Church teaching on hysterectomies

[Footsoldier]

My 2nd post. Here is the situation. My son and his wife just gave birth to their 4th child. She was born 3 weeks early and still weighed over 9 lbs. Their other children are 5, 4 and 2. They are both traditional Catholics and would never consider any type of birth control that was not natural. The problem is that when this baby was born, my daughter-in-law’s uterus had torn slightly and they were fortunate to get my granddaughter out okay. The mother was okay as well. I should mention that all 4 babies were delivered by cesarean section. The doctor told my daughter-in-law and my son that her uterus looked like “hamburger helper” and that any further pregnancies would possibly jeopardize not only the baby but the mother’s health. Ouch! They are wanting advice from me and I am not sure what to tell them. Sterilization is out. It would seem to me that the Church would be lenient with this couple if the hysterectomy was for health purposes and not to avoid pregnancy. By the way, they are quite happy at being a family of 6. That is not to say that they would not welcome another one- only if they could be assured of it not risking either’s life. So what say you wise folks? Thanks in advance for your help. God Bless!

 

[1ke]

If the hysterectomy is for a legitimate medical purpose-- i.e. the uterus is damaged and needs to be taken out on the recommendation of the doctor-- the Church has no teaching against this. “Leniency” has nothing to do with it. The Church does not teach against receiving legitimate medical treatments, just the opposite.

If there is no need to remove the uterus, the couple should follow the doctor’s advice to avoid further pregnancies by using one of the scientific methods of natural family planning such as Sympto-Thermal, Creighton, Marquette, or Billings.

What the couple cannot do is have the uterus removed for no other reason but to avoid pregnancy-- that is sterilization.

 

[bluerose]

I once heard a priest explain it like this:

If the uterus would cause further health problems, even if the woman did not get pregnant, then a hysterectomy is a legitimate medical procedure.

If the only way the uterus is going to cause problems is if the woman gets pregnant, then the procedure is considered sterilization and therefore not legitimate.

Maybe this is too simplistic, but it clarified things for me!

 

[kage_ar]

Exactly. If there will be a health risk with NO pregnancy and the best treatment is hysterectomy, then, it is moral.

BTW - every person I know who has had more than 2 c-sections has been told that their uterus looks like tissue paper, window glass but “hamburger helper”, that hits a new low in docs pushing women not to have more babies.

She should check out a gyn who specializes in VBACs. Even if not having a VBAC, they are far more understanding of a woman.

 

[Ailina]

My 2nd post. Here is the situation. My son and his wife just gave birth to their 4th child. She was born 3 weeks early and still weighed over 9 lbs. Their other children are 5, 4 and 2. They are both traditional Catholics and would never consider any type of birth control that was not natural. The problem is that when this baby was born, my daughter-in-law’s uterus had torn slightly and they were fortunate to get my granddaughter out okay. The mother was okay as well. I should mention that all 4 babies were delivered by cesarean section. The doctor told my daughter-in-law and my son that her uterus looked like “hamburger helper” and that any further pregnancies would possibly jeopardize not only the baby but the mother’s health. Ouch! They are wanting advice from me and I am not sure what to tell them. Sterilization is out. It would seem to me that the Church would be lenient with this couple if the hysterectomy was for health purposes and not to avoid pregnancy. By the way, they are quite happy at being a family of 6. That is not to say that they would not welcome another one- only if they could be assured of it not risking either’s life. So what say you wise folks? Thanks in advance for your help. God Bless!

If her uterus is permanently damaged, then it is a health issue. Your DIL is very lucky that her rupture didnt rupture completely or she might have died. I have a friend who had that happen, and while she survived, she was very very ill for the following two years, due to multiple organ damage, and had to have several operations to fix everything else.

Lots of women have hysterectomies for health reasons, not birth control reasons. This is a health reason too.

 

[SMHW]

I once heard a priest explain it like this:

If the uterus would cause further health problems, even if the woman did not get pregnant, then a hysterectomy is a legitimate medical procedure.

If the only way the uterus is going to cause problems is if the woman gets pregnant, then the procedure is considered sterilization and therefore not legitimate.

Maybe this is too simplistic, but it clarified things for me!

The issue pretty much is that simple. If the uterus (or fallopian tube or ovary, or other reproductive organ) is a problem outside of pregnancy then it can be legitimate to remove it. If a pregnancy must occur first in order for there to be a problem with the reproductive organ then there is no legitimate reason to remove it.

 

[Footsoldier]

If her uterus is permanently damaged, then it is a health issue. Your DIL is very lucky that her rupture didnt rupture completely or she might have died. I have a friend who had that happen, and while she survived, she was very very ill for the following two years, due to multiple organ damage, and had to have several operations to fix everything else.

Lots of women have hysterectomies for health reasons, not birth control reasons. This is a health reason too.

That is my concern of course. She has 4 little ones at home that need their mother! If something happened to her during a 5th pregnancy because she did not heed the advice of her doctor, that would be a travesty. I think that she needs to get another opinion and we (the family) need to take this one to prayer for guidance.

 

[rick43235]

I once heard a priest explain it like this:

If the uterus would cause further health problems, even if the woman did not get pregnant, then a hysterectomy is a legitimate medical procedure.

If the only way the uterus is going to cause problems is if the woman gets pregnant, then the procedure is considered sterilization and therefore not legitimate.

I honestly don’t understand this line of reasoning. The doctor has determined that the uterus has been damaged to the point that another pregnancy would be dangerous. No method of family planning - ABC or NFP - is foolproof, so the risk of pregnancy is always there. Why take the risk that a dangerous pregnancy will result? Either way, this woman is never going to have another child.

BTW - every person I know who has had more than 2 c-sections has been told that their uterus looks like tissue paper, window glass but “hamburger helper”, that hits a new low in docs pushing women not to have more babies.

Why is it that folks on the CAF seem to think that doctors are waging a war against women? What possible motive would any doctor have to prevent women from having babies?

 

[tafan]

rick43235:

Why is it that folks on the CAF seem to think that doctors are waging a war against women? What possible motive would any doctor have to prevent women from having babies?

I can’t give an opinion on the OP’s question, but these question I do have comments. Doctors are not necessarily waging war on women, but they have typically been indoctinated against large families. This goes for the whole medical establishment. After our 2 child, without fail, when my wife was in the hospital for another labor, she was asked (normally more than once) if she was going to have a tubal ligation after the delivery. This was never quite a recommendation, but very close, since it typically included a brief “sales picth” (it’s a really good time to do it, it’s easy, lots of women at this point in their life, etc). I will say that my wife’s OB/GYN doctor was smart enough to figure out that the question did not need asked, but the nurses and the hospital sure seem like they wanted us to do it.

 

[kage_ar]

I can’t give an opinion on the OP’s question, but these question I do have comments. Doctors are not necessarily waging war on women, but they have typically been indoctinated against large families. This goes for the whole medical establishment. After our 2 child, without fail, when my wife was in the hospital for another labor, she was asked (normally more than once) if she was going to have a tubal ligation after the delivery. This was never quite a recommendation, but very close, since it typically included a brief “sales picth” (it’s a really good time to do it, it’s easy, lots of women at this point in their life, etc). I will say that my wife’s OB/GYN doctor was smart enough to figure out that the question did not need asked, but the nurses and the hospital sure seem like they wanted us to do it.

EXACTLY.

I have been pushed to be sterilized by even an orthopedic surgeon.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I honestly don’t understand this line of reasoning. The doctor has determined that the uterus has been damaged to the point that another pregnancy would be dangerous. No method of family planning - ABC or NFP - is foolproof, so the risk of pregnancy is always there. Why take the risk that a dangerous pregnancy will result? Either way, this woman is never going to have another child.

Then the only moral thing to do is not have sex, if this is a big enough concern. There is no foolproof way to get around this.

It may not be easy, however, it is thier cross to bear.

Why is it that folks on the CAF seem to think that doctors are waging a war against women? What possible motive would any doctor have to prevent women from having babies?

It’s not some grand conspiracy theory. It’s just the medical community pushes certain solutions that may not be completely moral.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

This is from the Vatican’s website, regarding hysterectomies (emphasis mine):

Q. 1.When the uterus becomes so seriously injured (e.g., during a delivery or a Caesarian section) so as to render medically indicated even its total removal (hysterectomy) in order to counter an immediate serious threat to the life or health of the mother, is it licit to perform such a procedure notwithstanding the permanent sterility which will result for the woman?

R. Affirmative.

Q. 2.When the uterus (e.g., as a result of previous Caesarian sections) is in a state such that while not constituting in itself a present risk to the life or health of the woman, nevertheless is foreseeably incapable of carrying a future pregnancy to term without danger to the mother, danger which in some cases could be serious, is it licit to remove the uterus (hysterectomy) in order to prevent a possible future danger deriving from conception?

R. Negative.

Q. 3.In the same situation as in no. 2, is it licit to substitute tubal ligation, also called “uterine isolation,” for the hysterectomy, since the same end would be attained of averting the risks of a possible pregnancy by means of a procedure which is much simpler for the doctor and less serious for the woman, and since in addition, in some cases, the ensuing sterility might be reversible?

R. Negative.

Explanations are given on the same page, following the 3 questions listed above. The way I see it, your daughter-in-law’s situation falls into the second category (question 2).

 

[SMHW]

I honestly don’t understand this line of reasoning. The doctor has determined that the uterus has been damaged to the point that another pregnancy would be dangerous. No method of family planning - ABC or NFP - is foolproof, so the risk of pregnancy is always there. Why take the risk that a dangerous pregnancy will result? Either way, this woman is never going to have another child.

You just said it yourself. The woman’s uterus is not endangering her life. However a pregnancy would endanger the uterus. It is the woman herself (and her husband) who would be endangering her life if she get’s pregnant.

This couple is free to use any licit means necessary to prevent a pregnancy.

 

[kage_ar]

That is my concern of course. She has 4 little ones at home that need their mother! If something happened to her during a 5th pregnancy because she did not heed the advice of her doctor, that would be a travesty. I think that she needs to get another opinion and we (the family) need to take this one to prayer for guidance.

One thing to remember. The date of our death is in the hands of God and God alone - not in the doctors hands even.

 

[jwashu]

You just said it yourself. The woman’s uterus is not endangering her life. However a pregnancy would endanger the uterus. It is the woman herself (and her husband) who would be endangering her life if she get’s pregnant.

This couple is free to use any licit means necessary to prevent a pregnancy.

Rick isn’t the OP…

I believe it’s clear from the Vatican’s site that if there is a good chance the uterus could rupture (before during or after another pregnancy) then the partial hysterectomy is licit.

I don’t believe God nor the Church wants people to endanger their lives when there is a serious medical issue, rather I believe He wants those 4 children to grow up with a Good Catholic Mother who has followed and is following the teachings of the Church.

Of course only God truly knows His will, I’m just stating my opinions from my understandings of Church teachings. If the Uterus is that damaged, picking up something or a fall could tear it and leave a good Catholic family w/o their mother. Could that be God’s plan? Yea… I guess it could but I believe He wants us to take care of ourselves as much as possible utilizing the technological advances and diagnosis He has allowed us to obtain.

Joe

 

[Truly_Beloved]

I believe it’s clear from the Vatican’s site that if there is a good chance the uterus could rupture (before during or after another pregnancy) then the partial hysterectomy is licit.

This is the explanation for Question 2 (emphasis mine):

In point of fact, the uterus as described in no. 2 does not constitute in and of itself any present danger to the woman. Indeed the proposal to substitute “uterine isolation” for hysterectomy under the same conditions shows precisely that the uterus in and of itself does not pose a pathological problem for the woman. Therefore, the described procedures do not have a properly therapeutic character but are aimed in themselves at rendering sterile future sexual acts freely chosen. The end of avoiding risks to the mother, deriving from a possible pregnancy, is thus pursued by means of a direct sterilization, in itself always morally illicit, while other ways, which are morally licit, remain open to free choice.

It seems as though the daughter-in-law’s uterus is not posing an immediate threat to her life (she’s able to go about daily tasks like care for the children she has, housework, etc., and we have not been told of any current hemorrhaging or anything), but that a pregnancy might be a threat. If pregnancy is the danger (not the uterus), then the Vatican is clear that hysterectomy is not licit.

I am basing my observations on the following parts of the original post (emphasis mine):

The problem is that when this baby was born, my daughter-in-law’s uterus had torn slightly and they were fortunate to get my granddaughter out okay. The mother was okay as well.

I should mention that all 4 babies were delivered by cesarean section. The doctor told my daughter-in-law and my son that her uterus looked like “hamburger helper” and that any further pregnancies would possibly jeopardize not only the baby but the mother’s health.

 

[Mike_Ba]

My wife and I are also in the same boat. My wife gave birth to our 9th child 6th by c- section. She is 40 w/gestational diabetes and some issues with hypertension and thyroid problems. She went into labor 2 weeks early and the doctor was going to send her home but I insisted she didn’t look right and was worried about a rupture. He was convinced by me that it was a possibility and did the c-section. Upon receiving a drug to raise her bp she had a bp spike that scared the Anesthesiologist into thinking she would die. When the doctor opened her up he found her bladder was keeping her from rupturing and he just touched her previous incision with his finger and it opened. This doctor knows we are faithful and after the previous sections he told my wife her uterus looked fine and she could have 10 more. This time he said it was very thin and said another pregnancy is life threatening. Also the previous babies were between 9 and 10+ lbs but this last one was 11 lb 7oz. We have tried NFP but as you can see it doesn’t work well for us. For those who use NFP, my understanding is one can only use it for good reason. I don’t think saving for a big house, a nice car or a saving up a college fund are a good enough excuse seeing how most of the world lives with a lot less than us westerners. So my question is if the posters child and my wife and I are called to abstain from sex then the people using NFP for the above reasons should also be told to abstain and pick up their cross. I for one think that outside of medical reasons any middle class American family cannot use NFP w/o possibly committing a mortal sin.

 

[Julianna]

My wife and I are also in the same boat. My wife gave birth to our 9th child 6th by c- section. She is 40 w/gestational diabetes and some issues with hypertension and thyroid problems. She went into labor 2 weeks early and the doctor was going to send her home but I insisted she didn’t look right and was worried about a rupture. He was convinced by me that it was a possibility and did the c-section. Upon receiving a drug to raise her bp she had a bp spike that scared the Anesthesiologist into thinking she would die. When the doctor opened her up he found her bladder was keeping her from rupturing and he just touched her previous incision with his finger and it opened. This doctor knows we are faithful and after the previous sections he told my wife her uterus looked fine and she could have 10 more. This time he said it was very thin and said another pregnancy is life threatening. Also the previous babies were between 9 and 10+ lbs but this last one was 11 lb 7oz. We have tried NFP but as you can see it doesn’t work well for us. For those who use NFP, my understanding is one can only use it for good reason. I don’t think saving for a big house, a nice car or a saving up a college fund are a good enough excuse seeing how most of the world lives with a lot less than us westerners. So my question is if the posters child and my wife and I are called to abstain from sex then the people using NFP for the above reasons should also be told to abstain and pick up their cross. I for one think that outside of medical reasons any middle class American family cannot use NFP w/o possibly committing a mortal sin.

Your wife needs to have a hysterectomy or you won’t have a wife. It’s that simple. I was 31 when I had a hysterectomy. I had a fibroid in my uterus the size of a mini basketball. The doctor said he could scrape it out, since it was a perfect “ball” shape, however, the chance of it growing back and have “fingers” would be ever present…the “fingers” would wrap like a vine around other organs and could possibly be cancerous. My response right there and then in his office was, “When is the surgery, I’ll be there”. I didn’t consult anyone…I said, take it out. My kids were 10 lbs. 1 oz. and 8 lbs. 10 oz. My second child was taken a week early because of gestational diabetes and she would have been well over 9 lbs.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

For those who use NFP, my understanding is one can only use it for good reason…
I for one think that outside of medical reasons any middle class American family cannot use NFP w/o possibly committing a mortal sin.

That’s not exactly true. From Pope Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio:

Finally, it is for parents to take a thorough look at the matter and decide upon the number of their children. This is an obligation they take upon themselves, before their children already born, and before the community to which they belong—following the dictates of their own consciences informed by God’s law authentically interpreted, and bolstered by their trust in Him.

The Church, essentially, leaves it up to the individual’s conscience to decide on the number of children. NFP is licit means of limiting the number of children. While, someone may have selfish reasons for limiting the number of children and using NFP, that’s essentially between them and God. Its hard to judge someone’s conscience when nothing objectively wrong is taking place.