Dr. Prescribed birth control. Is it a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SeekerCV
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1ke,

I know that you and others have made a case that legitimate medical use of the pill does not meet the standards of double effect. In your view could a medical condition ever be serious enough to warrant taking medication that, as a side effect, increases chances of miscarriage? I know that in Fr. Serpa’s posts he seems to focus on this increased chance of miscarriage as a tolerable side effect.
 
Ham1 said:
1ke,

I know that you and others have made a case that legitimate medical use of the pill does not meet the standards of double effect. In your view could a medical condition ever be serious enough to warrant taking medication that, as a side effect, increases chances of miscarriage? I know that in Fr. Serpa’s posts he seems to focus on this increased chance of miscarriage as a tolerable side effect.
Click to expand...

Not just miscarriage but also an increased risk of cervical and breast cancer and increased infertility.
 
Ham1 said:
1ke,

I know that you and others have made a case that legitimate medical use of the pill does not meet the standards of double effect. In your view could a medical condition ever be serious enough to warrant taking medication that, as a side effect, increases chances of miscarriage? I know that in Fr. Serpa’s posts he seems to focus on this increased chance of miscarriage as a tolerable side effect.
Click to expand...

My view, my conscience would call me to abstain from sex while on that medication either completely or using the most conservative, post-ovulatory rules of NFP if fertility signs were not obscured by the medication.
 
1ke said:
My view, my conscience would call me to abstain from sex while on that medication either completely or using the most conservative, post-ovulatory rules of NFP if fertility signs were not obscured by the medication.
Click to expand...

Not to sound insensitive but isn’t that worrying too much about an increased chance of miscarriage? I mean, miscarriages happen all the time. It’s part of life. Why would taking a medication that increases that chance be so awful???

A couple of notes…I understand that this is somewhat up to individual conscience and I am not questioning your integrity. Also, I understand that one could make a case that “the pill” is just downright unhealthy no matter what it is being used to treat. Does anyone know if there are other medications designed to treat other medical problems that also have the effect of increased risk of miscarriage? If so, what have theologians traditionally taught as to the morality of such drugs?
 
40.png
Ham1:
Not to sound insensitive but isn’t that worrying too much about an increased chance of miscarriage? I mean, miscarriages happen all the time. It’s part of life. Why would taking a medication that increases that chance be so awful???
Click to expand...
Ham… are you a man?

Not to sound insensitive, but I think only a man would say “it happens all the time” as if a miscarriage is not any big deal… not an emotionally and physically traumatic thing for a woman.

A child who dies is awful when it happens by nature-- but how much moreso at my own hand?

So, as I said, I would not want to put myself or my child in that position.
 
Yes, I’m a man…

And thank you for your response. I understand your position.
 
One face of birth control pills rarely taked about is that reputable doctors and scientist are allarmed at the health hazards unknown when birth control pills were approved.

A female canadian scientist has documented birth defects in fish exposed to birth control chemicals.

The imformation is just now comming out on the internet if you can cut through the lies of the birth control industry.

So it turns out the Popes were scientifically right all along, prophetic.

Brother John
 
1ke,
“Oh PLEASE go” take your own advice. Progestin IS a progesterone.

OCs work by interrupting a complex endocrine cycle, and arresting secondary folicle maturation. Because estrogen-progesterone OCs are started at a precise time during the menses cycle, after the intermediate spongiosa and superficial layers of the uterine lining have been shed, the basal layer is confused by the hormonal disruption and does not finish regenerating the other two layers, thus keeping the uterine lining thin. However, the cervix at this same time is thick and congested, and the cervical mucous is thick and impervious to spermatazoon. OC’s therefore do not thin uterine lining; the increased free progesterone and estrogen levels provide a negative feedback loop to they hypothalmus, inhibiting Gn-RH secretion, thus the pituitary does not release gonadatropins which are needed to stimulate ovulation. IF this 1st step fails, and IF step 2 (the thick cervix/cervical mucous) fails to keep sperm out, (meaning BOTH step 1 and 2 must fail together to allow fertilisation) THEN the highly unlikely embryo should theoretically not implant. HOWEVER, giving the variable 0.2-3% pregnancy rate of estrogen-progesterone combo users, apparently that (as the thinner uterine lining is not an intended effect) thinner uterine lining theory does not necessarily work.
 
PROGESTIN IS synthetic. Progestin should not be used interchangeably with Progesterone, though some health care providers do this.
Because estrogen-progesterone OCs
Click to expand...
OCs DO NOT contain estrogen and progesterone. OCs **CONTAIN **estrogen and PROGESTIN.
OC’s therefore do not thin uterine lining; the increased free progesterone and estrogen levels provide a negative feedback loop to they hypothalmus, inhibiting Gn-RH secretion, thus the pituitary does not release gonadatropins which are needed to stimulate ovulation.
Click to expand...
It is incorrect that OCs do not thin the lining of the uterus. The estrogen component inhibits FSH and LH and the PROGESTIN component inhibits LH, but it isn’t as simple as that. The exogenous estrogen and progestin do act within the reprodutive tract, which is why women have a withdrawal bleed. The endogenous and exongenous estrogen alters “secretions and the cellular structure” within the uterine lining “leading to areas of edem alternating with areas of cellularity”. The PROGESTIN causes a"decidualized" endometrium with “exhausted and atrophied glands”. According to Clinical Gynecologic, Endocrinology, and Infertility by Leon Sperof, Robert Glass, and Nathan Kase, it is the PROGESTIN in the combination pill that “produces an endometrium that is not receptive to ovum implantation”. Managing Contraceptive Pill Patients by Richard Dikey and Contraceptive Technology by Robert A. Hatcher et al also list the change in the lining of the uterus as a meachanism of action.
giving the variable 0.2-3% pregnancy rate of estrogen-progesterone combo users
Click to expand...
Apparently, the primary mechanism of action of combination OCs fails. 🙂
 
I know of a gynocologist, when told someone was precsribed the
pill because of endometriosis, said “that’s like sweeping the
problem under the rug”.
 
40.png
Tiocfaidharla:
OCs work by interrupting a complex endocrine cycle, and arresting secondary folicle maturation. Because estrogen-progesterone OCs are started at a precise time during the menses cycle, after the intermediate spongiosa and superficial layers of the uterine lining have been shed, the basal layer is confused by the hormonal disruption and does not finish regenerating the other two layers, thus keeping the uterine lining thin.
Click to expand...
As someone who has been prescribed them more times than I care to count I will disagree that this is true. They might be intended to be “started at a precise time,” but it just isn’t so. I asked after I had heard this same type of statment. I was told time and again that it was fine to start “whenever.” After later research on my own I discovered that this common practice of “starting whenever” led to ovarian cysts. If it was started as the follicle started to ripen, it caused the ovary to “freeze” in its current state.

I do not know the effect of “starting whenever” on the uterine lining as is being discussed here, but I wanted to be a voice for others like me who didn’t know otherwise. They are NOT started “at precise times.” It is common practice to start whenever. I have 14 years and 2 surgeries experience with this.
 
40.png
steveandersen:
No, because she would be taking it for a valid medical reason and contraception is not the intent.
Click to expand...
Intent alone does not decide the morality of an action. A good intention cannot make an immoral action into a moral one.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
Intent alone does not decide the morality of an action. A good intention cannot make an immoral action into a moral one.

– Mark L. Chance.
Click to expand...
taking medication is not an immoral action if there are valid medical reasons for doing so
 
40.png
LittleDeb:
As someone who has been prescribed them more times than I care to count I will disagree that this is true. They might be intended to be “started at a precise time,” but it just isn’t so. I asked after I had heard this same type of statment. I was told time and again that it was fine to start “whenever.” After later research on my own I discovered that this common practice of “starting whenever” led to ovarian cysts. If it was started as the follicle started to ripen, it caused the ovary to “freeze” in its current state.

I do not know the effect of “starting whenever” on the uterine lining as is being discussed here, but I wanted to be a voice for others like me who didn’t know otherwise. They are NOT started “at precise times.” It is common practice to start whenever. I have 14 years and 2 surgeries experience with this.
Click to expand...
I’ve NEVER heard of starting “whenever” even the instructions say they should be started no more than 6 days past the first day of menses.
 
astegallrnc said:
PROGESTIN IS synthetic. Progestin should not be used interchangeably with Progesterone, though some health care providers do this.

OCs DO NOT contain estrogen and progesterone. OCs **CONTAIN **estrogen and PROGESTIN.

It is incorrect that OCs do not thin the lining of the uterus. The estrogen component inhibits FSH and LH and the PROGESTIN component inhibits LH, but it isn’t as simple as that. The exogenous estrogen and progestin do act within the reprodutive tract, which is why women have a withdrawal bleed. The endogenous and exongenous estrogen alters “secretions and the cellular structure” within the uterine lining “leading to areas of edem alternating with areas of cellularity”. The PROGESTIN causes a"decidualized" endometrium with “exhausted and atrophied glands”. According to Clinical Gynecologic, Endocrinology, and Infertility by Leon Sperof, Robert Glass, and Nathan Kase, it is the PROGESTIN in the combination pill that “produces an endometrium that is not receptive to ovum implantation”. Managing Contraceptive Pill Patients by Richard Dikey and Contraceptive Technology by Robert A. Hatcher et al also list the change in the lining of the uterus as a meachanism of action.

Apparently, the primary mechanism of action of combination OCs fails. 🙂
Click to expand...

oops…I read/answered your PM first. I thought you were referring to your previous post. Anyway…some of this is addressed there. I’ll have to get back to this later though. 🙂
 
40.png
Tiocfaidharla:
I’ve NEVER heard of starting “whenever” even the instructions say they should be started no more than 6 days past the first day of menses.
Click to expand...
It happens. Do a search on the pill and “quick start method”. It is also covered in the books I referenced earlier.
 
40.png
Tiocfaidharla:
oops…I read/answered your PM first. I thought you were referring to your previous post. Anyway…some of this is addressed there. I’ll have to get back to this later though. 🙂
Click to expand...
You should be studying. :tsktsk:

I should not have defined progestin so simply, since there is no consensus on the definition. :o

The pill is certainly a possible abortifacient according to the resources I have read, regradless of how often it occurs.
 
I have a similar problem as the OP’s wife, however, no kids. The doctor I went to see all but screamed at me for denying BC. I told him I didn’t want it and I didn’t like it and he told me I was too young (22??) for such opinions, and that I was being irresponsible. I wrote a huge complaint letter to the college (where the clinic is located). I’d rather suffer through a bad period than take ABC. Yuck.
 
40.png
JCPhoenix:
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.
Click to expand...
Huh? And what if the diagnosis and treatment is a long time coming? It a little unreasonable to ask a married, loving couple to refrain from physical initimacy for that long a time, don’t you think? You really think that’s what God would recommend?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top