Hysterectomy

[tjm190]

There is no “might” about it. Direct sterilization (i.e. getting a hysterectomy to prevent a future pregnancy) is a mortal sin against the sixth commandment. It’s not an opinion.

A hysterectomy for a reason *other than *direct sterlization is not a mortal sin, or a sin at all. Also Church teaching, not an opinion.

The organ is broken and is now much more likely to cause her harm than it is to its job- the Catholic Church’s opposition to sterilization is that it ‘breaks’ a functioning bodily process. This clearly does not apply to her.

 

[1ke]

The organ is broken and is now much more likely to cause her harm than it is to its job- the Catholic Church’s opposition to sterilization is that it ‘breaks’ a functioning bodily process. This clearly does not apply to her.

A hysterectomy is only considered licit when it is presenting an *immediate *danger to the woman. The OP has not indicated that her uterus is *currently *causing any problem at all.

See the following document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It covers this point explicitly:

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

 

[Julianna]

There is no “might” about it. Direct sterilization (i.e. getting a hysterectomy to prevent a future pregnancy) is a mortal sin against the sixth commandment. It’s not an opinion.

A hysterectomy for a reason *other than *direct sterlization is not a mortal sin, or a sin at all. Also Church teaching, not an opinion.

You missed the point. To risk a pregnancy with a failing uterus is “risking an innocent life” (ie. the child) not to mention your own. If the doctor tells you “the uterus cannot take another pregnancy”…get a second opinion…if that doctor says the same…get a hysterectomy. A doctor in his/her right mind would not do a hysterectomy because a patient doesn’t want more children.

Don’t play russian roulette with your life.

 

[JohnCS]

The organ is broken and is now much more likely to cause her harm than it is to its job- the Catholic Church’s opposition to sterilization is that it ‘breaks’ a functioning bodily process. This clearly does not apply to her.

I say this with compassion and all charity, but I think the advice to get a hysterectomy is bad advice and here is why. Medical procedures like this can be done to save your life or prevent poor health. If I am reading the post correctly, the OP’s uterous is fine where it is unless she gets pregnant again. So, the dilema isn’t sterilization or death/sickness, it is sterilization or NFP/ Chastity. OP states quite clearly she does not think she is strong enough to do NFP for the next 15 years or so… it is the fear of her weakness that is tempting the procedure, not the threat of life or health. The truth is that there are is another option. Others who can not live a sexual life according to God’s plan IE people with SSA, are asked to stay celibate, why should this situation be different? I understand that this type of thing is hard for a married couple and can be a strain, but with God’s help all things are possible. The Blessed Mother and her Most Chaste Spouse did it, probalby by turning all of their attention to her Son (God) I suggest that the OP try that before going against Christ’s Church’s teachings. You are in my prayers what ever you decide. God bless.

 

[Julianna]

A hysterectomy is only considered licit when it is presenting an *immediate *danger to the woman. The OP has not indicated that her uterus is *currently *causing any problem at all.

See the following document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It covers this point explicitly:

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

I guess you missed this part from the OP:

*My risks are not even close to your risks of having foot surgery. I have had 4 c-sections, uterine infection, asherman’s, placenta previa, placenta accretia, succuriant placenta lobe, 4 D&C’s and pre-eclampsia. My risks are VERY real!
*

Four C sections is a warning flag…placenta previa is very dangerous…been there…done that. Cutting into the uterus over and over again is not a good idea. It is apparant that the OP’s doctor has told her this. Having lost alot of blood…is of great concern. It is taxing her body and you can’t read from her words that she is in emotional turmoil? What good is she going to be to her children that are already here if she isn’t?

 

[1ke]

You missed the point.

Nope. I am not missing the point. I am indicating that you are incorrect in your advice, as it is in contradiction to the moral teaching of the Church.

To risk a pregnancy with a failing uterus is “risking an innocent life” (ie. the child) not to mention your own.

In such a case, a person would be prudent to avoid pregnancy. They may do so through natural family planning.

If the doctor tells you “the uterus cannot take another pregnancy”…get a second opinion…if that doctor says the same…get a hysterectomy.

The OP asked if having a hysterectomy for the purpose of avoiding a future pregnancy is a moral option in Catholic moral teaching. The answer is: no. A hysterectomy for the purpose of preventing a future pregnancy is NOT moral. Ever. Neither is a hysterectomy when the uterus is not posing an immediate threat to the woman. See this teaching of the Magesterium:

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…lation_en.html

A person can avoid a future pregnancy using *moral *means, natural family planning.

Don’t play russian roulette with your life.

A prudent person would not play Russian roulette with either their earthly life or their *eternal *life. Mortal sin puts one in far greater jeopardy than losing earthly life.

A prudent person would take care of both their earthly life AND their eternal life by choosing methods of avoiding future pregnancies that do not offend God.

 

[1ke]

I guess you missed this part from the OP:

*My risks are not even close to your risks of having foot surgery. I have had 4 c-sections, uterine infection, asherman’s, placenta previa, placenta accretia, succuriant placenta lobe, 4 D&C’s and pre-eclampsia. My risks are VERY real!
*

Four C sections is a warning flag…placenta previa is very dangerous…been there…done that. Cutting into the uterus over and over again is not a good idea. It is apparant that the OP’s doctor has told her this. Having lost alot of blood…is of great concern. It is taxing her body and you can’t read from her words that she is in emotional turmoil? What good is she going to be to her children that are already here if she isn’t?

I did not miss anything.

She is currently not in any danger at all. Her uterus is not endangering her in any way. There is no immediate threat.

It would, indeed, be prudent to avoid future pregnancies that could imperil her uterus. She may do so through moral means of natural family planning. She may not do so via a hysterectomy.

 

[tjm190]

A hysterectomy is only considered licit when it is presenting an *immediate *danger to the woman. The OP has not indicated that her uterus is *currently *causing any problem at all.

See the following document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It covers this point explicitly:

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

Oh, so since my wisdom teeth weren’t already causing problems getting them removed was sinful? Does this apply to all other organs that are far more likely to do harm than good?
The explanation given in the link commits a clear error- the purpose of removing the uterus is not to prevent conception, it is to prevent the uterus from killing the mother and any potential unborn children.

 

[JohnCS]

I guess you missed this part from the OP:

*My risks are not even close to your risks of having foot surgery. I have had 4 c-sections, uterine infection, asherman’s, placenta previa, placenta accretia, succuriant placenta lobe, 4 D&C’s and pre-eclampsia. My risks are VERY real!
*

Four C sections is a warning flag…placenta previa is very dangerous…been there…done that. Cutting into the uterus over and over again is not a good idea. It is apparant that the OP’s doctor has told her this. Having lost alot of blood…is of great concern. It is taxing her body and you can’t read from her words that she is in emotional turmoil? What good is she going to be to her children that are already here if she isn’t?

Right, but it is only dangerous if she gets pregnant! Therefore she does not need a hysterectomy, she can try chastity or NFP. Don’t get me wrong, it will be a very burdensome cross to bare, but it is possible.

 

[Julianna]

I did not miss anything.

She is currently not in any danger at all. Her uterus is not endangering her in any way. There is no immediate threat.

It would, indeed, be prudent to avoid future pregnancies that could imperil her uterus. She may do so through moral means of natural family planning. She may not do so via a hysterectomy.

She has had 4 C sections. Cutting over and over and over again. Yes, that does endanger the uterus in that it makes it weaker.

To tell her she must live a chaste life as a married person is ridiculas. What century are you speaking from? This is “her” life and the life of her “children” and family. If the uterus isn’t there…it isn’t at risk of being cut again, she isn’t at risk of another extreme blood loss and there isn’t a risk of the loss of a child due to a weakened uterus.

I would tell the OP and her husband to go to their priest and have a talk and bring her medical history with her.

 

[tjm190]

Right, but it is only dangerous if she gets pregnant! Therefore she does not need a hysterectomy, she can try chastity or NFP. Don’t get me wrong, it will be a very burdensome cross to bare, but it is possible.

I submit that since there is a significant probability of conceiving during a given year with NFP (anywhere between 2 and 20 percent per year), and that the death of the child is a near certainty and serious bodily harm to her is also all but guaranteed, using NFP would be reckless to an immoral extent.
(If we give NFP more credit than I feel it deserved and say the odds of conceiving during a year of NFP use is 5%, there is still a 54% likelihood of atleast 1 conception over 15 years)

 

[JohnCS]

She has had 4 C sections. Cutting over and over and over again. Yes, that does endanger the uterus in that it makes it weaker.

To tell her she must live a chaste life as a married person is ridiculas. What century are you speaking from? This is “her” life and the life of her “children” and family. If the uterus isn’t there…it isn’t at risk of being cut again, she isn’t at risk of another extreme blood loss and there isn’t a risk of the loss of a child due to a weakened uterus.

I would tell the OP and her husband to go to their priest and have a talk and bring her medical history with her.

God’s Truth is timeless, the century has nothing to do with it. Yes that is good advice, and if the Priest is in line with the teaching of the Church, he will tell them exactly the same thing. Everyone has crosses to bear, this may be theirs.

 

[JohnCS]

I submit that since there is a significant probability of conceiving during a given year with NFP (anywhere between 2 and 20 percent per year), and that the death of the child is a near certainty and serious bodily harm to her is also all but guaranteed, using NFP would be reckless to an immoral extent.

Fine, celibacy then. What would happen if my wife were in a car accident and were paralyzed from the neck down… Could I just go find a prostitute because it’s the 21st century and I can not be expected, as a married man, to live in chastity?

 

[1ke]

Oh, so since my wisdom teeth weren’t already causing problems getting them removed was sinful? Does this apply to all other organs that are far more likely to do harm than good?

The reference I posted was specific to hysterectomies. I know of no document on wisdom teeth. What the Church does teach on the subject can be found in paragraph 2297 of the Catechism:

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

The explanation given in the link commits a clear error- the purpose of removing the uterus is not to prevent conception, it is to prevent the uterus from killing the mother and any potential unborn children.

And how would one be in danger in absence of a pregnancy?

 

[tjm190]

Fine, celibacy then. What would happen if my wife were in a car accident and were paralyzed from the neck down… Could I just go find a prostitute because it’s the 21st century and I can not be expected, as a married man, to live in chastity?

Just trying to make sure we’re being honest with her, unless you think 54% likelihood is a fine statistic.

So she can either hold on to her dead tissue because the Church says so and live celibately, play Russian roulette (albeit over a period of 15 years), or God forbid take legitimate medical advice.

The absolute worst thing that could happen to her is that the organ in question do its job- it would seem sensible to remove it.

 

[Julianna]

I submit that since there is a significant probability of conceiving during a given year with NFP (anywhere between 2 and 20 percent per year), and that the death of the child is a near certainty and serious bodily harm to her is also all but guaranteed, using NFP would be reckless to an immoral extent.
(If we give NFP more credit than I feel it deserved and say the odds of conceiving during a year of NFP use is 5%, there is still a 54% likelihood of atleast 1 conception over 15 years)

NFP is not a guarantee. A pregnancy could kill her and her unborn child. I agree with you. Accepting the “sack cloth and ashes” way of life is not the way to go when it has been proven that the OP is in serious health.

I find that it is so easy for some men to dismiss women’s issues in reproduction…because it is not they who bear the brunt of the pain, the bleeding, the emotional depression…and aren’t being cut into again and again each time risking their lives.

I had a hysterectomy and all the scare tactics that were laid at my feet were all a bunch of hooey…

 

[Julianna]

Just trying to make sure we’re being honest with her, unless you think 54% likelihood is a fine statistic.

So she can either hold on to her dead tissue because the Church says so and live celibately, play Russian roulette (albeit over a period of 15 years), or God forbid take legitimate medical advice.

The absolute worst thing that could happen to her is that the organ in question do its job- it would seem sensible to remove it.

Glad to see common sense prevails.

 

[tjm190]

The reference I posted was specific to hysterectomies. I know of no document on wisdom teeth. What the Church does teach on the subject can be found in paragraph 2297 of the Catechism:

Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons, directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law.

And removing an organ that will at best sit there until you die and at worst kill you and an unborn child isn’t therapeutic?

And how would one be in danger in absence of a pregnancy?

Who said there was? Of course, this leaves us one slip up away from two people potentially dying. The intent is to remove the potentially deadly organ. The side effect is the inability to conceive.

 

[1ke]

She has had 4 C sections. Cutting over and over and over again. Yes, that does endanger the uterus in that it makes it weaker.

And if the uterus presents an immediate threat at any point in the future, it may be removed. It does not at this moment.

To tell her she must live a chaste life as a married person is ridiculas.

We are all called to chastity iappropriate to our state in life.

But, I suspect you meant live in continence. And, please point to where I suggested that she do so.

What century are you speaking from? This is “her” life and the life of her “children” and family.

The question was about the morality of two different actions. One is moral, the other is not. The century is the 21st. But it matters not if it is the 10th, 20th, or 35th century.

If the uterus isn’t there…it isn’t at risk of being cut again, she isn’t at risk of another extreme blood loss and there isn’t a risk of the loss of a child due to a weakened uterus.

It may not be removed to prevent pregnancy or while there is no immediate threat to her. That is clear teaching of the Church. That you don’t like what the Church teaches is irrelevant.

I would tell the OP and her husband to go to their priest and have a talk and bring her medical history with her.

She can talk to 100 priests and the Pope. It won’t change the answer to her question.

 

[1ke]

I submit that since there is a significant probability of conceiving during a given year with NFP (anywhere between 2 and 20 percent per year), and that the death of the child is a near certainty and serious bodily harm to her is also all but guaranteed, using NFP would be reckless to an immoral extent.

The numbers you give are not accurate.

(If we give NFP more credit than I feel it deserved and say the odds of conceiving during a year of NFP use is 5%, there is still a 54% likelihood of atleast 1 conception over 15 years)

It doesn’t matter what you ‘feel’.

There are numerous peer reviewed studies of the various methods of NFP which use empirical evidence.