church says is immoral. So what is the point in worrying about whether they will compound their sin by using an IUD?

once again, a non-responsive answer. can anyone actually answer this one?

You make a good point, 0.4% of the female population in the US is only about 600,000. Why should we be concerned about the health of such a small number? But the study results are closer to 50%. Is 750,000 a big enough number to worry about?

 

[vera_dicere]

Its one thing to pop a pill, but who in their right mind would want a piece of metal or plastic inserted in their uterus? Even if the thing does cut cancer, it still wouldn’t make it right. Ends don’t justify the means, et al.

 

[Corki]

The bottom line for is simply wondering that if two people are having sex within the scope of Catholic morality, then is it ever considered morally OK to use a contraceptive device, such as in the case of one partner being sterile? In other words, the contraception will not prevent a pregnancy, because pregnancy is not possible. In that case is it OK?

Only if there is a second effect to the contraceptive device and using it does not change the nature of the marital act so that it is no longer ordered toward procreation.

For example, condom use is immoral in all cases because condomized sex cannot be ordered toward procreation regardless of the fertility or lack thereof of one of the partners.

Taking contraceptive pills for medical reasons to treat a disease or condition *can be *moral since the marital act remains ordered toward procreation regardless of the fertility or lack thereof of one of the partners. Unlike condoms which interfere with the act, the pill changes fertility which can be, in some cases, a tolerated but not intended side effect.

The question is, would using an IUD to prevent cervical cancer be a similar use to using contraceptive pills to treat PCOD, for example?

 

[ahs]

Yes, you are correct, I misspoke regarding tubal ligation, but my question was about the morality of IUD use in a sterile woman.

Is it safe to assume that a post menopausal woman will not bear a child, by other than artificial means?

I don’t think we can assume that a post-menopausal woman will not bear a child by other than artificial means. I know a 50 yr-old woman that conceived and gave birth (not sure if she was in menopause or not…she thought she was). And we have the women of the Bible who also bore children in late years.

 

[Rock_Happy]

Only if there is a second effect to the contraceptive device and using it does not change the nature of the marital act so that it is no longer ordered toward procreation.

For example, condom use is immoral in all cases because condomized sex cannot be ordered toward procreation regardless of the fertility or lack thereof of one of the partners.

Taking contraceptive pills for medical reasons to treat a disease or condition *can be *moral since the marital act remains ordered toward procreation regardless of the fertility or lack thereof of one of the partners. Unlike condoms which interfere with the act, the pill changes fertility which can be, in some cases, a tolerated but not intended side effect.

The question is, would using an IUD to prevent cervical cancer be a similar use to using contraceptive pills to treat PCOD, for example?

Interesting, so if a guy had a vasectomy, and then became a Catholic… then married a woman with HIV, the use of a condom would be considered immoral? I know the example is a stretch to the realm of possibility for most of us, but could easily happen among intravenous drug users. I am not trying to be picky, just understand what you mean. I understand you to mean that condom use is simply immoral, regardless of the circumstances. Is that correct?

 

[LaSainte]

Why would you have to be post-menopausal? You don’t have to be post-menopausal to take the Pill for medical reasons…

I feel like getting one of these babies installed right now.

 

[Holly3278]

Regardless of whether or not a birth control method has health benefits, you still cannot use it as a health preventative. The only valid reason to use a birth control method is to treat a serious health issue when no other treatment is available.

 

[LaSainte]

Regardless of whether or not a birth control method has health benefits, you still cannot use it as a health preventative. The only valid reason to use a birth control method is to treat a serious health issue when no other treatment is available.

Too bad. Sounds like a win-win situation.

 

[Corki]

Interesting, so if a guy had a vasectomy, and then became a Catholic… then married a woman with HIV, the use of a condom would be considered immoral? I know the example is a stretch to the realm of possibility for most of us, but could easily happen among intravenous drug users. I am not trying to be picky, just understand what you mean. I understand you to mean that condom use is simply immoral, regardless of the circumstances. Is that correct?

Yes. Condomized sex is not ordered to procreation. That’s one of the requirements for moral use of sex in marriage. No external factors can change that.