Dr. Prescribed birth control. Is it a sin?

[SeekerCV]

Ever since the birth of our twins, my wife’s menstrual cycles have been erratic, heavy, and more painful that befroe. Her doctor wants to put her on birth control pills to regulate her cycle. Would it be a sin if she filled the prescription and began taking the pills?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I would recommend that you Google the Paul the VI Institute, or go to EWTN.com and submit this question to Judie Brown from the American Life League.

A lot of doctors do recommend birth control pills for heavy menses or irregular ones, but there are many complications that can arise as well, which are (ahem) rather glossed over for the most part. There are also other treatments and procedures that can be used rather than birth control pills.

I think a second opinion is indeed in order here. And my sympathy . . .I myself suffered from your wife’s problem, to the point of needing regular iron infusions (though many people have no trouble taking oral iron, I’m just an extra tough case); but I did not take the birth control pills, and now that I’m nearly a nifty fifty, I am really glad I did not!

 

[JCPhoenix]

Keep in mind the pill is much like aspirin, or Tylenol, or the like…they control SYMPTOMS, but not the problem iteslf.

And if you have marital relations, then you also run the risk of aborting a viable pregancy because the pill changes the lining of the uterus and will flush the embryo if you conceive.

I agree to contact Paul IV Institute (what’s it called? - sorry)— they do great work and in a life affirming way without the use of secular death-pills.

I don’t believe it’s a sin to be used for medicinal purposes, but then you’d be best to refrain from physical initimacy until the actual problem is diagnosed and treated.

 

[Lazerlike42]

The Paul VI institue is a very good idea.

The answer is that it is not a sin so long as you do refrain from intercourse while using it. However, the better answer is that there are ways to treat most conditions for which birth control is prescribed without it, but that your average secular doctor isn’t going to tell you that and that you need to find someone who wants to practice medicine in accordence with the teachings of the Church. Paul VI can help you do that.

 

[Nun_ofthe_Above]

**SeekerCV, **

I agree with these fine people about finding alternatives if possible.

---

**I was in your wife’s position for 13 years. When I finally got to the point I felt I was going to die, it was so bad, I went to my gynaecologist, and he gave me an emergency abdominal ablation; which is certainly not an ideal situation. **
**I recommend your wife see a gynaecologist, if she hasn’t already; and find out if there is something more serious underlying the situation. The severity of pain may be being made worse by ovarian cysts, which could be partly to blame for the heaviness of the menses, also. (Been there, doing that!) **
Once you had the gynaecologist’s prognosis, you could ask them if they had treatment available which would not conflict with the CC teaching, or contact the institute already recommended by these fine people.

---

I have prayed for you and your family.

---

Peace and love to you all.

 

[1ke]

SeekerCV:

Ever since the birth of our twins, my wife’s menstrual cycles have been erratic, heavy, and more painful that befroe. Her doctor wants to put her on birth control pills to regulate her cycle. Would it be a sin if she filled the prescription and began taking the pills?

Under the principle of Double Effect taking hormones for a medical problem does not consitute a sin because the sterilizing effect is only a side effect, not the purpose.

However, the BCP does not work only as a sterilizing agent. It can and does prevent implantation of a conceived child in any cycle where ovulation (called breakthrough ovulation) takes place and your wife were to conceive. This is a chemical abortion. That would not pass muster with the principle of Double Effect.

Also, putting your wife on the BCP does not treat her problem. And, the pill has its own numerous serious medical side effects such as blood clots, stroke, increase risk of some cancers, death-- just to name a few. Weight gain, suppressed libido, irritability, mood swings, depression, are non-life threatening but still documented side effects.

I would not put those pills in my body for any reason. I would see a doctor who is interested in treating me, not in just giving me some pills that really don’t help me and could hurt me.

Please contact Pope Paul VI institute-- www.popepaulvi.com for some advice.

 

[mosher]

I also just want to give me reccomendation to contact the Pope Paul VI Institute.

 

[Eileen_T]

Doctors are too quick to prescribe BC pills for other problems it seems to me. Like to teenage girls for acne. Yet I haven’t heard of them prescribing it to males for acne.

I think it’s a sort of laziness on their part, just accepting the recommendation of the pharmaceutical companies without doing their own research. As JCPhoenix pointed out, they are treating a symptom, not finding a remedy for the cause.

 

[maryj]

I am currently under going treatment for a gynecological issue. My first course of action was a gynecologist, who basically berated me for using NFP, asking “are you trying to get pregnant”?(oh by the way I’m almost 44) typing those words doesn’t quite do them justice, there isn’t a sarcastic key on my keyboard. the next coment was, well there are ways to take care of accidents at your age(accident!! she called a child an accident) alright now I’m really ticked off, and yet in shock and I should have stood up in my little paper gown and walked out of the room. To make this long story shorter, I ended up leaving there and going to see my regular doctor who by the way is catholic and used to be an altar boy(he’s retirement age now) He knows I’m catholic and yet the treatment I am on requires a one week use of massive amounts of birth control pills(4 daily for 8 days) I’m on day number 4 and a LITTLE TOUCHY today, I feel no guilt over this and of course I am abstaining. I guess I felt compelled to type to say, no those pills do not only control symptoms, sometimes they are used to cure a problem. someone stated they wouldn’t put those pills in their body for any reason, I would state you probably haven’t been given a good enough reason, if that makes sense. sorry rambling, more than a little hormonal today.

 

[Listener]

Pope Paul VI is also the pope who wrote Humanae Vitae, the encyclical on birth control. In it, he says that birth control pills may be used for medical reasons.

People argue that birth control pills only mask the symptoms. Well, I am on medication for high cholesterol. My medication “masks the symptoms” by making my cholesterol go down while I am taking this pill. If I quit this statin drug, I’m pretty sure that my cholesterol will go back up again. This is true of many drugs.

One of the moderators stated on another thread that these forums should not be used to solve medical problems. I agree. If your doctor says you should go on birth control pills for medical reasons, then maybe you should.

I think that many people on these forums don’t understand the severe pain and bleeding that many women have. I understand, because I had the problem myself many years ago. It can be so severe that you can’t function. Some women have the choice between going on the pill or having a hysterectomy.

Many people suggest the Pope Paul VI Institute. Well, that is fine if you happen to live near the place. Most people are stuck with whatever doctors happen to be in the network for their insurance coverage.

As far as losing a very early pregnancy goes, this would not be something the woman intends. She would be on the pill to solve a severe medical problem. If she lost a pregnancy as a result, she would not know it. It would not be her fault. In fact, I read in a medical book put out by the Mayo Clinic that 50% of all fertilized eggs don’t “take.” This is true for women who are not on the pill. Maybe this happens because the woman ate the wrong thing - there would be no way anyone would know.

When you are on the pill, I believe it is very likely that you won’t ovulate. If you did happen to have “breakthrough” ovulation, I don’t know why you wouldn’t realize that this had happened.
Women know when they are ovulating when they are practicing NFP. I believe they would also know this was happening if they were on the pill. They could then abstain if they thought they were ovulating.

In summary, it is always better to use a natural method of solving a medical problem (if a solution exists and the solution works for you). If nothing works, the pill may be the only solution to your problem. Yes, there are dangers of side effects. But anyone who watches TV knows that virtually ANY drug has a small chance of serious side effects.

 

[1ke]

Listener:

Pope Paul VI is also the pope who wrote Humanae Vitae, the encyclical on birth control. In it, he says that birth control pills may be used for medical reasons.

At that time it was not known that the Pill was abortifacient. At that time the formulation of the Pill included such high doses of hormones that it did in fact supress ovulation. That is not the case with today’s pills, which have significantly lower doses of hormones and have much higher rates of break through ovulation.

Listener:

People argue that birth control pills only mask the symptoms. Well, I am on medication for high cholesterol. My medication “masks the symptoms” by making my cholesterol go down while I am taking this pill. If I quit this statin drug, I’m pretty sure that my cholesterol will go back up again. This is true of many drugs.

This may be the case with your cholesterol drug, but it’s not relevant to the discussion about the pill as it is not an abortifacient drug.

Most doctors prescribe the Pill before doing any other tests or treatments. There are alternatives, they do not explore them. That is wrong.

Listener:

One of the moderators stated on another thread that these forums should not be used to solve medical problems. I agree. If your doctor says you should go on birth control pills for medical reasons, then maybe you should.

And, maybe you should get a second opinion. And, no one has given specific medical advice-- other than to get another opinion-- the advice she was asking for was of a moral nature, not medical.

Listener:

I think that many people on these forums don’t understand the severe pain and bleeding that many women have. I understand, because I had the problem myself many years ago. It can be so severe that you can’t function. Some women have the choice between going on the pill or having a hysterectomy…

That is your opinion. I believe that many women do understand, including me. The OP was asking for a moral evaluation of this option, and we have given her one. Yes, hysterectomy may be a solution in some cases.

Listener:

Many people suggest the Pope Paul VI Institute. Well, that is fine if you happen to live near the place. Most people are stuck with whatever doctors happen to be in the network for their insurance coverage.

PPVI will consult long distance, and in many instances can refer to a doctor in your area who is knowledgable and affiliated with their methods. I live in a very rural area, the nearest town has less than 5,000 people, and there is a Creighton/PPVI trained doctor in that town. You never know until you call them and ask.

Listener:

As far as losing a very early pregnancy goes, this would not be something the woman intends. She would be on the pill to solve a severe medical problem. If she lost a pregnancy as a result, she would not know it. It would not be her fault. In fact, I read in a medical book put out by the Mayo Clinic that 50% of all fertilized eggs don’t “take.” This is true for women who are not on the pill. Maybe this happens because the woman ate the wrong thing - there would be no way anyone would know.

First, by your logic a miscarriage and an abortion in the first weeks are the same thing because so many pregnancies are lost early on. This is, in fact, an argument used by pro-abortion groups: it’s not really a baby, and why would God let 50% of conceived babies die in miscarriages if it were? Therefore, go ahead and abort your blob of cells b/c so many miscarry anyway it can’t be wrong.

Well, the answer is, we do not know why many tiny embryos do not implant or are not sustained in the early weeks. However, what we do know is any early miscarriage is a natural event and no action has been taken to attack and kill the baby. Not so with a drug that make the womb hostile. It matters not if a woman “knows” that the pregnancy occurred in that month and was aborted-- she took an action she knew would lead to it.

 

[1ke]

Listener:

When you are on the pill, I believe it is very likely that you won’t ovulate. If you did happen to have “breakthrough” ovulation, I don’t know why you wouldn’t realize that this had happened.
Women know when they are ovulating when they are practicing NFP. I believe they would also know this was happening if they were on the pill. They could then abstain if they thought they were ovulating.

There are documented studies that breakthrough ovulation occurs in 2-10% of all cycles. It doesn’t matter if you realize it or not. And, you cannot use NFP when on the pill because the pill does not allow you to accurately chart your signs. It supresses mucus, it distorts temperature. You cannot use it when on the pill, so no you could not know and abstain.

Listener:

In summary, it is always better to use a natural method of solving a medical problem (if a solution exists and the solution works for you). If nothing works, the pill may be the only solution to your problem. Yes, there are dangers of side effects. But anyone who watches TV knows that virtually ANY drug has a small chance of serious side effects.

The Pill may be a solution. It should not be routinely given as the first or only solution. And, some people have given the OP the excellent counsel that if the pill is chosen, then abstaining for as long as she needs to be on it is an option. Hopefully it’s a short term thing. But, there are some serious moral questions regarding sexual relations while on the pill and it’s been suggested she discuss with a priest/spiritual advisor as well.

 

[steveandersen]

SeekerCV:

…Would it be a sin if she filled the prescription and began taking the pills?

No, because she would be taking it for a valid medical reason and contraception is not the intent.

 

[LittleDeb]

Eileen T:

Doctors are too quick to prescribe BC pills for other problems it seems to me. Like to teenage girls for acne. Yet I haven’t heard of them prescribing it to males for acne.

I think it’s a sort of laziness on their part, just accepting the recommendation of the pharmaceutical companies without doing their own research. As JCPhoenix pointed out, they are treating a symptom, not finding a remedy for the cause.

I totally agree with you. What I find even more ironic is that acne, at it’s core, is caused by testosterone levels malfunctioning. Instead of trying to lower the testosterone level and naturally raising estrogen, progesterone levels they just mask the testosterone with the artificial hormone progestin. In males, they just don’t understand the connection of acne being out of control testosterone levels, so they treat it topically only. (I used to have a TON of this kind of research from my decade of studying hormones and their effect on my endometreosis.)

To the others on here I can sympathize with you on the pain and the hysterectomy threats. Been there. Still there sometimes. To the OP: Please get your wife the book, “Fertility, Cycles, and Nutrition” by Marilyn Shannon. It might be in your local bookstore but if not it is here: www.ccli.org This book completely changed my life. There are no NFP doctors in my entire state and even the Catholic ones in my area are still buying into the twisted view of the Pill. I have been through 7, count 'em, 7 OB/GYN’s since I was 19. Now at nearly 35 my doctor does very little for me. He monitors my pregnancies (only one so far) delivers babies and annually checks me for cervical cancer. He says NFP “doesn’t work” but doesn’t hassle me too much for using it. Sadly, he is the best I’ve found in my area.

SeekerCV, you are so wonderful to check on this stuff for your wife. I firmly believe that there are better ways to help her. I know that this really is about a moral issue at heart, since you are asking about the use of the pill possibly leading to sin. The questions I asked myself during my long journey towards Truth became fairly basic questions.

1. While hormonal contraceptive devices themselves are morally neutral (since as others point out they can be used morally) was their development truly God’s will?
2. If their development was not God’s will wouldn’t He have provided better means to heal a woman’s body?

From my research the answers are 1. No, 2. Yes. Please feel free to PM me for moral support or if your wife needs someone to talk to. The pain can be unbearable sometimes. If you get nothing else from me please know that. God bless you both during this difficult time.

 

[Listener]

1ke:

This may be the case with your cholesterol drug, but it’s not relevant to the discussion about the pill as it is not an abortifacient drug.

I just wanted to point out that I don’t believe this is the case. It is my understanding that young women who might possibly be pregnant or who might possibly get pregnant should not be on statin drugs. I do not know whether or not they will cause her to lose the pregnancy. Maybe it is just a danger of birth defects. Birth control pills are just another drug. There are many drugs that should not be taken by women who are either pregnant or could possibly become pregnant. I have never seen these drugs discussed on these forums. Just because a drug doesn’t happen to prevent pregnancy doesn’t mean that it is not dangerous.

I believe that Pope Paul VI was correct when he said it was morally okay to take birth control pills for medical reasons. If someone says he was wrong about this, then you’re saying that the Pope could be wrong when writing an encyclical such as this. If you will search the “Ask and Apologist” section for similar questions, you will find that Father Serpa says that married women are allowed to take birth control pills for medical reasons and that they do not have to abstain.

As far as women losing very early pregnancies, I believe that even with today’s birth control pills, there is at least a 90% chance that she won’t ovulate. As far as the remaining 10% goes, if 50% of fertilized eggs don’t “take” for women who are not on the pill, why would we expect 100% of them to “take” for women who are on the pill? I happen to know of some little children who were born when their moms were on the pill. It works both ways.

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t believe in going on any pills unless absolutely medically necessary. I just believe that some people here are being more Catholic than the Pope.

 

[mosher]

Listener:

I just wanted to point out that I don’t believe this is the case. It is my understanding that young women who might possibly be pregnant or who might possibly get pregnant should not be on statin drugs. I do not know whether or not they will cause her to lose the pregnancy. Maybe it is just a danger of birth defects. Birth control pills are just another drug. There are many drugs that should not be taken by women who are either pregnant or could possibly become pregnant. I have never seen these drugs discussed on these forums. Just because a drug doesn’t happen to prevent pregnancy doesn’t mean that it is not dangerous.

I believe that Pope Paul VI was correct when he said it was morally okay to take birth control pills for medical reasons. If someone says he was wrong about this, then you’re saying that the Pope could be wrong when writing an encyclical such as this. If you will search the “Ask and Apologist” section for similar questions, you will find that Father Serpa says that married women are allowed to take birth control pills for medical reasons and that they do not have to abstain.

As far as women losing very early pregnancies, I believe that even with today’s birth control pills, there is at least a 90% chance that she won’t ovulate. As far as the remaining 10% goes, if 50% of fertilized eggs don’t “take” for women who are not on the pill, why would we expect 100% of them to “take” for women who are on the pill? I happen to know of some little children who were born when their moms were on the pill. It works both ways.

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t believe in going on any pills unless absolutely medically necessary. I just believe that some people here are being more Catholic than the Pope.

For me it is not an issue so much of the morality as that has been discussed much. However, I think it is more an issue of health. Today we know, through the work of the CMA and the Pual VI Institute, that there are many serious health risks associated with taking even Low Hormone Pills. This is why I believe that the prudent course is to try to find another solution if possible - hence the recommendation to contact the Paul VI Institute.

 

[1ke]

Listener:

I believe that Pope Paul VI was correct when he said it was morally okay to take birth control pills for medical reasons.

Actually, PPVI did not make any statement about taking birth control pills for medical reasons. The relevant paragraph of HV states “The Church, on the contrary, does not at all consider illicit the use of those therapeutic means truly necessary to cure diseases of the organism, even if an impediment to procreation, which may be foreseen, should result therefore, provided such impediment is not, for whatever motive, directly willed.”

Theraputic means could be anything from the Pill to Chemotherapy or Hysterectomy. However-- abortifacient and contraceptive are not the same thing. THAT is my point. HV cannot be used to defend the abortifacient nature of the Pill, only in its contraceptive element. The abortifacient element must stand alone and also be considered under the Principle of Double Effect.

Listener:

If someone says he was wrong about this, then you’re saying that the Pope could be wrong when writing an encyclical such as this.

I am not stating PPVI is “wrong” and I don’t need to because:

(a) he never stated taking the Pill for medical reasons was OK nor did he ever state it was not OK. He never mentioned the Pill at all in this section of the encyclical.

(b) what he did say only applied to theraputic means in which sterility was a side effect. He made no mention of abortion as a side effect.

Listener:

If you will search the “Ask and Apologist” section for similar questions, you will find that Father Serpa says that married women are allowed to take birth control pills for medical reasons and that they do not have to abstain.

And, if you research other websites you will find theologians and priests who state the opposite.

There is no defnitive teaching here. There are, however, strong arguments based on the Principle of Double Effect. Each person is called to form their conscience to the best of their ability. The OP was attempting to do that by soliciting opinions. We have given her opinions, yours, mine, and others. She will have to weight them and make a decision.

Listener:

As far as women losing very early pregnancies, I believe that even with today’s birth control pills, there is at least a 90% chance that she won’t ovulate. As far as the remaining 10% goes, if 50% of fertilized eggs don’t “take” for women who are not on the pill, why would we expect 100% of them to “take” for women who are on the pill? I happen to know of some little children who were born when their moms were on the pill. It works both ways.

The statistics you present are irrelevant, it doesn’t matter how often it occurs, it does occur. Fact: Breakthrough ovulation occurs. Fact: The pill can kill that conceived child. Fact: This is a serious moral consideration that many theologians believe violates the principle of Double Effect. Fact: Some theologians disagree.

Listener:

Don’t get me wrong - I don’t believe in going on any pills unless absolutely medically necessary. I just believe that some people here are being more Catholic than the Pope.

No one here is being “more catholic than the pope” in this case.

 

[Tiocfaidharla]

Eileen T:

Doctors are too quick to prescribe BC pills for other problems it seems to me. Like to teenage girls for acne. Yet I haven’t heard of them prescribing it to males for acne.

I think it’s a sort of laziness on their part, just accepting the recommendation of the pharmaceutical companies without doing their own research. As JCPhoenix pointed out, they are treating a symptom, not finding a remedy for the cause.

Oh my GOSH! Of course they wouldn’t prescribe it to boys! The hormones causing acne are completely different!

Now, the reason that BCPs are prescribed so quickly to remedy the problem is because: it’s the quickest, safest and easiest approach. It does NOT not work to MASK the sympotms described by the OP, as someone else stated, but actually works to regulate the hormones, and MOST women find that after a few months of this HORMONE THERAPY (neatly packaged for those who’d use it as BC) their bodies tend to normalise, and they come off “the pill”

As far as I can tell, there’s no Catholic mandate stating that those who are theraputically sterile must abstain from sex. Also, “the pill” tricks the body into thinking it’s already pregnant so follicles do not even form–no egg is ever released. Progesterone facilitates pregnancy, so I’m not so sure the conception that “the pill” is an abortificant is true.

 

[astegallrnc]

MOST women find that after a few months of this HORMONE THERAPY (neatly packaged for those who’d use it as BC) their bodies tend to normalise, and they come off “the pill”

MOST of the women I know who have used pills for medicinal purposes report the symptoms return once discontinuing the pill as there is usually an underlying condition (ie., fibroids, endometriosis, thyroid dysfunction, etc.).

Also, “the pill” tricks the body into thinking it’s already pregnant so follicles do not even form–no egg is ever released. Progesterone facilitates pregnancy, so I’m not so sure the conception that “the pill” is an abortificant is true.

Ovulation is still possible on hormonal contraceptives. The package insert lists three mechanisms of action which includes supessinng ovulation, thickening the cervical mucus, and altering the endometrium. Progesterone is the hormone of pregnancy, BUT oral contraceptives do not contain progesterone. Oral contraceptives contain progestin. It is the progestin in the combination pill that “produces an endometrium that is not receptive to ovum implantation”.

Autumn

 

[1ke]

Tiocfaidharla:

Now, the reason that BCPs are prescribed so quickly to remedy the problem is because: it’s the quickest, safest and easiest approach.

Quickest and easiest, yes. Safest, I disagree.

Tiocfaidharla:

It does NOT not work to MASK the sympotms described by the OP, as someone else stated, but actually works to regulate the hormones, and MOST women find that after a few months of this HORMONE THERAPY (neatly packaged for those who’d use it as BC) their bodies tend to normalise, and they come off “the pill”

True hormone therapy can be achieved without the pill. Doctors prescribe the pill because, as you say, it’s quick and easy. It’s not necessarily the best treatment. It’s not the only treatment, even when it is hormone treatment needed. And, the idea that the woman’s body will “normalize” after a few months depends on the underlying cause of the problem. If the doctor doesn’t treat the cause, which may not be hormone related, then when she is taken off the pills she’ll be right back where she started.

Tiocfaidharla:

As far as I can tell, there’s no Catholic mandate stating that those who are theraputically sterile must abstain from sex.

No one here stated that it does. It is not the contraceptive effect that is at issue, it is the abortifacient effect.

Tiocfaidharla:

Also, “the pill” tricks the body into thinking it’s already pregnant so follicles do not even form–no egg is ever released. Progesterone facilitates pregnancy, so I’m not so sure the conception that “the pill” is an abortificant is true.

Oh PLEASE go pick up a medical book or a pill insert. What you have written above is simply untrue. The pill works in three ways, one of which is abortifacient. Progesterone does indeed sustain a pregnancy, but the pill does not contain progesterone-- it contains progestin. Progestin thins the uterine lining and is fatal to a conceived child.