Medical Ethics Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cowseril
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cowseril

Guest
I was diagnosed with the BRCA-2 gene which, according to my doctor increases my chances of ovarian cancer to about 50%. I was diagnosed with breast cancer about 4 years ago and had both breasts removed. However, now the doctor is recommending that I have my uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries all removed in order to effectively eliminate my chances of ovarian cancer (I have not been diagnosed with this cancer). It is recommended that I have this surgery done by the time I turn 40 (I’m 37 now). I don’t know what the church teaches regarding this. My husband and I are not planning to have any more children (we have 4) – we practice NFP to prevent that from happening. And to eliminate the skeptics, my husband and I have very successfully been free of pregnancy for almost 10 years, so I’m not worried about birth control – we’re old pros when it comes to NFP at this point. What I want to know is: is this act of sterilization, done to hopefully save my life, a sin because the organs are not currently defective? Or is it ok, because it’s being performed as a therapeutic means to possibly save my life?
 
Cowseril said:
I was diagnosed with the BRCA-2 gene which, according to my doctor increases my chances of ovarian cancer to about 50%. I was diagnosed with breast cancer about 4 years ago and had both breasts removed. However, now the doctor is recommending that I have my uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries all removed in order to effectively eliminate my chances of ovarian cancer (I have not been diagnosed with this cancer). It is recommended that I have this surgery done by the time I turn 40 (I’m 37 now). I don’t know what the church teaches regarding this. My husband and I are not planning to have any more children (we have 4) – we practice NFP to prevent that from happening. And to eliminate the skeptics, my husband and I have very successfully been free of pregnancy for almost 10 years, so I’m not worried about birth control – we’re old pros when it comes to NFP at this point. What I want to know is: is this act of sterilization, done to hopefully save my life, a sin because the organs are not currently defective? Or is it ok, because it’s being performed as a therapeutic means to possibly save my life?
Click to expand...
This is being discussed in another thread, basically the CCC and the Catholic Bioethics Center both seem to agree that if these procedures are being done for medical reasons, and not birth control, it is perfectly morally acceptable to have these procedures performed.
 
Since sterility would be only an unintended second effect of the procedure I see no reason why it would be forbidden, provided the reasons for it were serious enough. And a fifty percent chance of ovarian cancer strikes me as vary serious.
 
I think that the deeper question here is whether or not it will be sinful for she and her husband to continue to enjoy relations after the sterilization.
 
dshix said:
I think that the deeper question here is whether or not it will be sinful for she and her husband to continue to enjoy relations after the sterilization.
Click to expand...
Married couples are not forbidden from enjoying marital relations when they are taking medication or have had a medical procedure that has rendered them infertile as an unintended side effect.
 
dshix said:
I think that the deeper question here is whether or not it will be sinful for she and her husband to continue to enjoy relations after the sterilization.
Click to expand...
No, this is not a deeper question. It isn’t even a question at all.
 
It’s not that uncommon for people to have surgeries to remove organs or body parts that have a high chance of becoming cancerous in the particular individual’s case, even though no-one knows for sure whether or not that cancer will actually occur. Perhaps on a lesser scale, it is extremely common to have ‘suspicious’ moles and skin lesions, or moles that ‘might’ turn cancerous, removed. There’s nothing sinful about either situation.

Wouldn’t the principle be the same here? I don’t see how it changes just because we’re talking about uterus and ovaries.

You’ll be in my prayers Cowseril, you’ve already been through so much. :hug1:
 
I had to have a hysterectomy several years ago. Well, March 2003 to be exact. It wasn’t for birth control reasons, so it was acceptable in the eyes of the Church. I had talked with two different priests about this. And since it was medically necessary, it was ok. I would, however, be looking at other side effects. I’m talking almost instant menopause. The surgery was on a thursday morning, and Monday morning I hit the brck wall of no more hormones. Not fun. If they do have to take the overies, please have her ask about medication for that. Because, if they have to remove the overies as well, that creates emotional chaos. The hormones, or lack thereof, will cause major problems. So, prepare yourself, and you family, so that no none takes this stuff personally. Best of luck to you. 👍
 
Cowseril said:
I was diagnosed with the BRCA-2 gene which, according to my doctor increases my chances of ovarian cancer to about 50%. I was diagnosed with breast cancer about 4 years ago and had both breasts removed. However, now the doctor is recommending that I have my uterus, fallopian tubes and ovaries all removed in order to effectively eliminate my chances of ovarian cancer (I have not been diagnosed with this cancer). It is recommended that I have this surgery done by the time I turn 40 (I’m 37 now). I don’t know what the church teaches regarding this. My husband and I are not planning to have any more children (we have 4) – we practice NFP to prevent that from happening. And to eliminate the skeptics, my husband and I have very successfully been free of pregnancy for almost 10 years, so I’m not worried about birth control – we’re old pros when it comes to NFP at this point. What I want to know is: is this act of sterilization, done to hopefully save my life, a sin because the organs are not currently defective? Or is it ok, because it’s being performed as a therapeutic means to possibly save my life?
Click to expand...
I posted this link in the other thread…

cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA
11.What are the options for a person who has a positive test result?
Click to expand...
Several options are available for managing cancer risk in individuals who have a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. However, high-quality data on the effectiveness of these options are limited.
Click to expand...
Prophylactic Surgery—This type of surgery involves removing as much of the “at-risk” tissue as possible in order to reduce the chance of developing cancer. Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (removal of healthy breasts) and prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of healthy fallopian tubes and ovaries) do not, however, offer a guarantee against developing cancer. Because not all at-risk tissue can be removed by these procedures, some women have developed breast cancer, ovarian cancer, or primary peritoneal carcinomatosis (a type of cancer similar to ovarian cancer) even after prophylactic surgery. In addition, some evidence suggests that the amount of protection salpingo-oophorectomy provides against the development of breast and ovarian cancer may differ between carriers of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations (17).
Click to expand...
Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (removal of healthy breasts) and prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of healthy fallopian tubes and ovaries) do not, however, offer a guarantee against developing cancer.
Click to expand...
 
dshix said:
I think that the deeper question here is whether or not it will be sinful for she and her husband to continue to enjoy relations after the sterilization.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is a question at all.
 
CopticChristian said:
I posted this link in the other thread…

cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA
Click to expand...
Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (removal of healthy breasts) and prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of healthy fallopian tubes and ovaries) do not, however, offer a guarantee against developing cancer.
*

What is your point by highlighting this quote? I can only speak to the ovaries, but are you suggesting that she should not undergo a simple out patient laparoscopic procedure (BSO) buecause it is not 100% guaranteed to work? Primary peritoneal cancer is possible but it is rare. I would defer to her doctor on whether or not she needs her uterus removed. Side effects can be managed. Ovarian cancer is very hard to detect and treat and especially if she has young kids I can understand going this route. It’s clearly established not to be sinful so I don’t understand your point.
 
👍
CopticChristian said:
I posted this link in the other thread…

cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA
Click to expand...
I agree with the previous comment. These surgeries are called risk-reducing surgeries, not cancer eliminating surgeries. Scientific studies have shown up to a 95% reduction in risk of secondary or primary breast cancer in women with BRCA1 after having prophylactic mtectomies. The statistics are quite similar for that same group of women for oophorectomy surgeries. In most cases, the decrease makes these extremely high risk women have the same risk as a ‘regular’ woman. That is very scientifically significant!

Read this for more information: designsbybirgit.blogspot.com/
 
It’s kind of like asking if it is OK to remove a finger to reduce the risk of cancer or a foot to avoid gangrene. If the risk is high enough, of course it is. You have to consider the trade-off, including the trade-off of instantly losing the capacity to manufacture the hormones those organs normally produce, but of course it is possible that you’d do it. It is not an act of contraception. It is meant to reduce the risk of a life-threatening disease that is a real possibility for you.
 
THP said:
Bilateral prophylactic mastectomy (removal of healthy breasts) and prophylactic salpingo-oophorectomy (removal of healthy fallopian tubes and ovaries) do not, however, offer a guarantee against developing cancer.
*

What is your point by highlighting this quote? I can only speak to the ovaries, but are you suggesting that she should not undergo a simple out patient laparoscopic procedure (BSO) buecause it is not 100% guaranteed to work? Primary peritoneal cancer is possible but it is rare. I would defer to her doctor on whether or not she needs her uterus removed. Side effects can be managed. Ovarian cancer is very hard to detect and treat and especially if she has young kids I can understand going this route. It’s clearly established not to be sinful so I don’t understand your point.
Click to expand...
Well,

Let us see…

Facts are facts. There is no guarantee that anything done will offer a guarantee and this is fact. A fact is a fact.

What is it that bothers you about facts?
 
BiologyBrain said:
👍

I agree with the previous comment. These surgeries are called risk-reducing surgeries, not cancer eliminating surgeries. Scientific studies have shown up to a 95% reduction in risk of secondary or primary breast cancer in women with BRCA1 after having prophylactic mtectomies. The statistics are quite similar for that same group of women for oophorectomy surgeries. In most cases, the decrease makes these extremely high risk women have the same risk as a ‘regular’ woman. That is very scientifically significant!

Read this for more information: designsbybirgit.blogspot.com/
Click to expand...
I am not sure what you agree with but hail to your agreement:thumbsup:

Risk reduction means 100% to the person that has the risk and to other’s a point of controversy.
 
CopticChristian said:
Well,

Let us see…

Facts are facts. There is no guarantee that anything done will offer a guarantee and this is fact. A fact is a fact.

What is it that bothers you about facts?
Click to expand...
There is no guarantee that wearing a seat belt in my car today will prevent me from dying in a car crash but I am still going to do it, even if it is uncomfortable. What point are you trying to make?
 
THP said:
There is no guarantee that wearing a seat belt in my car today will prevent me from dying in a car crash but I am still going to do it, even if it is uncomfortable. What point are you trying to make?
Click to expand...
I believe that you assume that there is some point to be made. A fact is a fact from which you can draw a conclusion. I drew no conclusion. I stated a fact.

Fact. Wearing seat belts while driving may prevent injury. There is no guarantee that if you crash while wearing a seat belt that you will sustain no injury. Fact.
 
THP said:
That’s quite presumptuous.
Click to expand...
I have no idea what you believe is presumptuous.

If I have a risk for Cancer and I know that I can reduce that risk without guarantee then to me I am totally invested 100% in knowing about that reduction.

If I know that there is a way to reduce a risk of Cancer without guarantee and I don’t have Cancer then I am not totally invested in knowing about that reduction. I can only talk about it.

I am not totally invested in anything as is true for anyone unless they themselves are affected. Only they can know what the issues are as they relate to them.

I once thought I had Cancer as the result of a biopsy. I ruminated over it from Friday until Monday. On Monday I saw a specialist who reviewed the biopsy slides and he said “no, this is not Cancer”…I was no longer totally invested in the notion that I had Cancer.

Discussion about what someone else does with a risk means less to the person that does not have the risk than it does to the person that has a risk. What is it you don’t understand?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top