Hysterectomy

[JohnCS]

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.

And therein lies the problem. YES because the Church says so. Obviously by your listed religion, you do not understand what the Church being the Mysitcal Body of Christ means. If the Church teaches that something is sinful, then it is sinful. She came here asking for the “catholic answer” on her issue, she got the answer here, and she got the answer over in the “ask an apologist” section as well. Yes, if she wants the catholic answer, the answer is celebacy. If she wants a dissident catholics answer, she can ask Speaker Pelosi who will tell her to cut out her organs or just take the morning after pill after every sexual encounter. I may not like the rules either, but it is not up to act out in total disregard of what God asks of us. It is up to us to question and seek the answers and Truth if we don’t agree or understand. The 5 times before this that I disagreed with the church I sat down, prayed about it, did research (not just in the church, but secular research as well) and the church has been right all 5 times. God is wise beyond all understanding, if it’s a sin, it’s a sin for a reason.

 

[tjm190]

The numbers you give are not accurate.

Oh?

It doesn’t matter what you ‘feel’.

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

There are numerous studies, with results ranging from below 1 to 25. I chose 1 near the low end. Apologies for not cherry picking the answer that best fir your argument.

Even if we take a 1% chance of failure, we still have a 14% chance- is that low enough for you?

 

[1ke]

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?

No. By theraputic, the Church means a medically necessary intervention. And, the Church has clarified this in the case of hysterectomy means an *immediate *threat to the woman. Not a remote threat. Not a potential threat. Not a possible threat. An actual threat, happening now.

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.

Again. Not potential. Not possible. It must be actual.

 

[tjm190]

And therein lies the problem. YES because the Church says so. Obviously by your listed religion, you do not understand what the Church being the Mysitcal Body of Christ means. If the Church teaches that something is sinful, then it is sinful. She came here asking for the “catholic answer” on her issue, she got the answer here, and she got the answer over in the “ask an apologist” section as well. Yes, if she wants the catholic answer, the answer is celebacy. If she wants a dissident catholics answer, she can ask Speaker Pelosi who will tell her to cut out her organs or just take the morning after pill after every sexual encounter. I may not like the rules either, but it is not up to act out in total disregard of what God asks of us. It is up to us to question and seek the answers and Truth if we don’t agree or understand. The 5 times before this that I disagreed with the church I sat down, prayed about it, did research (not just in the church, but secular research as well) and the church has been right all 5 times. God is wise beyond all understanding, if it’s a sin, it’s a sin for a reason.

I have no problem with the unquestioning acceptance of Church teaching in most cases, but you’ll forgive me if I speak up when people suggest NFP when that’s quite likely to fail and be put in a situation that will certainly cost one life and perhaps 2. If she wished to live her life celibately rather than question Church teaching, that is of course her call.

 

[1ke]

Yes, if she wants the catholic answer, the answer is celebacy.

Acutally, John, that’s not quite accurate. Celibacy, properly speaking, is the renunciation of mariage. I believe you meant continence.

The Church’s answer is that she may choose complete continence (abstaining from intercourse), or she may choose *periodic *continence using scientific methods of natural family planning, or she may choose a providential approach and do nothing.

The only thing she may not choose is direct sterlization or contraception.

 

[tjm190]

No. By theraputic, the Church means a medically necessary intervention. And, the Church has clarified this in the case of hysterectomy means an *immediate *threat to the woman. Not a remote threat. Not a potential threat. Not a possible threat. An actual threat, happening now.

Again. Not potential. Not possible. It must be actual.

Now that the sheer ridiculousness of this teaching has been fully exposed, I think I can safely say she has all the information. Church teaching demands she keep a time-bomb inside of her and she may not address it until something starts the timer.

 

[JohnCS]

I have no problem with the unquestioning acceptance of Church teaching in most cases, but you’ll forgive me if I speak up when people suggest NFP when that’s quite likely to fail and be put in a situation that will certainly cost one life and perhaps 2. If she wished to live her life celibately rather than question Church teaching, that is of course her call.

Of course I’ll forgive you, that’s what Christians do but I didn’t say not to question, feel free to question away, but be warned that if you put away all bias and preconcieved notions and look at what the church is saying and why, you will never find her in error. But that is besides the point. You are right, it is her call, but like I said before, she came here because she is concerned for the health of her soul and wanted to make sure she was going to be alright with God. The Churches answer is, like 1ke and the apologist Michelle Arnold pointed out, that it is immoral and sinful to get the procedure. Anyways, OP my prayers are with you and your family. God bless.

 

[JohnCS]

Now that the sheer ridiculousness of this teaching has been fully exposed, I think I can safely say she has all the information. Church teaching demands she keep a time-bomb inside of her and she may not address it until something starts the timer.

/sigh, no, the church demands that she not hit the button that starts the time bomb.

 

[1ke]

Oh?

There are numerous studies, with results ranging from below 1 to 25. I chose 1 near the low end. Apologies for not cherry picking the answer that best fir your argument.

Even if we take a 1% chance of failure, we still have a 14% chance- is that low enough for you?

Perhaps you are thinking of the calendar rhythm method, standard days method, or cycle beads. These particular methods do indeed have such statistics associated with them.

So, for clarity sake, when I say scientific methods of natural family planning, I am speaking specifically of the Sympto-Thermal, Creighton, Billings, and Marquette models of natural family planning. These methods do not have such rates associated with them,.

 

[tjm190]

Perhaps you are thinking of the calendar rhythm method, standard days method, or cycle beads. These particular methods do indeed have such statistics associated with them.

So, for clarity sake, when I say scientific methods of natural family planning, I am speaking specifically of the Sympto-Thermal, Creighton, Billings, and Marquette models of natural family planning. These methods do not have such rates associated with them,.

archive.irh.org/nfp.htm

 

[JohnCS]

Acutally, John, that’s not quite accurate. Celibacy, properly speaking, is the renunciation of mariage. I believe you meant continence.

The Church’s answer is that she may choose complete continence (abstaining from intercourse), or she may choose *periodic *continence using scientific methods of natural family planning, or she may choose a providential approach and do nothing.

The only thing she may not choose is direct sterlization or contraception.

Thanks I always get my abstinance words messed up. I suggested the NFP or periodic continence but they responded with the chance of failure, so I then said that if they are worried about that chance then total abstinance would have to do (I used the wrong word though )

 

[1ke]

archive.irh.org/nfp.htm

You need to compare apples to apples. The typical use statistics include spacers, those with no serious reason to avoid. In such cases, there are often instances when the couple abadons the method-- i.e. “taking a chance” on days they know they are fertile.

Studies in which only those with serious reasons to avoid were participants, or where spacers and avoiders were analyzed separately (for example the Farifield Study), the use effectiveness rate difference is statistically significant.

 

[tjm190]

You need to compare apples to apples. The typical use statistics include spacers, those with no serious reason to avoid. In such cases, there are often instances when the couple abadons the method-- i.e. “taking a chance” on days they know they are fertile.

Studies in which only those with serious reasons to avoid were participants, or where spacers and avoiders were analyzed separately (for example the Farifield Study), the use effectiveness rate difference is statistically significant.

“Perfect use” statistics are still generally in the 2-3 percent range- which admittedly makes a pregnancy unlikely over 15 years (less than 50% chance) but still quite possible.

 

[1ke]

“Perfect use” statistics are still generally in the 2-3 percent range- which admittedly makes a pregnancy unlikely over 15 years (less than 50% chance) but still quite possible.

Which is why i suggested the post ovulatory period and the use of a fertility monitor.

She can also choose complete continence.

 

[anode]

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 cannot believe that you are playing so fast and loose with this woman’s life. Her uterus is at risk of rupture* at any time*, up to and including delivery. I am sure that her obstetrician is considering hysterectomy at the time of the delivery, assuming that the uterus does not rupture before delivery, necessitating an emergency hysterectomy.

The irresponsibility of you and other posters on this thread is amazing.

I also suggest that the OP consult her priest, NOT this forum. She should consider her own future life, as the mother of 5 children, her doctor’s recommendations, and the recommendation of her priest, if she wants the church’s opinion. After she lays down all the facts to him, his response will be very predictable.

 

[1ke]

I cannot believe that you are playing so fast and loose with this woman’s life.

We are doing no such thing.

Her uterus is at risk of rupture* at any time*, up to and including delivery.

If it does, the physician will deal with that situation and attempt to save both the mother and the child. The OP has not indicated she wants to remove the uterus NOW. And, it’s not currently in distress, so it would not be morally licit to do so thereby killing the child.

If it ruptures during delivery or at any point before, the physician can *licitly *remove it. If the physician determines *during *the delivery that the uterus is kaput (i.e. dangerous in and of itself) even if not rupturing, the physician may *licitly *remov it. I (and others) have stated that over and over again.

I am sure that her obstetrician is considering hysterectomy at the time of the delivery, assuming that the uterus does not rupture before delivery, necessitating an emergency hysterectomy.

Probably so, and if it’s medically necessary no one has indicated it is wrong to take it out.

The irresponsibility of you and other posters on this thread is amazing.

No one has been irresponsible.

The OP asked whether she could remove her uterus for the purpose of avoiding a future pregnancy. The answer to that is NO. There is no other answer that can be given.

The OP also asked if her uterus could be removed for medical necessity if it is damaged and she does not want to take extraordinary measures to save it. The answer to that is YES, as we have stated already.

I also suggest that the OP consult her priest, NOT this forum.

A priest cannot change the Church’s teaching, which is clear and has been given with source documentation.

She should consider her own future life, as the mother of 5 children, her doctor’s recommendations, and the recommendation of her priest, if she wants the church’s opinion. After she lays down all the facts to him, his response will be very predictable.

Not as ‘predictable’ as you believe, if by predictable you mean “in opposition to Church teaching.”

It is never morally licit to remove the uterus for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy. Nothing can change that fact.

 

[anode]

We are doing no such thing.

If it does, the physician will deal with that situation and attempt to save both the mother and the child. The OP has not indicated she wants to remove the uterus NOW. And, it’s not currently in distress, so it would not be morally licit to do so thereby killing the child.

If it ruptures during delivery or at any point before, the physician can *licitly *remove it. If the physician determines *during *the delivery that the uterus is kaput (i.e. dangerous in and of itself) even if not rupturing, the physician may *licitly *remov it. I (and others) have stated that over and over again.

Probably so, and if it’s medically necessary no one has indicated it is wrong to take it out.

No one has been irresponsible.

The OP asked whether she could remove her uterus for the purpose of avoiding a future pregnancy. The answer to that is NO. There is no other answer that can be given.

The OP also asked if her uterus could be removed for medical necessity if it is damaged and she does not want to take extraordinary measures to save it. The answer to that is YES, as we have stated already.

A priest cannot change the Church’s teaching, which is clear and has been given with source documentation.

Not as ‘predictable’ as you believe, if by predictable you mean “in opposition to Church teaching.”

It is never morally licit to remove the uterus for the purpose of avoiding pregnancy. Nothing can change that fact.

It is reasonable–your definite of ‘moral’ and ‘licit’ goes counter to all good sense–to remove an organ which no longer can do its job–ie. carry a pregnancy to term. A pregnancy can implant and that’s about it. From then on her incompetent uterus will only endanger her baby and herself, already the mother of 5–assuming she survives this pregnancy. There is no justification for this mother to further endanger her life–the alleged odds of “99.5%” reliable NFP methods–which I highly doubt–is not enough for this mother. She needs 100% certainty that she will not have another pregnancy which would directly endanger the lives of her fetus and herself.

And cut the sunglasses icon–there’s nothing ‘cool’ about you.

 

[1ke]

It is reasonable–your definite of ‘moral’ and ‘licit’ goes counter to all good sense–

They are not my definitions. They are the Church’s.

There is no justification for this mother to further endanger her life–the alleged odds of “99.5%” reliable NFP methods–which I highly doubt–and not enough for this mother. She needs 100% certainty that she will not become pregnant again which would directly endanger the lives of her fetus and herself.

If she does not want to opt for periodic continence, she can opt for complete continence.

What she cannot do is opt to contravene the moral law.

She asked for the Catholic teaching on the matter. That is the answer that has been given.

And cut the sunglasses icon–there’s nothing ‘cool’ about you.

Personal attacks violate forum rules.

My feelings would be hurt, if my feelings were based on what people on the internet think and say. But, fortunately they aren’t and I’m not.

 

[Jermosh]

My advice as with anything. Get a meeting with your Dr and a priest, come to a conclusion with them and you.

 

[Ron_Conte]

There are several persons above giving medical advice. This is not only contrary to group rules, but foolish and dangerous. You are not physicians, and even if you were physicians, you have not examined this patient, you have not read her medical history, you have only limited information. Members should not be telling anyone what to do medically (except of course to consult with physicians). My posts are on the subject of the morality of a hysterectomy, not its medical advisability.

1ke’s posts contain assertions about what is or is not the teaching of the Church, citing a document from the CDF. I believe that 1ke is misinterpreting that document and has misunderstood the Church’s moral teachings on this question and in general.

"Q. 1.When the uterus becomes so seriously injured (e.g., during a delivery or a Caesarian section) so as to render medically indicated even its total removal (hysterectomy) in order to counter an immediate serious threat to the life or health of the mother, is it licit to perform such a procedure notwithstanding the permanent sterility which will result for the woman?

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

The question considers a hypothetical case of an immediate threat to the life or health of the mother. However, the answer, permitting a hysterectomy in this type of case, does NOT imply that hysterectomy is ONLY permissible with an immediate threat.

And the subsequent explanation clearly states the more general principle for a moral hysterectomy: “the hysterectomy is licit because it has a directly therapeutic character, even though it may be foreseen that permanent sterility will result.” It is not necessary, morally, for the threat to be immediate.

Moreover, that document from the CDF has a certain level of teaching authority, but papal encyclicals such as Veritatis Splendor have a greater authority. In this case, the two documents are in agreement, but to interpret the CDF document apart from the teaching of Veritatis Splendor, which teaches the basic principles of morality, is absurd.

According to VS (and the CCC), there are three sources (fonts) of morality:

1. intention
2. moral object
3. circumstances
   To be moral, an act must have three good fonts.

In the case of a hysterectomy, if the procedure is not a treatment for a medical problem, in other words, if it does not have a directly therapeutic character, but is directed at sterilization, then it would be intrinsically evil (because the moral object is bad). But when the procedure is a treatment for a medical problem, the moral object is good, and the procedure is morally licit if the other two fonts of morality are good (intention and circumstances).

Whether or not the medical problem is serious enough to outweigh the risk of the operation and the loss of fertility does not pertain to the moral object, but to the circumstances (esp. consequences). This judgment is based on the moral weight of the good and bad consequences of the act (the hysterectomy). All that is needed is a proportionality between the good and bad consequences, so that the good outweighs the bad.

There is no moral principle requiring the bad consequences to be ‘immediate’.