Contraception and Double Effect

[Tcurry]

I’ll get right to it: say a wife has some illness that gives her painful periods and so she is prescribed a form of contraception that allows her to deal with it. Obviously the Church would say that as long as it doesn’t interfere with the openness of the sex act to life (say the wife and her husband abstain from sex while she is on the pill), it is ok to do so. However, could the principle of double effect be used here to justify sexual activity that would otherwise be open to life but because of the contraception the wife is using to treat her illness, it isn’t. The intention is to treat the illness, not prevent life. For the record, I stand by the Church’s position on contraception, just curious as to how this dilemma might be solved. Thanks everyone!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I’ll get right to it: say a wife has some illness that gives her painful periods and so she is prescribed a form of contraception that allows her to deal with it. Obviously the Church would say that as long as it doesn’t interfere with the openness of the sex act to life (say the wife and her husband abstain from sex while she is on the pill), it is ok to do so. However, could the principle of double effect be used here to justify sexual activity that would otherwise be open to life but because of the contraception the wife is using to treat her illness, it isn’t. The intention is to treat the illness, not prevent life. For the record, I stand by the Church’s position on contraception, just curious as to how this dilemma might be solved. Thanks everyone!

You are absolutely correct. As long as the method is not abortifacient, the use of the medication solely to treat an illness such as this, with the contraceptive effect being tolerated and not desired, is perfectly all right, and the couple does not have to abstain from conjugal relations. Paul VI allows for as much in Humanae vitae (though, strictly speaking, he only allows for the use of the medication, and does not address the issue of the permissibility of conjugal relations).

Whether commonly used oral contraceptives cause abortions any more than miscarriages would occur in the natural order of things without the contraceptive, is debated both ways. I don’t know how to solve that dilemma. As a practical matter, I would defer to a confessor who is well-versed in such matters.

 

[porthos11]

I’ll get right to it: say a wife has some illness that gives her painful periods and so she is prescribed a form of contraception that allows her to deal with it. Obviously the Church would say that as long as it doesn’t interfere with the openness of the sex act to life (say the wife and her husband abstain from sex while she is on the pill), it is ok to do so. However, could the principle of double effect be used here to justify sexual activity that would otherwise be open to life but because of the contraception the wife is using to treat her illness, it isn’t. The intention is to treat the illness, not prevent life. For the record, I stand by the Church’s position on contraception, just curious as to how this dilemma might be solved. Thanks everyone!

I’m not sure this is a dilemma at all. What you’re describing is the very definition of double effect. I am not even convinced that “the Church would say that…they abstain from sex” since the double effect does apply.

If a reputable medical professional prescribes a certain medication for pain, and that medication still happens to be the same used for contraception, then the contraceptive effect is unintended. There is no moral reason why the spouses should abstain under these circumstances.

 

[dochawk]

(say the wife and her husband abstain from sex while she is on the pill), it is ok to do so

The church requires no such thing (although you will undoubtedly eventually collect the posters on CAF who contradict Church doctrine on this thread telling you that you should).

Do pay attention, though, to the particular medication.

Triphasil (sp?), for example–there is no issue on the side effects of its designed stage one and two (it clamps down ovulation 90% to 99% of the time, depending upon which reports you believe, and alters the chemistry for the path to the uterus making sperm survival less likely). The third phase, however, is to make the uterine wall hostile to the child attaching, if fertilization does occur–and would give me nightmares.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Triphasil (sp?), for example–there is no issue on the side effects of its designed stage one and two (it clamps down ovulation 90% to 99% of the time, depending upon which reports you believe, and alters the chemistry for the path to the uterus making sperm survival less likely). The third phase, however, is to make the uterine wall hostile to the child attaching, if fertilization does occur–and would give me nightmares.

On this and similar contraceptives, my thinking has always been “abstain just as you would if you were using NFP, presupposing a perfect 28-day calendar”. I brought this up on CAF a few months ago and got a lot of pushback — and the back-pushers may be right. I don’t know. They did correctly point out that there is no ovulation (or there’s not supposed to be, anyway). It would be my preference to abstain in the fashion I just described — for one thing, to my mind it would be “skin in the game”, demonstrating that you’re willing to accept the same burdens of abstinence that an NFP user does — but I am reluctant to dogmatize about that. Again, I would defer to a good, orthodox confessor, faithful to the magisterium, who has some expertise in bioethics.

 

[strita]

On EWTN Johnette Williams has addressed this topic in depth with experts. if you can send her an email, she may be able to help. She once sent a personal email to me. Also, Priests for Life may be able to handle this question very competently. I’ve heard the answer but I don’t remember.