Is a Catholic woman allowed to take medications harmful to the fetus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ToeInTheWater
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

ToeInTheWater

Guest
I started wondering about this while participating in a topic about using hormonal contraceptives to treat medical conditions.

There are many medical treatments that have been proven to have harmful effects on the fetus if taken by a pregnant woman. For example, chemotherapy for cancer targets the most actively dividing cells, and would likely kill or severely harm a fetus. I think this wouldn’t be a problem if the goal of treatment was to cure a woman from cancer that would likely kill her otherwise. It would be heroic for a woman to refuse, but not required. But what if the woman already has metastatic cancer and the chemo would only prolong her life by a few months? Should she have to wait to give birth before starting the chemo?

Or what about a medicine like tamoxifen, which is used both to treat breast cancer and to prevent it? I’m sure a Catholic could take this to treat cancer already present, but I’m not sure if it would be justified as a preventative measure (especially since it only reduces the risk, it doesn’t prevent cancer 100%).

Or what if the woman isn’t pregnant yet, but is on a med like methotrexate (known abortifacient) for arthritis, or phenytoin (known teratogen) for a seizure disorder, or Accutane (known teratogen) for acne? I’d think she can use such meds if she’s not sexually active. But what if she’s married? I know the Church would not approve of ABC, but would she be obligated to use NFP? Would she be obligated to stop using the medication? Would a single woman who needs such medication even be allowed to get married in the first place?
 
The way I understand it is that medication can be taken by a pregnant woman that is harmful to the fetus, only if the desired effect is not harm to the child.

To use your example: chemotherapy. Women may undergo chemotherapy while pregnant even though it will harm the developing child because the harm is an unfortunate side effect - not the main goal. The same is true for removing a damaged tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. You can have the damaged organ removed even though it means certain death for the child, but you can not intentionally kill the child.
 
Many of the questions you pose would be left best for consultations between the woman, her priest and medical professional. As far as I understand a pregnant woman is permitted to have any medical procedure performed that could save or prolong her life if the death of her fetus is not the direct intended consequence of the operation. So a pregnant woman could have chemotherapy done while she is pregnant. Perhaps, upon consultation with her doctor, the chemotherapy could be lessened or stopped for a period of time to hopefully give the fetus a chance to develop.

I also think it is permissiable for a woman to take drugs that act as birth control if they have other viable, proven medical purposes and it is not the intent of the woman to use them as birth control and her and her husband remain open to life. Also, the Church would allow a woman to marry if she is on medically necessary drugs, if it affects her re-prodcutive system, all the Church asks is that she is open to life.

NFP stands for Natural Family Planning and is a Church approved way to regulate and better plan for children while remaining open to life and not creating artificial barriers. Basically it’s a way for a married couple to take temperatures and chart their progress over the course of a month to figure out when the woman is more likely to conceive or less likely (my explanation in no way does it justice, but I think that is the general gist).

Perhaps a Catholic bio-ethicist would be able to better answer your questions, but the important thing is to remain open to life.

ChadS
 
I think the others are on the right path. As long as the treatment or medication isn’t used with the intention of killing the baby then that would be acceptable. It seems to me like God would kind of urge the mother to sacrifice herself for the life of her child, but that would have to be something that would be decided with lots of prayers. Certainly something I can’t decide for anyone.

Also, NFP is something I really think all married couples should do. The Creighton model doesn’t involve temperature taking. Temperatures may be used to diagnose fertiltiy issues, but it’s not part of the normal routine. NFP can be used to achieve or delay pregnancy, so it’s helpful for all couples. I would consider it a good idea to delay pregnancy if you are suspecting to undergo major surgery or treatments. Fortunately most cancers, surgeries and diseases that involve drugs or procedures harmful to a fetus come later in life than most people have children.

It’s important to remember that God knows what the situation is. If you do your best to do the right thing and prayerfully approach it, God will understand.
 
ToeInTheWater said:
Or what if the woman isn’t pregnant yet, but is on a med like methotrexate (known abortifacient) for arthritis, or phenytoin (known teratogen) for a seizure disorder, or Accutane (known teratogen) for acne? I’d think she can use such meds if she’s not sexually active. But what if she’s married? I know the Church would not approve of ABC, but would she be obligated to use NFP? Would she be obligated to stop using the medication? Would a single woman who needs such medication even be allowed to get married in the first place?
Click to expand...
Under the principle of double effect a woman may indeed receive certain treatments even if a bad result such as deformity or death of a child might occur. The four principles are:


  1. *]The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
    *]The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
    *]The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
    *]The good effect must be sufficiently desirable [proportionate] to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect

    “

    In your scenarios above, almost all would meet these criteria depending on the severity of the condition.

    The one I would question seriously would be acutane for acne. Is clearing up acne a **proportionate **reason to take a medication that can kill a baby? I don’t think it is. A clear face is **not **proportionate to a dead or deformed child whereas preserving life through chemotherapy certainly would be.

    So in some instances a woman would need to refrain from either the medication or sexual activity if any of the 4 criteria are not met. And of course would need to discuss with a priest/spiritual director and/or bioethicist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top