Challenge: birth control vs immunosuppressants

[PRmerger]

Can anyone help me accept a challenge from a Catholic medical colleague to present an argument which allows for administering immunosuppresants (i.e. medications which suppress the body’s immune system) while defends as immoral the use of artificial birth control?

Immunosuppressants are routinely prescribed to patients who have had organ transplants, in order to prevent the body from rejecting these organs as “foreign” substances. The immune system was magnificently designed to prevent our bodies from being vulnerable to all sorts of foreign invaders.

When our bodies reject a transplanted organ, in essence, the immune system is functioning exactly as it was designed to do. However, a physician, using his intellect can licitly prescribe a medication which interferes with the body’s immune system.

Why then is it not moral to prescribe a medication which, essentially, does the same thing except to a woman’s reproductive system? In other words, if it’s wrong to interfere with what the body was designed to do, i.e. release an ovum each month, then why isn’t it wrong to interfere with the body’s immune system?

(this is a reprinting of an old thread, which I found on a search. I’ve transferred it to this forum, from the Parenting Forum)

 

[KathleenElsie]

Can anyone help me accept a challenge from a Catholic medical colleague to present an argument which allows for administering immunosuppresants (i.e. medications which suppress the body’s immune system) while defends as immoral the use of artificial birth control?

Immunosuppressants are routinely prescribed to patients who have had organ transplants, in order to prevent the body from rejecting these organs as “foreign” substances. The immune system was magnificently designed to prevent our bodies from being vulnerable to all sorts of foreign invaders.

When our bodies reject a transplanted organ, in essence, the immune system is functioning exactly as it was designed to do. However, a physician, using his intellect can licitly prescribe a medication which interferes with the body’s immune system.

Why then is it not moral to prescribe a medication which, essentially, does the same thing except to a woman’s reproductive system? In other words, if it’s wrong to interfere with what the body was designed to do, i.e. release an ovum each month, then why isn’t it wrong to interfere with the body’s immune system?

(this is a reprinting of an old thread, which I found on a search. I’ve transferred it to this forum, from the Parenting Forum)

One is used to prevent life from forming. The other is used to protect that life that is already here.

 

[st_lucy]

One is used to prevent life from forming. The other is used to protect that life that is already here.

Not to mention that one can kill a life will the other saves a life.

 

[fix]

Why then is it not moral to prescribe a medication which, essentially, does the same thing except to a woman’s reproductive system? In other words, if it’s wrong to interfere with what the body was designed to do, i.e. release an ovum each month, then why isn’t it wrong to interfere with the body’s immune system?

(this is a reprinting of an old thread, which I found on a search. I’ve transferred it to this forum, from the Parenting Forum)

The medication used to suppress the immune system is treating a pathology. If the entire system were functioning in health why was a transplant needed? That the immune system recognizes the new organ as foriegn does not mean things are working as designed. If things were working properly one would not have some other person’s organ in them.

It is kind of analgous to hitting your finger with a hammer and the immune system starts inflammation in the finger. That is how things are designed. Does that mean it is not pathology?

Using medication to alter the female cycle simply to prevent pregnancy is not treating pathology.

 

[PRmerger]

One is used to prevent life from forming. The other is used to protect that life that is already here.

That is understood.

The argument often presented, however, is that artificial contraception is immoral because it contradicts natural law (not because it prevents life from forming). That is, it interferes with the natural function or purpose for which it was created.

Thus, why is it not immoral for a physician to prescribe immunosuppressants, which also seemingly contradict natural law.

 

[PRmerger]

It is kind of analgous to hitting your finger with a hammer and the immune system starts inflammation in the finger. That is how things are designed. Does that mean it is not pathology?
.

Actually, I believe that this design of inflammation is indeed NOT pathology. Inflammation is good and necessary to bring chemical mediators to the area of injury to promote healing.

So, the immune system, independent of will or motive, acts as it’s been designed. In the case of an organ transplant, the immune system is not doing anything wrong. It’s attacking a foreign invader.

 

[rwoehmke]

It must be borne in mind hat “Natural Law” and the Laws of Nature are not the same. Laws of Nature determines how creation normally works. Natural law covers how one is expected to behave or be treated as a human being just because one is a human being.

 

[PRmerger]

It must be borne in mind hat “Natural Law” and the Laws of Nature are not the same. Laws of Nature determines how creation normally works. Natural law covers how one is expected to behave or be treated as a human being just because one is a human being.

Yes. But natural law is often cited as a reason that artificial birth control is immoral.

 

[DailyBread]

What one said, with the law of nature and Natural Law is absolutely correct. Not everything in nature (like disease is good). Natural Law deals with the good of humans based upon there nature. The fertility of individuals is good… God said so when he said “be fruitful and multiply” as the first command to our first parents. Fertility is part of us as sexual beings for God made us male and female and our fertility is part of our sexuality. So to deny this fruitfulness, this fertility on purpose because one thinks it is bad is itself blasphemy towards God who said that our fertility is good… basically saying to the creator I do not like that you made me a man or a woman.
Inflammation as you probably know is not always our friend… sometimes it is as in fighting infection and sometimes it isn’t as in when you get a fever of 106 and die. So inflammation is good so long as it serves maintaining the integrity of the nature of the human body. In the case of organ transplant, it does not and so must be suppressed or say high fever, one should take some time of nsaid or something to bring it down.
Does that make sense… on is an intrinsic good of our sexuality that God made us to be so using bc for the purpose of rejecting that good is contrary to the beings that God made us. Inflammation is good when it works towards protecting the health and function of the person, not when it compromises the patient’s being (life). Hope that helps.

 

[PRmerger]

What one said, with the law of nature and Natural Law is absolutely correct. Not everything in nature (like disease is good). Natural Law deals with the good of humans based upon there nature. The fertility of individuals is good…

Yes, but isn’t immunity good? What would happen if God hadn’t designed our bodies to be able to fight off foreign “invaders”?

So to deny this fruitfulness, this fertility on purpose because one thinks it is bad is itself blasphemy towards God who said that our fertility is good… .

So why is it not wrong to deny (i.e. suppress) one’s immunity on purpose? Would this not be also blasphemy towards God by interfering with a system that He designed?

Inflammation as you probably know is not always our friend… sometimes it is as in fighting infection and sometimes it isn’t as in when you get a fever of 106 and die. So inflammation is good so long as it serves maintaining the integrity of the nature of the human body. In the case of organ transplant, it does not and so must be suppressed or say high fever, one should take some time of nsaid or something to bring it down.

I am comparing fertility and immunity, not fertility and inflammation.

Does that make sense… on is an intrinsic good of our sexuality that God made us to be so using bc for the purpose of rejecting that good is contrary to the beings that God made us.

Isn’t immunity and intrinsic good of our human body that God made, so using immunosuppressants for the purpose of rejecting that good is contrary to the beings that God made us?

 

[jaaraf]

Yes immunity is good. God designed it to protect, but it has to be suppressed when it becomes life threatening such as when one wants to prevent the rejection of an organ donated. You also have to administer such immunosuppressants in the case of autoimmune diseases such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, when the immune system is going haywire. Otherwise, there will be dire consequences for the patient.
On the other hand, fertility is good as well. It is definitly not a disease. Infertility is the disease… So why use artificial contraceptives to produce infertility?

 

[jaaraf]

You may want to also get hold of a good Catholic Medical Bioethics book. The one I have at home is Ethical Practices in Health and Disease by Michael A. Monge, a priest who worked as a physician when he was a layman. The first part has a good discussion of basic ethical principles. I can’t remember the title of the book we used in for bioethics class in medical school, but it was pretty good, too.
We have to really know well the ethics behind our profession, whatever it may be so we can really work well.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes immunity is good. God designed it to protect, but it has to be suppressed when it becomes life threatening such as when one wants to prevent the rejection of an organ donated. You also have to administer such immunosuppressants in the case of autoimmune diseases such as Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, when the immune system is going haywire. Otherwise, there will be dire consequences for the patient.
On the other hand, fertility is good as well. It is definitly not a disease. Infertility is the disease… So why use artificial contraceptives to produce infertility?

So, it’s ok to suppress a body system that God designed for a higher purpose. It’s ok to suppress the immune system when life becomes threatened.

Why isn’t it ok to suppress one’s fertility for a higher purpose? Such higher purposes could be any of the reasons that NFP is allowed–the health and wellness of the mother, socio-economic reasons, the health and well-being of the existing family, etc etc

 

[DailyBread]

PRMErger, we are talking about the higher purpose of directly preventing something (ie an immune response) that will lead directly to the death of the person if it is not counteracted. Disease and organ failure go contrary to human good and so to protect oneself from this is fine. Fertility is not a disease… far from it, so to hamper a working system such as that which does not have a direct effect of helping the organism survive is wrong.

 

[thistle]

Yes. But natural law is **often cited **as a reason that artificial birth control is immoral.

I’ve never heard that argument being put forward.

ABC is wrong because married couples making love must remain open to life.

 

[Hastrman]

It is not wrong to suppress immunity, given legitimate medical grounds, because the immunity would not be serving its end, the protection of health, but actually impeding it by killing the patient. The suppression better serves the end ordinarily served by the immunity being suppressed.

None of sexuality’s ends can ever be served by birth control, therefore birth control does not constitute a legitimate interference with the process.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve never heard that argument being put forward.

ABC is wrong because married couples making love must remain open to life.

Here’s a quote from the Catholic Answers tract on birth control:

*Contraception is wrong because it’s a deliberate violation of the design God built into the human race, often referred to as "natural law. * catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

 

[PRmerger]

It is not wrong to suppress immunity, given legitimate medical grounds, because the immunity would not be serving its end, the protection of health, but actually impeding it by killing the patient. The suppression better serves the end ordinarily served by the immunity being suppressed.

None of sexuality’s ends can ever be served by birth control, therefore birth control does not constitute a legitimate interference with the process.

Aha! Now you’re talking! This is an argument which makes sense to me. :extrahappy: To rephrase: the immune system’s end is protecting the person. In rejecting a transplanted organ the immune system is impeding its end. Fertility’s end is procreation. ABC’s suppression of fertility deliberately frustrates its end and is thus immoral.

We shall see what my colleague’s response is…

But this brings me to another question on natural law…if it’s wrong to deliberately frustrate the design God builty into the human race, why is it not wrong to shave? (This question was brought forth by a dear Philosophy professor). He commented that the natural design of the beard is to grow. Why then is it not immoral to frustrate this design and shave?

 

[jman507]

I guess you could also throw cancer in, and say that we should let it keep course, since even though the genetics go haywire, it is still a good process.

 

[fix]

Actually, I believe that this design of inflammation is indeed NOT pathology.

That is what I said. The body is designed to use the inflammatory response, but not every expression of it is non pathological. In my example the natural bodily response it pain and swelling, but that repsonse may need to be mediated with anti inflammatory drugs to ease pain as one example.

Inflammation is good and necessary to bring chemical mediators to the area of injury to promote healing.

Yes, but not every repsonse it is proper and controlled.

So, the immune system, independent of will or motive, acts as it’s been designed. In the case of an organ transplant, the immune system is not doing anything wrong. It’s attacking a foreign invader.

That is my point. It is attacking a foriegn organ. The reponse may be “natural”, but it is happening because another’s organ was needed in the first palce so it is pathology. In fact, left untreated the patient will die.