Medical Ethics Question

[EasterJoy]

Obviously it is rather rare in medicine to be able to give any guarantees that some therapy or the other will have the intended result. We all make this sort of decision: that is, we weight the risk of the procedure against the likelihood of benefit and the likelihood of harm if we do nothing.

The question is “Can the benefit of reducing the chance of a deadly cancer from an extraordinarily high risk to the level of risk faced by the general population be considered a sufficient benefit for the cost of sacrificing the reproductive faculty?” The answer is that because the preservation of life is the goal and the loss of the reproductive faculty is an unintended side-effect that would not be chosen except that a similarly-beneficial result cannot be realized without that sacrifice, the sacrifice is morally permissible. It is not morally compulsory (as would be the much more clear-cut but still scary decision to risk serious injury to the body in order to achieve the only way out from in front of an oncoming train that will certainly kill you if you don’t move), but the risk is dire enough and the benefit likely enough that it is morally permissible to do it.

 

[Jessie5000]

Yes it is morally ethical for you do this for your health.

 

[THP]

I posted this link in the other thread…

cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA

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.

I suppose I am the one who is being presumptuous. I assumed if you are posting facts that there was a reason for it, otherwise it is just odd.

 

[THP]

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?

I think we have a miscommunication. I thought you were presuming that those who undergo risk reduction surgery assume the the result is a perfect or guaranteed outcome at preventing a specific cancer.

 

[CopticChristian]

I suppose I am the one who is being presumptuous. I assumed if you are posting facts that there was a reason for it, otherwise it is just odd.

Facts are facts. They weigh in the discussion. I have not had any opinion on this other than to put out the facts and watch what people do with them.

I find it odd that any one discusses health concerns as if they are immoral. There is nothing immoral about looking at the facts and recognizing that it is not experiemental, it is accepted, and if someone chooses to do it then it is within the standard of care. This is my first posting as to what I think other than to post facts. Facts seem to cause people to read into facts other than fact.

 

[CopticChristian]

I think we have a miscommunication. I thought you were presuming that those who undergo risk reduction surgery assume the the result is a perfect or guaranteed outcome at preventing a specific cancer.

Show me from what statement you were able to infer that and how you manufactured that thought.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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?

My opinion is that it would be fine and that " relations " after surgery would be fine too.
But talk it over with your pastor. He can give you the assurance of authority. Linus2nd