Hysterectomy question

[Bookcat]

Good Grief is all I have to say. If this was my dear daughter, I would have campaigned for the hysterectomy without one thought of calling the Paul VI Institute. Nit picking on these forums sometimes gets out of control.

No nit picking at all

If it was my daughter I would answer the same as I have (though as her Father and thus quite personally)

I refer readers to the document from the Church.

 

[Bookcat]

More in depth treatment of some of the principles involved:

Here

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=315

or here

madisoncatholicherald.org/bioethics/363-pacholczyk.html

other

madisoncatholicherald.org/bioethics/3143-pacholczyk.html

 

[Julianna]

Good Grief is all I have to say. If this was my dear daughter, I would have campaigned for the hysterectomy without one thought of calling the Paul VI Institute. Nit picking on these forums sometimes gets out of control.

I had a hysterectomy at 31. I had a fibriod that was out of control. The uterus had to go. I am happy and blessed with the 2 children (now adults) that I have.

If it were my daughter, there would no hesitation.

 

[KrazyKat]

If not sure if sin, or if you know you sinned, go to confession and do not do it again. God is merciful.

 

[manualman]

We’re making it harder than it is, folks.

If the uterus had to go because it posed a health risk OTHER than pregnancy, there is NO moral issue.

If it was removed as a permanent form of contraception, that is not a moral decision.

Since this is an actual case and none of us here knows the full set of facts, it’s not helpful for us to try to pass verdict on the actual case. The OP doesn’t need that, just the principles involved.

 

[Bookcat]

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_31071994_uterine-isolation_en.html

 

[tabycat]

We’re making it harder than it is, folks.

If the uterus had to go because it posed a health risk OTHER than pregnancy, there is NO moral issue.

If it was removed as a permanent form of contraception, that is not a moral decision.

Since this is an actual case and none of us here knows the full set of facts, it’s not helpful for us to try to pass verdict on the actual case. The OP doesn’t need that, just the principles involved.

I agree. To everybody: :grouphug::grouphug::hug3::console: :hug1::

 

[1ke]

We’re making it harder than it is, folks.

If the uterus had to go because it posed a health risk OTHER than pregnancy, there is NO moral issue.

If it was removed as a permanent form of contraception, that is not a moral decision.

Since this is an actual case and none of us here knows the full set of facts, it’s not helpful for us to try to pass verdict on the actual case. The OP doesn’t need that, just the principles involved.

I don’t think anyone has made it harder than it is, it is quite simple:

hysterectomy for diseased uterus: ok
hysterectomy for birth control: not ok

I don’t think anyone was implying anything about the OP’s case one way or another.

 

[freshwind]

this is an interesting situation, and i am constantly amazed that so many questions like this are answered by folks not involved as a black and white answer…much of life, and situations such as these are grey

i have had some experience with a somewhat similar circumstance

when my wife was pregnant with our 2nd she had some difficulty at the birth and after, her uterus had somehow been messed up, the exact words escape me after her difficulty in the birth but were along the lines of “your son is perfectly fime but i am afraid you cannot get pregnant again, the uterus is messed up and will not accept a fertilized egg”

she had always had problems and health issues related to her period

we continued on normally, happy our 2 sons were healthy and practiced nfp still

as time went on we pushed the envelope a bit with the doctor’s words"you will not be able to get pregnant again" and he seemed to be correct…flash forward a bit, and guess what, she got pregnant, and we had twins…not without a rough pregnancy and such

after this she had all kinds of problems afterwards and she continued to see the doctor
the doctor suggested a hysterectomy since there was nothing they could do to assist her in relieving pain or making her comfortable

she did what i think was a responsible thing to do, she went to our priest and went through the entire scenario with him…he said that you have 4 children under 5 that are your responsibility, this is being done for your health and to allow you to be a full time mother to your 4 children…go, have your surgery, and go home to your family

this was not, and should not be an easy decision, i am sure there would be people that would say she was wrong, but there is always some grey areas and maybe even some priests who would give incorrect advice…all we can do is seek the counsel of our pastors, do our best to understand the teachings, and then our best to follow them…we will err, we will stumble, but i do not believe God asks for perfection, just honest effort

 

[1ke]

this is an interesting situation, and i am constantly amazed that so many questions like this are answered by folks not involved as a black and white answer…much of life, and situations such as these are grey

I am constantly amazed that people try to make “gray” what is not gray.

after this she had all kinds of problems afterwards and she continued to see the doctor the doctor suggested a hysterectomy since there was nothing they could do to assist her in relieving pain or making her comfortable

Which is perfectly licit.

i am sure there would be people that would say she was wrong, but there is always some grey areas

It is not a gray area and the Church is very clear that when a hysterectomy is medically indicated it is a legitimate treatment, no moral problem at all. So, I don’t know why you think anyone would say it was wrong or why you believe it is a “gray” area.

 

[Listener]

I have no idea why we are even discussing this. It says that the baby came out of the top of her uterus, like the uterus literally blew apart in this woman’s stomach! Why would anyone want to keep a uterus like that? It seems to me that it could cause all kinds of problems, like internal bleeding.

Back in the 1950’s, a lot of women (including Catholic women) had hysterectomies because I think it was the only option they had. The current thinking is to keep your uterus as long as possible, going on the pill if necessary. If this doctor just wanted her to have some birth control, he would have tied her tubes. I think that any doctor who removes a woman’s uterus these days has a really good medical reason for doing it.

Anyway, it is done now. What is the point of wondering if it was right or wrong? What’s done is done, and there is no doctor who can put her uterus back where it came from. If this woman is worried about it, she could mention it to her priest in confession

I think we would all be better off if we used a little prudential judgment in these cases. I’m sure that this woman has been through hell, and she needs empathy rather than judgment.

As for everyone else, it is simply none of their business.

 

[Personanongrata]

Good Grief is all I have to say. If this was my dear daughter, I would have campaigned for the hysterectomy without one thought of calling the Paul VI Institute. Nit picking on these forums sometimes gets out of control.

Ditto!! The daughter was wise to listen to her doctor and not risk her life. Nit picking has no place in these decisions.

 

[KrazyKat]

Ditto!! The daughter was wise to listen to her doctor and not risk her life. Nit picking has no place in these decisions.

Amen to that.

 

[1ke]

Ditto!! The daughter was wise to listen to her doctor and not risk her life. Nit picking has no place in these decisions.

Can you point out the post that suggested anyone should riskt their life? And which post was nit picking? I cannot seem to find those posts.

 

[1Reader1]

I apologize for all the negative discussion this question caused. I wish my wording was clearer. Her hysterectomy was recommended by her physicians for both the issues that she faced that were caused by her damaged uterus and the fact that if a pregnancy happened the doctors did not believe she could carry the baby w/out a severe rupture.
If you look at my profile, I am listed as Methodist. I was Catholic, was married in the Catholic church, and my children were baptised. I had many reasons for leaving the church and have in the past few years been studying and praying about returning.
Thank you for all the insight you provided.

 

[underacloud]

I apologize for all the negative discussion this question caused. I wish my wording was clearer. Her hysterectomy was recommended by her physicians for both the issues that she faced that were caused by her damaged uterus and the fact that if a pregnancy happened the doctors did not believe she could carry the baby w/out a severe rupture.
If you look at my profile, I am listed as Methodist. I was Catholic, was married in the Catholic church, and my children were baptised. I had many reasons for leaving the church and have in the past few years been studying and praying about returning.
Thank you for all the insight you provided.

No need to apologise, it is an important question and a beneficial discussion.

As noted and discussed in the documents cited (by 1ke and bookcat), there are morally acceptable reasons for this procedure and morally unacceptable reasons. In this case, your daughter had both reasons, which is why it is a little confusing. Which reason is relevant, or which do we judge the act by?

I think Listener has provided a good way of clarifying this. If it was purely for the sake of contraception/sterilisation, a tubal ligation would presumably have been chosen (and would have been objectively immoral). Yet a hysterectomy was chosen, which strongly suggests that it was indeed a medical necessity, apart from sterilisation, and thus morally acceptable.

If the woman remains concerned, a discussion/confession with her priest will help set her mind at ease. Even if there was some sin at the time (which there probably wasn’t), God is always eager to forgive.

 

[Bookcat]

Yet a hysterectomy was chosen, which strongly suggests that it was indeed a medical necessity, apart from sterilisation, and thus morally acceptable.

Can there be moral medical reasons for a hysterectomy? Yes certainly. But it is very important to read the document noted for the very reason why such a document had to be issued is that there are also “medical reasons” stated that are not moral for such a procedure. For some of them are “contraceptive” as a means. Where as moral medical reasons such as the uterus is cancerous etc are not. I note this for readers of this thread for it is searchable by search engines. Those facing such terrible difficulties would do well to consult some of the experts -the* National Catholic Bioethics center*.

To the OP – we certainly hope you will find your way back into full communion with the Church. As a convert I remember life without the Sacraments -and now love so much the life I have so abundantly. May Jesus fill you with great love and joy always.

 

[underacloud]

Can there be moral medical reasons for a hysterectomy? Yes certainly. But it is very important to read the document noted for the very reason why such a document had to be issued is that there are also “medical reasons” stated that are not moral for such a procedure. For some of them are “contraceptive” as a means. Where as moral medical reasons such as the uterus is cancerous etc are not. I note this for readers of this thread for it is searchable by search engines. Those facing such terrible difficulties would do well to consult some of the experts -the* National Catholic Bioethics center*.

Um, yes…isn’t that exactly what I said?!

“a medical necessity, apart from sterilisation”

I understand the principles clearly and thought I had expressed myself clearly, but perhaps not.

Also note I said “suggests”…only the woman and her doctor really know what their intentions were in this scenario (to treat a medical condition or to perform a sterlisation) and likely the doctor will know moreso than the woman. To say that it was for both reasons causes much moral confusion. But to repeat the comment, hopefully clearly: if contraception/sterilisation was the intended means to treat the medical issues, surely a tubal ligation would be the norm here. The recourse to hysterectomy strongly suggests another medical basis, apart from sterilisation. But again, I only say “suggests”.

 

[Bookcat]

Um, yes…isn’t that exactly what I said?!

“a medical necessity, apart from sterilisation”

I understand the principles clearly and thought I had expressed myself clearly, but perhaps not.

Also note I said “suggests”…only the woman and her doctor really know what their intentions were in this scenario (to treat a medical condition or to perform a sterlisation) and likely the doctor will know moreso than the woman. To say that it was for both reasons causes much moral confusion. But to repeat the comment, hopefully clearly: if contraception/sterilisation was the intended means to treat the medical issues, surely a tubal ligation would be the norm here. The recourse to hysterectomy strongly suggests another medical basis, apart from sterilisation. But again, I only say “suggests”.

Yes I understood what you meant…but let me again note that the Church had to clarify when one could not do hysterectomy’s --why? Cause they where being done for reasons that are not moral (under the argument that they were indirect and for medical reasons–where as the Church noted that they where direct actually…) as well as for those that are.

Anyhow the point is that readers should reference the document above about such Where it gives very precise information of where one can and cannot do so.

 

[underacloud]

Yes I understood what you meant…but let me again note that the Church had to clarify when one could not do hysterectomy’s --why? Cause they where being done for reasons that are not moral (under the argument that they were indirect and for medical reasons–where as the Church noted that they where direct actually…) as well as for those that are.

Anyhow the point is that readers should reference the document above about such Where it gives very precise information of where one can and cannot do so.

Yes, that’s very true. I think medically things have evolved, as Listener was noting, where hysterectomy used to be a common sterilisation procedure, but more commonly replaced with tubal ligation. I suppose hysterectomy could still be chosen under the pretense of there being a genuine medical condition other than the intent of sterilization; as always with double effect, a good degree of self-awareness and self-honesty is required to determine what intentions are at play.

Certainly, the document cited describes the specifics in good detail. A difficult scenario for anyone to face, but the principles themselves are clearly addressed.