If parents have a deadly disease should they have children?

[maria_rose]

On the thread on condom use by HIV couples, the issue came up whether people with a deadly disease such as AIDS/HIV should go on and create children.
My position is that Having children is a God given privilege , not an entitlement, so if you carry an infectious deadly disease or your spouse you should not not knowingly create a seriously ill child. In fact the couple should abstain.
What is your position and what exactly is the Church’s teaching in such a situation?

 

[thistle]

On the thread on condom use by HIV couples, the issue came up whether people with a deadly disease such as AIDS/HIV should go on and create children.
My position is that Having children is a God given privilege , not an entitlement, so if you carry an infectious deadly disease or your spouse you should not not knowingly create a seriously ill child. In fact the couple should abstain.
What is your position and what exactly is the Church’s teaching in such a situation?

If one or both husband/wife has HIV/AIDS then in my view they should abstain from sexual intercourse. I don’t think the Church has a teaching on this situation but I believe the Church recommends abstention. The Church allows a husband and wife to live a life of continence.

 

[Ruthie]

I may be wrong, but I think that canon law prohibits someone with AIDS from marrying. I think it falls in with being unable to consummate the marriage, since to do so would be a deadly threat to the spouse.

I’m no canon lawyer, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

I have no idea what the church teaches about a couple where an unfaithful partner contacts AIDS after the wedding; or a marriage in which the victim did not know at the time of the wedding that he/she had it.

If both parents have it, should they have children? I don’t know. I think it would depend on several things, among them what the chances are that their baby would be affected, and whether repeated intercourse increases the risk of death for either of them.

Another question would be whether it is right to procreate, knowing that there is a chance that the baby could be severely handicapped in some way. My personal opinion is that, if the parents are willing to take on the care of an affected child, why not?

Ruthie

 

[latinmasslover]

On the thread on condom use by HIV couples, the issue came up whether people with a deadly disease such as AIDS/HIV should go on and create children.
My position is that Having children is a God given privilege , not an entitlement, so if you carry an infectious deadly disease or your spouse you should not not knowingly create a seriously ill child. In fact the couple should abstain.
What is your position and what exactly is the Church’s teaching in such a situation?

God decides when a child is created and what he/she will be born with. The marital act is not to be sterilized. If these couples are so concerned about bringing an unhealthy child into the world, abstaining is their only option.

 

[Dale_M]

I may be wrong, but I think that canon law prohibits someone with AIDS from marrying. I think it falls in with being unable to consummate the marriage, since to do so would be a deadly threat to the spouse.

I’m no canon lawyer, so please correct me if I’m wrong.

Sex with an HIV infected person is indeed possible without it being a deadly threat to the spouse - at least if the man is infected. Men with successful treatment can have undetectable levels of virus in their semen. Women, on the other hand, may still shed virus through their cervical mucus, despite otherwise successful treatment. So perhaps your theory about a marriage ban only applies to women who are infected with HIV?

As to whether or not canon law specifically mentions HIV as a disqualifier for marriage, I guess its up in the air. I rather doubt it, but I am not going to read through the entire canon code to say for sure.

Regarding Maria Rose’s post, I don’t see why infected persons can’t become parents. As for the potential risk to the child, in her example of HIV the risk of maternal transmission (if the mother is receiving antiviral treatment) is 2%. How low should the risk of transmission be before child-bearing is acceptable? There are plenty of fatal genetic defects, should parents with genetic abnormalities be prevented from having children?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I
I have no idea what the church teaches about a couple where an unfaithful partner contacts AIDS after the wedding; or a marriage in which the victim did not know at the time of the wedding that he/she had it.

You may a huge leap here. One can contract HIV/AIDS without being unfaithful after marriage.

{QUOTE]
Another question would be whether it is right to procreate, knowing that there is a chance that the baby could be severely handicapped in some way. My personal opinion is that, if the parents are willing to take on the care of an affected child, why not?
Ruthie

You know you can be prosecuted for beating up your neighbor to the point they become an invalid. your protestations that you will care for him for the rest of your life doesn’t effect anything. You would seriously INTENTIONALLY be reckless in conceiving a child with aids because you promised to care for it? Aren’t parents assumed this responsibiilty anyway?

 

[wjp984]

According to the case of Bragdon v. Abott, the Supreme Court determined that one is disabled according to the Americans with Disabilities Act do to their limitation in their ability to reproduce.

They cite statistics of a 25% chance of transmitting the virus between partners as well as a 25% chance of transmitting it to the child. With antiviral therepy the chance of the child obtaining HIV can be reduced to about 8%, which is still a large enough risk where the court has deternined one is limited in reproduction and can be considered disabled do to not being able to reproduce

From a Catholic persopective, I would argue that one can still have children if they so desire since there are tons of genetic diseases and stuff which gets passed down and God loves all of his children regardless. However, the risk of knowingly givimng your partner a 25% of infection is the one where I have the problem with.

 

[Dale_M]

They cite statistics of a 25% chance of transmitting the virus between partners as well as a 25% chance of transmitting it to the child. With antiviral therepy the chance of the child obtaining HIV can be reduced to about 8%, which is still a large enough risk where the court has deternined one is limited in reproduction and can be considered disabled do to not being able to reproduce

The Court case you mentioned was considered in 1998, which means the studies came from a different era with regard to treatment of HIV and risk of infection.

The studies mentioned in that case no doubt were not based upon what is now called HAART (Highly Active Anti-Retroviral Therapy). This modern treatment replaced sole reliance on AZT (which is probably what that 8% peri-natal transmission figure is based upon)

Subsequent studies determined that maternal treatment with HAART reduced perinatal transmissions to <2% of deliveries by women with HIV

Achievements in Public Health: Reduction in Perinatal Transmission of HIV Infection — United States, 1985–2005

As for the risk of transmission to one’s partner, I don’t think it is possible to generalize. Too much is dependent on the success of the HAART treatment in reducing the number of viral copies in a person’s body. Some people respond better to treatment than do others. And even if blood levels for HIV become undetectable, it is still possible for reservoirs of infection (such as the prostate or cervix) to shed virus, resulting in a risk of infection.

But it is possible for semen to have undetectable levels of HIV, suggesting minute risk of transmission. (Unfortunately, the same is not true of cervical mucus). Still, careful testing is required to fully evaluate the risk.

 

[wjp984]

Thanks for the update. I assume the 25% statistic would still be valid in regards to transmitting between partners or children if one does not use the appropriate antiviral therepies.

The statistics from this case are just useless things which I happen to remember when getting the appropriate law that one is disabled if they are limited in their ability to reproduce. I wonder which of the other useless junk and statisitcs which I never will use but remember is also now invalid. The year a case takes place is the one thing I rarely remember.

 

[Dale_M]

Heh, I glanced through an old algebra book a couple years ago - I amazed at all the stuff I forgot! Be glad you are remembering what you do - at least its a foundation for building on.