Double effect as justification for vasectomy

  • Thread starter Thread starter utunumsint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

utunumsint

Guest
Hi,

Is double effect a justification for a man getting a vasectomy? A doctor has told the the friend of my wife that she will die if she has another baby. The friend went to their priest who said they could justify using contraception or getting sterilized because their intention is to save the mother’s life. It just has the unintended consequence of contraception and sterilization.

I know this thinking is wrong. But are there any church documents that directly address this scenario, or some scenario very similar to it?

What about justifying a tubal on similar ground? If you know that the organ is so severely compromised. Or maybe the stomach wall is so fragile from repeated c-sections…

God bless,
Ut
 
The thing is that a vasectomy does not correct any medical issue. It works by preventing the natural functioning of a man’s reproductive organs. From what I understand, double effect only applies when something happens as a secondary undesired effect - but here the effects are one and the same.

While a big cross to bear, abstinence achieves the exact same ends (actually, more likely to, because contraception and sterilization can fail). Whether this abstinence should be periodic (NFP) or total is up to the couple to discern based on their individual medical situation (which may involve different opinions by different doctors, by the way.)
 
utunumsint said:
Hi,

Is double effect a justification for a man getting a vasectomy? A doctor has told the the friend of my wife that she will die if she has another baby. The friend went to their priest who said they could justify using contraception or getting sterilized because their intention is to save the mother’s life. It just has the unintended consequence of contraception and sterilization.

I know this thinking is wrong. But are there any church documents that directly address this scenario, or some scenario very similar to it?

What about justifying a tubal on similar ground? If you know that the organ is so severely compromised. Or maybe the stomach wall is so fragile from repeated c-sections…

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
Is double effect a justification for a man getting a vasectomy?
Click to expand...
No.
A doctor has told the the friend of my wife that she will die if she has another baby.
Click to expand...
It is doubtful a doctor would use that type of terminology.
The friend went to their priest who said they could justify using contraception or getting sterilized because their intention is to save the mother’s life.
Click to expand...
The priest is dead wrong. And the Bishop should be notified that his priests are either ill informed on this matter or plain old anti-Catholic on it.

The idea of sterilization as a legitimate Birth Control has to be the unintended consequence of the initial problem. Like removing a cancer that has the unintended consequence of rendering the reproductive system broken. A vasectomy is wrong here for many reasons not the least of which is that it is done to the party WHO IS NOT EVEN ILL. If my wife has breast cancer should I get a mastectomy?
Someday this will come back to haunt doctors who push this. Partly because vasectomies are not 100 percent. So I ask you. Would a husband have sex with his wife if there were a 1 percent chance it would kill her?

Now, the Church has a method for preventing pregnancy in these situations. It is called NFP. (Natural Family Planning) And I am shocked and saddened that the priest was not educated about this way of preventing a pregnancy.

God, in his mercy has allowed a way for married couples who have grave issues to continue to enjoy the marital embrace. So tell your friend to study up on NFP and find a pro life NFP doctor. (and sadly priest as well)
 
Re: Double effect as justification for vasectomy

No it is not.

Does not fit.

Tis a choice of evil means.
 
utunumsint said:
Is double effect a justification for a man getting a vasectomy?
Click to expand...
No.
utunumsint said:
A doctor has told the the friend of my wife that she will die if she has another baby. The friend went to their priest who said they could justify using contraception or getting sterilized because their intention is to save the mother’s life. It just has the unintended consequence of contraception and sterilization.
Click to expand...
A poorly formed priest. So sorry to hear that. This is not accurate in the least.
utunumsint said:
I know this thinking is wrong. But are there any church documents that directly address this scenario, or some scenario very similar to it?
Click to expand...
Of course. Humanae Vitae, Casti Conubii, the Catechism.
utunumsint said:
What about justifying a tubal on similar ground? If you know that the organ is so severely compromised. Or maybe the stomach wall is so fragile from repeated c-sections…
Click to expand...
You are correct, that is also a misapplication of the principle of double effect.
 
Thank you for your responses. That is pretty much in line with what I thought.

Still, I did some looking at the principle of double effect, and it seems like there is a lot of room for cannon lawyers to wiggle around with:

sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

This is really bewildering.

God bless,
Ut
 
utunumsint said:
Thank you for your responses. That is pretty much in line with what I thought.

Still, I did some looking at the principle of double effect, and it seems like there is a lot of room for cannon lawyers to wiggle around with
Click to expand...
Tis not really a matter for Canon Lawyers…but for moral theologians.

And I would not call it wiggle room really - but rather it is a principle to help navigate our world that has lots of tangles. But keep in mind at the core one can NEVER use an evil means to a good end. That is fundamental to the principle.
 
I don’t know much about double effect and theology, but it seems to me the vasectomy wouldn’t qualify as justifiable because it’s not the only option available. There are other routes to try.

The other thing is, vasectomies aren’t 100% reliable, are they? Then what happens?

Couple has intercourse, wife gets pregnant despite the vasectomy. Her life is at stake from the pregnancy, so the permissible solution is abortion…not.
 
utunumsint said:
room for cannon lawyers to wiggle around with:

sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

This is really bewildering.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
I’m not even going to try to read that page. Bewildering? Visually bewildering. Visually chaotic. Who puts a gray checkerboard pattern behind black font? Seriously. That was a “design” concept people used on websites 15 years ago when they didn’t know any better. I’m sorry to be harsh about it, but when I see a page like that I navigate away from it immediately as not worth the ocular trauma it induces.
 
on_the_hill said:
I’m not even going to try to read that page. Bewildering? Visually bewildering. Visually chaotic. Who puts a gray checkerboard pattern behind black font? Seriously. That was a “design” concept people used on websites 15 years ago when they didn’t know any better. I’m sorry to be harsh about it, but when I see a page like that I navigate away from it immediately as not worth the ocular trauma it induces.
Click to expand...
LOL 🙂
 
utunumsint said:
Thank you for your responses. That is pretty much in line with what I thought.

Still, I did some looking at the principle of double effect, and it seems like there is a lot of room for cannon lawyers to wiggle around with:

sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

This is really bewildering.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
The principal of double effect applies to the "messier’ moral decisions that do not have easily recognizable answers. This is not one of those cases. But you have to be clear on what are the ends, what are the motives, and what is the secondary end (the double effect).

When you start to analyze the situation, you first ask if the immediate “end” is a good or at least neutral end. With a vasectomy, the immediate end is sterilization and that is not a moral good or neutral end. The **motive **is to have sex with less risk to the spouse’s well being. But that is not the “end” of the act of getting a vasectomy or tubal ligation. there is no secondary moral end.

Contrast this with a hysterectomy when a woman has uterine cancer. The immediate “end” is to treat the cancer. A secondary effect is sterilization. The end is morally good and the secondary effect is tolerated due to the goodness of the immediate end. That is a valid application of the principal of double effect.
 
utunumsint said:
room for cannon lawyers to wiggle around with:

sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

This is really bewildering.

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
I’m not even going to try to read that page. Bewildering? Visually bewildering. Visually chaotic. Who puts a gray checkerboard pattern behind black font? Seriously. That was a “design” concept people used on websites 15 years ago when they didn’t know any better. I’m sorry to be harsh about it, but when I see a page like that I navigate away from it immediately as not worth the ocular trauma it induces.
 
Good link 1ke and thanks for the examples Corki. I appreciate it.

Makes me wonder if I should do anything about the priest. Its a touch job. I know for the most part, he is a very orthodox guy. But this is a very liberal area. I can just imagine some priest cave after a while and provide these technical cop outs for folks who don’t know better. Or, perhaps the better way of looking at this is that maybe the woman involved misunderstood what the priest meant. Still, can you imagine telling two people that they have to abstain for the rest of their marriage, or at least until way after menopause?

She had just had her 8th child. My wife is having our 6th in four weeks. Please pray for us and for the other couple.

Thanks again,
God bless,
Ut
 
utunumsint said:
Good link 1ke and thanks for the examples Corki. I appreciate it.

Makes me wonder if I should do anything about the priest. Its a touch job. I know for the most part, he is a very orthodox guy. But this is a very liberal area. I can just imagine some priest cave after a while and provide these technical cop outs for folks who don’t know better. Or, perhaps the better way of looking at this is that maybe the woman involved misunderstood what the priest meant. Still, can you imagine telling two people that they have to abstain for the rest of their marriage, or at least until way after menopause?

She had just had her 8th child. My wife is having our 6th in four weeks. Please pray for us and for the other couple.

Thanks again,
God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
Actually, when you mentioned that your friend said that the doctor said his wife would die, I wondered very much if there could be some misunderstanding going on. Doctors usually don’t speak like that (and they shouldn’t, IMO). They may say, “lots of risks,” they may say, “specific risk of this life-threatening condition,” but they don’t generally say, “If you do this you will die,” even with something widely considered incredibly risky like smoking. I’m not saying that doesn’t mean that pregnancy wouldn’t be incredibly risky for this woman, but the language itself is imprecise enough it got me to thinking. (There are also unscrupulous doctors who like to scare women who have had many children.)

Your friends are the ones who know their situation best, but the basic moral question you’ve asked has an answer: no, an immoral means cannot be used for a morally good or neutral end, and a vasectomy will always qualify as immoral means.

And again, depending on the severity, the abstinence may not need to be total. NFP may be a very good option for them, especially if she’s not likely to be perimenopausal because interpreting fertility signals may be easier for her.
 
First principle required for double-effect:
  1. The act must be morally good or neutral.
This drops the argument entirely as a vasectomy is an intrinsically evil act. Therefore, double-effect cannot be used to justify it.
 
A vasectomy is wrong here for many reasons not the least of which is that it is done to the party WHO IS NOT EVEN ILL.
Click to expand...
👍

Without getting into cloudy philosophy, this describes why the proposed action would not fit into double effect.

ICXC NIKA
 
utunumsint said:
Hi,

Is double effect a justification for a man getting a vasectomy? A doctor has told the the friend of my wife that she will die if she has another baby. The friend went to their priest who said they could justify using contraception or getting sterilized because their intention is to save the mother’s life. It just has the unintended consequence of contraception and sterilization.

I know this thinking is wrong. But are there any church documents that directly address this scenario, or some scenario very similar to it?

What about justifying a tubal on similar ground? If you know that the organ is so severely compromised. Or maybe the stomach wall is so fragile from repeated c-sections…

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
It is hard to believe that any Priest said what you relay above.

Contraception/Sterilisation is not an “unintended consequence” in this scenario, but in fact the means to achieve the (good) end of safeguarding the woman’s health. Catholic Moral Theology holds that the ends do not justify the means.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top