H.I.V. + Spouse and marital duties

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rubee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Rubee

Guest
Continuing the discussion from Contraception in Africa: PS: It was closed I think because some people turned it into a flame war, so PLEASE do not do this here at all. If that was not the reason, then I apologize (to the mods) and please feel free to close this one as well.
Cecilia_Dympna said:
I think the argument is more about if one spouse has HIV, t’other spouse is banned from using a condom to protect themself.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree that’s problematic on its face but I still have massive incredulity about this being the cause of infection rates in any statistically relevant way. If these people are obedient enough not to use contraceptives, they will also be obedient enough not to willfully violet the law of charity and endanger the life of their spouse. Abstaining from sex is not impossible for believers, believe it or not. I also think a person who decides to go ahead and infect their spouse is not going to be worried about condom use.
 
Last edited:
If an infected spouse is taking antiretroviral medication for the HIV so that they are undetectable, then it is possible to have sexual intercourse without a condom since the possibility of infection is extremely small. If the uninfected spouse also takes an antiretroviral, it is even safer. There are a number of cases of serodiscordant couples who wanted to have children and this has been found to be very safe.
 
Last edited:
Really? That is interesting. I have never heard of this. Thank you for the information. If you have a link where I could read this further, that’d be great. I know a person who just found out they were infected and are very distraught that their dreams of becoming parents have just gone up in smoke.
 
Here’s one article I found:
Now a new way of using anti-HIV drugs called PrEP - normally given to people who are HIV positive - could potentially mean couples could try and conceive risk-free.

Dr Nelly Mugo from the Kenya Medical Research Institute in Nairobi and a team from Washington University have been running a trial.

"The Partners PrEP study took over 4,700 couples, one of whom had HIV, and one who didn’t. The person who wasn’t infected took PrEP over the course of 36 months.

"We found that having the drug in your system reduced the rate of transmission by over 90%.

“If the positive partner was also taking antiretroviral drugs, the risk of transmission would reduce to zero or close to zero”
Click to expand...
 
Forgive me, @Thorolfr, (I don’t know if you’re a doctor or researcher) but are ARVs (anti-retrovirals) harmful in any way (side effects)? I am thinking here that this might possibly lead to some form of vaccine down the line that makes it impossible to contract H.I.V. I mean wow…90% success rate is crazy positive!
 
Last edited:
I don’t think so. Annulment would require something like deception. You can’t reveal you’re infected if you don’t know you are.
 
Start said:
Why would you marry someone that has a disease?
Click to expand...
True love… and true “dedication of life” which does not depend on sex alone.
Besides, it’s a charity in and of itself.

“Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (Jhn 15:13)
This verse has a great depth than just the literal meaning, obviously.
 
Some people just won’t abstinence as an answer so
I’m trying to find something else out.
 
I think only a saint could do this, personally. I would find different explanations for how one person alone could be infected in a marriage.
 
Last edited:
Last I remember reading Tenofovir, the active drug in the Truvada cocktail used in PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) carries with it an increased incidence of kidney failure and liver cancer. These appear decades and decades later such that the benefit obtained by remaining HIV negative outweighs their risk. If I were a Sub-Saharan African woman I’d much rather live to see 70 and die of liver cancer than die at 40 of AIDS.
 
“Old age” is a euphemism for dying of some disease that we never had to worry about back in the day because we’d die decades before it would ever arise: usually cancer. Chances are you’re still going to die of cancer, though not necessarily liver cancer, and you will have gambled away your immortal soul in the process by engaging in behavior that is intrinsically evil. You’d also die childless.
 
JMMJ said:
I don’t agree with the Church’s teachings on birth control.
Click to expand...
I assumed we were talking about Catholics in Africa who are trying to live in accord with their faith, not individuals who don’t believe in what the Church teaches.
I certainly don’t believe with the Church’s stance on the HIV epedemic.
Click to expand...
The Church has a stance on the HIV epidemic? What is that?
So I wouldn’t dare to judge the soul of another that way.
Click to expand...
Oh I’m not judging the state of another’s soul. I’m pointing out the objective fact that a Catholic who engages in such behavior is gambling with their immortal soul, which is the case whenever anyone engages in behavior that is intrinsically evil. They may be excused from culpability due to ignorance or an attenuated consent of the will, or if still culpable and die without prior sacramental absolution may still be saved with a perfect act of contrition, but they’re still objectively risking Hellfire.
 
What about the negative partner using PREPs? They’ve got pretty good efficacy, in combination with the positive partner being on ARVs that would be a near negligible risk. Adding barrier protection would definitely be advisable but I know it would break your religions rules.
 
I would say that love forbids the infected spouse from demanding sex, but the uninfected spouse is free to agree to sex. Furthermore, even without pre-exposure prophylaxis, the risk of transmission during vaginal intercourse between an otherwise healthy couple is very low, and the PREP drugs make transmission even more unlikely. I raised a similar question a few years back, except in the scenario I proposed, the HIV+ spouse was not otherwise healthy, but rather riddled with opportunistic infections, while the HIV- spouse was battling cancer.
 
Last edited:
Thorolfr said:
If an infected spouse is taking antiretroviral medication for the HIV so that they are undetectable, then it is possible to have sexual intercourse without a condom since the possibility of infection is extremely small. If the uninfected spouse also takes an antiretroviral, it is even safer. There are a number of cases of serodiscordant couples who wanted to have children and this has been found to be very safe.
Click to expand...
Learn something new every day. Good stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top