Girlfriend on Contraceptive Pills for Medical Reasons

[lifeisbeautiful]

A couple of things:

1. If you are sexually active, then you would need to stop until you are married and that would solve any worry of pregnancy, and if you are not sexually active, then, other than any normal side effects of the pill, you don’t have to worry about anything until you decide you want to marry and then you guys can go from there.
2. Morally speaking, and assuming she is on CP’s, if the CP’s are being used as a medication to treat something (I am not sure if they are ever used for seizures, maybe she has another condition?) then the Church teaches it is ok to use them because of the principle of double effect that says that it can be done, if, among other things, the reason to do so is proportionally grave (the positive effects outweigh the unintended negative effects). Now, if the CP’s are being used so that she does not get pregnant while on her seizure medication, that would mean that they are being used as contraceptives, and that would not be morally ok.

So… using CP’s to treat something can be ok, using CP’s to avoid pregnancy because of another treatment is never ok.

ETA: Aside from the fact that it is against forum rules, it would definitely be awful for you to try to persuade your gf about changing her seizure treatment based on the opinion people on an internet forum (especially one that has nothing to do with seizures!)… Seizure patients can be very sensitive to any changes in medication, so it makes sense that her parents and possibly her doctor would be opposed to any suggested changes once they find a combo that works.

ETA II: I wanted to welcome you to the Church!!! And congratulate you for taking your Faith so seriously and for your concern regarding unborn children and contraception!!!

 

[1ke]

In most cases unless they are married, her doctors are not gonna tell him anything due to hippa and patient confidentiality laws.

She can give permission, and as I stated before they need to sit down with the doctor TOGETHER, which they certainly can do if she gives permission.

 

[Almost]

Sorry if I didn’t state this: I intend to marry her (if things like this will work out). It is my place because I’m assuming we’d have sex together. We have not had sex.

I’ve known her seizure issue early on but I’m not entirely sure if she had been aware of some issues for as long, not to mention I swallowed the stupid Protestant trend regarding contraception and also didn’t understand it’s problems/failure as well beforehand. She is an introverted person and I think it makes her uncomfortable in that these problems are highlighted and they reflect on her.

Another issue is that even if we aren’t meant to get married… Her family is Mormon (although nominal) and she now believes in the Christian God, Christ, “got saved,” etc. She hasn’t been Baptized… It seems like the children would be raised Catholic and she would get baptized. Since I travel to see her and her family (while one could reasonably question if this works, it does in this case) if we end it I fear I’d lose any meaningful connection to her family. She’s not spiritually prepared enough for their benefit, not to mention I’m worried for her keeping the faith without the effect of baptism.

 

[Almost]

It’s not just the loss of a fertilized egg that is of concern, but also birth abnormalities.

Correct. So what about our sex life? Isn’t there like a decent chance to become pregnant while on the pill anyway?

I’m guessing to be on the pill for medical reasons and having sex is not to withhold procreation whereas taking it to not have children would be. Even so, I’m not sure.

My wife is using a very low dosage pill (for ovarian cysts) that the doctor said would not cause a failure to implant…

I think she is using low dose but whoever talked about birth defects had it correct. I hear there is a certain probability of still conceiving and I wouldn’t want to hurt the child. Chastity in marriage until she can get weened off to get pregnant doesn’t seem to be serious option to her, at least at the moment but I’m willing. Her father doesn’t take this seriously and says it isn’t good for couples not to have sex. I agreed in general but this is not the normal circumstance.

 

[Irishmom2]

I’m guessing to be on the pill for medical reasons and having sex is not to withhold procreation whereas taking it to not have children would be. Even so, I’m not sure.

I think she is using low dose but whoever talked about birth defects had it correct. I hear there is a certain probability of still conceiving and I wouldn’t want to hurt the child. Chastity in marriage until she can get weened off to get pregnant doesn’t seem to be serious option to her, at least at the moment but I’m willing. Her father doesn’t take this seriously and says it isn’t good for couples not to have sex.

So…neither of you are even Catholic at this point. It sounds like you need more medical help understanding things than anything else at this point. Medical advice is against forum rules. Perhaps you can consult a health professional to get answers.

My other comment is that her father really seems to be too involved in any of this discussion for him to make the comment in bold above. This is something that you and your girlfriend need to work out without her parents. That is what you will need to do once and if you are married. It seems like a good thing to get started on even now.

 

[Kelfa28]

Correct. So what about our sex life? Isn’t there like a decent chance to become pregnant while on the pill anyway?

I’m guessing to be on the pill for medical reasons and having sex is not to withhold procreation whereas taking it to not have children would be. Even so, I’m not sure.

I think she is using low dose but whoever talked about birth defects had it correct. I hear there is a certain probability of still conceiving and I wouldn’t want to hurt the child. Chastity in marriage until she can get weened off to get pregnant doesn’t seem to be serious option to her, at least at the moment but I’m willing. Her father doesn’t take this seriously and says it isn’t good for couples not to have sex. I agreed in general but this is not the normal circumstance.

If she takes the pill exactly as prescribed and doesn’t miss a day and she is on the regular form of the pill and not the mini-pill…then the chances of her getting pregnant are small. I would definitely say there is NOT a “decent chance” she could get pregnant.

Sure, we all know someone who has gotten pregnant while on the pill. My best friend did. But there is still a reason why it’s so highly prescribed to prevent pregnancy. The vast majority of the time…it does work…if it’s used the way it’s prescribed.
I was on the pill on and off for 8 years. I never got pregnant while on it.
The mini-pill seems to have a much higher rate of failure. I’m not sure exactly what the failure rate is…but I’ve heard you are much more likely to become pregnant then using the regular pill.

Not that I’m advocating the use of the pill. I hated being on the pill and was researching secular forms of NFP well before I converted.

 

[JackieMom]

Correct. So what about our sex life? Isn’t there like a decent chance to become pregnant while on the pill anyway?

I’m guessing to be on the pill for medical reasons and having sex is not to withhold procreation whereas taking it to not have children would be. Even so, I’m not sure.

I think she is using low dose but whoever talked about birth defects had it correct. I hear there is a certain probability of still conceiving and I wouldn’t want to hurt the child. Chastity in marriage until she can get weened off to get pregnant doesn’t seem to be serious option to her, at least at the moment but I’m willing. Her father doesn’t take this seriously and says it isn’t good for couples not to have sex. I agreed in general but this is not the normal circumstance.

Birth control pills don’t cause birth defects. Maybe one of her other meds does. In situations where a highly tetarogenic medication is used in childbearing-age women (i.e. Accutane), birth control is often concurrently Rx’d to prevent an unfortunate situation. And no, there is not a “decent” chance of conceiving while taking birth control pills exactly as prescribed. The chance is exceedingly tiny. There is no evidence that birth control pills cause the loss of blastocysts, either, although some have theorized that it is possible.

If your future wife has epilepsy, she may not ever be free of medication. One can not simply “wean” to become pregnant when it comes to seizure disorders.

And if you are not willing to consummate your marriage, then you should not marry.

 

[Almost]

Jackie,

It seems it is the other medication. She is also taking “lower dose” contraception as I know. If I’m remembering correctly, her parents told me she would get off of the medication for like a year before. I’m assuming this was discussed with the doctor to begin with.

I’m willing to consummate marriage so long as I’m not going to cause a child to die and I’d prefer to not cause health problems for a child if I can prevent it. Especially in the case (as I understood it, although I could be wrong) when she gets off the medication for a period to become pregnant.

I’m also not entirely sure as to what extent the child’s deformation could occur at this point.

 

[JackieMom]

Jackie,

It seems it is the other medication. She is also taking “lower dose” contraception as I know. If I’m remembering correctly, her parents told me she would get off of the medication for like a year before. I’m assuming this was discussed with the doctor to begin with.

I’m willing to consummate marriage so long as I’m not going to cause a child to die and I’d prefer to not cause health problems for a child if I can prevent it. Especially in the case (as I understood it, although I could be wrong) when she gets off the medication for a period to become pregnant.

I’m also not entirely sure as to what extent the child’s deformation could occur at this point.

All birth control pills are lower dose these days. There is a “mini pill” that is progestin only that is less effective anti-ovulation wise than regular dual ingredient pills, but everything is low dose.

If she can afford to quit the meds for a year, why is she even on them? The med you mentioned, Keppra, is category C for pregnancy. Not ideal, but not the worst either.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Correct. So what about our sex life? Isn’t there like a decent chance to become pregnant while on the pill anyway?

The pill acts to inhibit ovulation, and the chances of getting pregnant are generally very, very slim if used as prescribed.

I’m guessing to be on the pill for medical reasons and having sex is not to withhold procreation whereas taking it to not have children would be. Even so, I’m not sure.

This is correct. The principle of double effect applies. If the pill is being used to treat a medical condition, it is allowed. In this case, calling it a “Birth Control Pill” (BCP) is actually improper, since controlling birth is not its primary function. The fact that it also inhibits ovulation is simply a side effect.

I’m curious as to why she is taking this. Are BCPs used to treat seizures, or are we missing part of the story???

 

[Almost]

Thank you for mentioning the Principle of double effect–I’m not really familiar with it. I’ll look up more on it. Then does it merely reduce to intent as far as being open to life and it not being used to specifically contracept? Can you point me to more reading by Catholic authority on the issue?

 

[Bruised_Reed]

Is the pill being prescribed to prevent pregnancy due to another prescription that causes birth defects? I don’t think double effect can be applied to this. Does someone know for certain?

As far as sex after marriage I don’t think anyone has mentioned NFP yet.

 

[Almost]

Bruised,

It is used for another health issue. How would I formulate acceptability in terms of double effect? NFP would, I think, leave the problem intact.

 

[EasterJoy]

Bruised,

It is used for another health issue. How would I formulate acceptability in terms of double effect? NFP would, I think, leave the problem intact.

Right. Either the medication is moral because it is deemed necessary to treat another condition whose seriousness makes its unintended side effects acceptable, including the side effect of reduced fertility (because of the damage or unnecessary distress that would be caused by a less effective treatment) or it is not moral because the course of treatment was chosen at least partly* in order* to obtain the contraceptive effect. If you are married, you wouldn’t take a medication with a contraceptive side effect to treat a minor ailment. If you’re not married, the contraceptive side effect is less important, essentially only in the context of how your overall health and lifelong fertility would be affected. (Sure, I could think of other reasons, but it is not the fertility of the imagination that we’re interested in at present.)

For instance, let us say that, heaven forbid, you were afflicted with a cancer that required a chemotherapy that often has the effect of ruining your fertility for the rest of your life. You would choose the treatment that had the greatest chance of saving your life. If you were having seizures, you could accept a seizure drug that would be expected to destroy the patient’s fertility if there wasn’t a good alternative. You wouldn’t have to tolerate seizures and all the restrictions you’d have to put onto yourself in order to preserve your fertility. You might choose to do so, but it would be morally permissible to accept the treatment that damaged your fertility as an unintended side effect. If your medical condition were something like male-pattern baldness, that’s not something that would keep you from the normal activities of daily life or cause undue suffering, so you would avoid a treatment that ruined fertility for something like that.

Besides, if a woman is taking a pill that suppresses ovulation, she’s not going to ever have a “fertile” phase. This makes the question of NFP entirely moot.

 

[Almost]

So that makes sex acceptable? So if the woman was open to procreation but must take it because of the health issue overall, then it’s OK?

Theoretically what if she was taking it because she wanted to control her pregnancy as well? Where would that leave me if I was against that? Would sex not be wrong on my part?

 

[JackieMom]

So that makes sex acceptable? So if the woman was open to procreation but must take it because of the health issue overall, then it’s OK?

Theoretically what if she was taking it because she wanted to control her pregnancy as well? Where would that leave me if I was against that? Would sex not be wrong on my part?

If she takes hormones to manage a legitimate health problem, and as a consequence ovulation is inhibited, then The Church says she does not have to abstain. Anovulation is an unintended side effect. If she is taking them just because she wants to be temporarily infertile, then the usage is not justifiable. If she takes them for a legitimate medical problem and happens to be a little bit happy about the side-effect of infertility, she should hadh that issue out with a priest or deacon.

If she insists on using contraception despite your strong opposition and attempts to sway her away from it, you are not obligated to withold sex. It becomes her sin, not yours. However, if you already know this is an issue before marriage, it needs to be settled before a wedding is planned.

 

[EasterJoy]

So that makes sex acceptable? So if the woman was open to procreation but must take it because of the health issue overall, then it’s OK?

Theoretically what if she was taking it because she wanted to control her pregnancy as well? Where would that leave me if I was against that? Would sex not be wrong on my part?

It is OK, if infertility is an unintended side effect. Emotions about whether this is a relief or a burden aren’t all that important, provided the person is certain that the treatment would be necessary and would be chosen over other possibilities even if infertility were not a side effect, but rather some other unfortunate side effect that was not wanted. (Well, it is important if a person is more interested in pleasing themselves than in pleasing God; I mean the person felt the same kind of relief that God hadn’t chosen to ask something difficult of them instead of what they had hoped God would ask them to do. If, for instance, someone feels a relief that they aren’t called to be a priest, that isn’t a sin, per se, even if it would be better to get one’s happiness from knowing that one is following God’s will.)

Let us say, however, that your wife decides to take contraceptives with no medical reason, only a desire to avoid pregnancy. It would be your moral duty to try to dissuade her from that in whatever ways might have the a reasonable chance of changing her mind. You would not be bound to avoid sexual relations, and you would not be required to try to dissuade her in ways that a reasonable person might see would only anger her or harden her in her choice.

 

[1ke]

So that makes sex acceptable? So if the woman was open to procreation but must take it because of the health issue overall, then it’s OK?

No, not because of a health issue “overall” or to prevent pregnancy because of a health issue.

It is morally licit to take hormonal pills if it is to directly treat a medical problem.

Theoretically what if she was taking it because she wanted to control her pregnancy as well? Where would that leave me if I was against that? Would sex not be wrong on my part?

Since you are not yet married, you would be called to reconsider marrying if you know your intended spouse intends to contracept. You are correct, you cannot condone or participate in it, and since you are not yet married I would say that you would be called to avoid putting yourself in such a situation.

You could not claim to be an innocent spouse in this case, with prior knowledge of her plan to contracept. This is different than a person who is already married and whose spouse begins contracepting against their will.

You would definitely need to consult your pastor.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, not because of a health issue “overall” or to prevent pregnancy because of a health issue.

It is morally licit to take hormonal pills if it is to directly treat a medical problem.

Since you are not yet married, you would be called to reconsider marrying if you know your intended spouse intends to contracept. You are correct, you cannot condone or participate in it, and since you are not yet married I would say that you would be called to avoid putting yourself in such a situation.

You could not claim to be an innocent spouse in this case, with prior knowledge of her plan to contracept. This is different than a person who is already married and whose spouse begins contracepting against their will.

You would definitely need to consult your pastor.

To clarify, though: The OP could not claim to be the innocent spouse if his fiancé intended to contracept. That is not necessarily the case here, since for all we know the contraceptive side effect had nothing to do with her reason for accepting hormones as a treatment for her condition.

She is not even morally culpable if she accepts treatment with a contraceptive effect when she did not accept it for the reason that it would provide that effect, correct? In other words, as long as she would accept an acceptable treatment with no contraceptive effect if it were available and as long as her condition is serious enough to make the unintended contraceptive effect tolerable, the OP would be in no way culpable for marrying her even though she was accepting treatment with a side effect known to affect her fertility.

I’m asking this: Is it right to say it would be an intention on her part to accept the prospect of using of contraceptives with the primary intention of using them to avoid the procreative or unitive aspect of the marital act that would render her intention to marry defective and that defective consent that would in turn require the OP to refrain from entering into an attempt at marriage which he knew in advance was defective in intention. IOW, it is not that he may not marry someone who intends to sin, but that he may not enter into a marriage he knows in advance will be defective. Is that correct?

 

[1ke]

To clarify, though: The OP could not claim to be the innocent spouse if his fiancé intended to contracept. That is not necessarily the case here, since for all we know the contraceptive side effect had nothing to do with her reason for accepting hormones as a treatment for her condition.

I was answering the specific question he asked, which was… what if she intends to use the Pill to prevent pregnancy.

I’m asking this: Is it right to say it would be an intention on her part to accept the prospect of using of contraceptives with the primary intention of using them to avoid the procreative or unitive aspect of the marital act that would render her intention to marry defective

It would not necessarily create a defect of intent. A permanent intention againt children does so.

and that defective consent that would in turn require the OP to refrain from entering into an attempt at marriage which he knew in advance was defective in intention. IOW, it is not that he may not marry someone who intends to sin, but that he may not enter into a marriage he knows in advance will be defective. Is that correct?

While he certainly cannot enter into a marriage knowing it had a defect of consent or intent, no that is not what I was talking about. I was talking about going into a marriage knowing the spouse intended to commit ongoing, grave acts vis-a-vis the marital embrace.