Chemical castration

[The_Inquisitor]

Not sure where this goes so forgive me.

Recently read in the Apologist forums that chemical castration is immoral because it would be a form of direct sterilization and self-mutilation. However, I’m reading in the Wikipedia article exactly the opposite. The article says that chemical castration is not a form of sterilization but rather involves the administration of a drug that either decreases or removes sexual desire and does not involve the physical mutilation of the flesh.

So what’s the deal with chemical castration? Obviously the Church forbids direct sterilization and self-mutilation…but is the administration of libido-killing drugs considered direct sterilization or mutilation, especially when there may be no permanent biological changes?

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

I know that drugs that cause serum testosterone levels to plummet, causing reversible “chemical castration”, are given to people with androgen-dependent prostate cancer. Knowing the general logic of the Catholic Church, it would surely not object to treating prostate cancer with such drugs. I don’t know who else would subject themselves to such drugs and for what reasons.

 

[GEddie]

I know that drugs that cause serum testosterone levels to plummet, causing reversible “chemical castration”, are given to people with androgen-dependent prostate cancer. Knowing the general logic of the Catholic Church, it would surely not object to treating prostate cancer with such drugs. I don’t know who else would subject themselves to such drugs and for what reasons.

IIUC, the issue would be chemical castration as a legal punishment, i.e., of persons legally convicted for sexual crimes. The drugs would be administered by the legal authority as part of, or for mitigation of sentence.

 

[The_Inquisitor]

That is pertinent too…but I had more in mind those who might take the drugs out of personal preference. This was precisely what I read in the Apologist forum which is what perplexed me about chemical castration being considered immoral.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

IIUC, the issue would be chemical castration as a legal punishment, i.e., of persons legally convicted for sexual crimes. The drugs would be administered by the legal authority as part of, or for mitigation of sentence.

Oh, I see. I’m not an endocrinologist doctor, but I don’t think doctors would like this idea. I’ve read elsewhere that the body needs the androgens, and low testosterone levels can have seriously harmful effects on the health. Obviously with life-threatening conditions like prostate cancer, the imperative of treating the cancer trumps everything else, and chemical castration is administered in full knowledge of its possibly dangerous side-effects. Lowering serum testosterone levels, or blocking the action of androgens produced by the body with the help of drugs is also used in benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). But BPH is not necessarily as “benign” as its name suggests, it can seriously harm the kidney. Thus, again it’s imperative that BPH be treated, but the treatment doses are set so that they would only “tweak” the testosterone levels in the blood, lowering them somewhat, but not all the way down to undetectable levels which is the definition of chemical castration. Thus, chemical castration is not practiced in the treatment of BPH, exactly because the danger of it harming the health of the patient.

To chemically castrate a criminal sex offender, goes too far in my opinion. Put him in jail, tag him with an ankle bracelet equipped with GPS system and radiotransmitter, I see the utility of all that. But chemical castration could seriously harm the health of this person, who is a child of God, even if he is a criminal.

 

[vera_dicere]

If it was done for the purpose of sterilization in regards to contraception, it would be immoral.

If it was done legally for a punishment of a sex offender, then it’s not really immoral from the standpoint of contraception. However, I have seen many a paper saying such use is redundant as the offender isn’t desiring sex, but rather power when he/she molests another. You don’t need working gentials to molest someone. There is a lot of debate over the hormonal requirements being removed.

But I have seen it used, albeit somewhat temporarily, to deminish the sex drive of a seriously mentally ill woman who kept trying to have sex with anything that had two legs - of course, its probably not really castration as she didn’t have testicles, but it was the same kind of principal. The woman was also given norplant to prevent pregnancy, and this was inserted against her will - the argument of teh doctors was she mentally incapable of deciding to use contraception and her mental health medication would cause serious defects to any embryo conceived. It was one very messy situation and when I tried to determine its morality I just kept getting confused with how detailed it was!

Sorry, got a little off topic there. -_-

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

That is pertinent too…but I had more in mind those who might take the drugs out of personal preference. This was precisely what I read in the Apologist forum which is what perplexed me about chemical castration being considered immoral.

Maybe it’s considered immoral for the same reason that using cocaine, heroine, LSD etc is immoral - this is dangerous stuff, and it can harm the user.

Less dangerous, even healthy ways to cope with one’s libido are to practice regular physical exercise, and fasting. Those things should help to burn excess energy and place the libido under control.

 

[Dale_M]

That is pertinent too…but I had more in mind those who might take the drugs out of personal preference. This was precisely what I read in the Apologist forum which is what perplexed me about chemical castration being considered immoral.

Are you thinking of this post?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=88821&highlight=castration

I’m not sure if self-mutilation is involved or even sterilization, since the effects are reversible by simply not taking the drug. In the case of injections of Depo Provera, which is sometimes used by women for birth control (lasting three months), I think the quantity used in men to produced a castrating effect would be high enough to pose a health risk. And the health risks can be sizable: stroke, high blood pressue, heart problems, etc.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

jimmyakin.org/2007/04/medicine_avoidi.html

 

[OraLabora]

Like any medical treatment, if the chemical castration is to treat a disease, such as prostate cancer or male breast cancer (rare but it happens), then it is morally licit even if sterilization and impotence ensues; for that matter prostatectomy for prostate cancer also results in sterilization, and often, impotence.