Medical issues with having children and contraception

[aggielori]

I am a 38 year old female. I have 3 children, age 5,almost 4 and 20 mos. I had a very early miscarriage (approx 3 weeks)at age 31 prior to having my 3 children and recently had another miscarriage at almost 10 weeks. My husband and I both take medication for hypothyroidism. Also during my 3rd pregnancy I had gestational diabetes and there was concern that my son had a problem with a blockage in his kidneys which ended up resolving itself after he was born. My husband and I have always used natural family planning almost since the beginning of our marriage (almost 13 years) and have found it difficult with the busyness of parenting these young children to keep up with charting, temperatures, mucus checking, etc. Here is our question: My OBGYN has recommended that it would be unwise medically for me to have any more children. He stated that his reasons are the above mentioned “risks” to me and a baby, specifically he is concerned about my age, the hypothyroidism and the previous 2 miscarriages which may indicate a higher chance of chromosomal disorder with a next baby. Also my thyroid doctor who is an immunologist & environmental medicine physician has expressed the same concerns in addition to stress on our family if we were to have another child. We do not have a desire to have more children but are concerned about what the Catholic Church and God thinks about either sterilization or contraception options. My OBGYN has recommended I get an IUD and the other doctor thinks my husband should have a vasectomy. Can you provide me with the answer to this difficult issue and any resources that may help us? It has been very difficult emotionally especially after the recent miscarriage. Thank you for your time and feel free to email or call me re this question.

Sincerely,

Lori Dubay

 

[Kelley_Beth]

Hi,
I apologize because I have yet to get a clear cut answer to this question. I just didn’t want you to think you were alone. I understand why the Church is against birth control. I am wondering though if we are allowed to use it under certain circumstances. I have had two babies, 5 years apart, and we all had major complications. They were breech, premature, couldn’t breath, had pulmonary edema, jaundice, etc. I had elevated liver enzymes, low blood platelets (especially dangerous during the c-sections I had to have) renal failure, high blood pressure, etc. The doctors told me tha having more babies would not be a good idea. My husband is terrified of me being pregnant again. I am too. I hope there are exceptions to the no birth control rule as well.
What good am I to the children I have if I don’t live through another delivery?

 

[Jermosh]

Talk to your preist. I will keep you in my offerings and thoughts.

 

[kage_ar]

First, I will pray for your family, your children and your health issues.

I also pray for all doctors who do not honor the religious beliefs of their patients.

It is never moral to use artificial birth control or sterilization.

Here is the summare of this section from the Catechism:

**2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception). **

The more detailed section begins at 2366 scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2366

As you may know, there are different forms of Natural Family Planning. There are many women on this board who have serious medical issues and have prayerfully used NFP for many years. Consulting with other NFP users can be a huge help. There are private Catholic message boards where details of NFP can be discussed, one is at www.catholic-convert.com

Prayers that you will have God’s peace as you follow HIM.

 

[ryecroft]

I feel for you and for the other lady with problems with her last pregnancy. I have kidney disease and problems with regulating my bleeding with regards to mensturation and blood in my urine. Now, while the church may say it’s never moral to take birth control, I have found a loop hole (and this was backed up when I asked a similar question) - there is a situation where you can do something for one reason and have a secondayr benefit occur. For instance, because I need to regulate my periods (or I have to get transfusions often) I take birth control. I did this before I was ever sexually active - I was 13 when I began, I believe. Now I am married - because I am not taking it to prevent pregnancy, I am still allowed to use it because my main goal is not to prevent pregnancy - (even though I’ve had multiple miscarriages and my Doctors have said it would be unsafe for me to try again currently). This is called secondary effect or something like that. Because my main goal in using the ABC was not to prevent pregnancy but to regulate the loos of blood and some other medical situations, the Church accepts this. It has been made clear to me that I’m never supposed to be glad that I have to take it and that it prevents pregnancy. If that were the case then apparently then it become null because I infer that I’m taking it not to become pregnant. It sounds like you might be able to find yourself in a similar situation. I hope this helps - I’ll try to find the part that talks about this - Good luck!
Ryecroft

 

[Middleman]

I personally believe that in cases such as this many priests will advise sterilization for medical reasons. I think that is the prudent choice. I’m sure that many at this forum will, however, disagree.

 

[kage_ar]

I personally believe that in cases such as this many priests will advise sterilization for medical reasons. I think that is the prudent choice. I’m sure that many at this forum will, however, disagree.

That priest would need our prayers, for he would be leading people into sin. A holy priest would never give such advice,

Why would you want to advise someone against the teachings of Holy Mother Church?

 

[1ke]

No, one may never use contraception or sterilization. It is a grave sin against the Sixth Commandment.

One may use natural familiy planning-based abstinence, and if one has a life-threatening reason to avoid pregnancy one should consider the most conservative application of natural family planning and abstinence (post ovulatory phase for intimacy).

I do recommend you look into methods other than the one you currently use. You mention being too busy to chart temp. I suggest you look at Billings or Creighton which are mucus only, or Marquette which uses Creighton + a fertility monitor.

For references to church teaching on contraception and sterlization, the appropriate section of the Catechism has been linked already on this thread.

I also suggest you go to www.omsoul.com and order some of their literature to help you understand the Church’s teaching on this subject.

 

[sonolady06]

I am thouroughly opposed to the use of contraception. However, I do believe the idea of “secondary effects” holds some truth. Try NFP. It can even help uncover certain health problems. However, if medical problems persist, treat them as needed. Note: Impatient libido does not count as persistent medical problem

 

[BiologyBrain]

I second (third?) the recommendation to try out other types of NFP. I use Creighton & all I need are my chart, my fingers, & my eyes. Creighton is mucus only & VERY successful (both at preventing for medical reasons & acheiving w/ medical concerns). Look into the Pope Paul VI Institute (here) for more information. They are wonderful & have a very scientific but still 100% Catholic perspective! They have great success treating varying ob/gyn disorders such as PCOS, PMDD, PMS, endometriosis, repeated miscarriages, prematurity, hormonal disorders (associated w/ pregnancy & not), etc.

I don’t think the principle of double effect is actually present in using contraception while still engaging in intercourse. That would be like saying aborting a baby is allowable (by the Church) if the mother’s life is in danger. That’s not really true. The only true effect contraception (hormonal bc) can actually have on a woman’s body is to prevent conception, implantation, or both. It does not actually treat anything - it merely covers up the symptoms. Therefore, it would never be licit in a sexually active woman.

The only principle of double effect that I’m familiar with is that of having a tubal pregnancy which has become infected. It is morally licit to remove the portion of tube including the baby b/c removal of the tube is actually the treatment for the infection that is life-threatening. The tube itself is diseased, and removal of it will cure the woman. The un-intended side-effect is that the child must be removed as well. The same goes for a case where the woman has invasive uterine cancer that must be removed quickly. If she’s pregnant it is morally licit for her to have her entire uterus removed, including the baby. It is never encouraged, however, by the Church for something meant to kill the baby (or prevent it from coming into being) to be morally licit.

 

[ryecroft]

I second (third?) the recommendation to try out other types of NFP. I use Creighton & all I need are my chart, my fingers, & my eyes. Creighton is mucus only & VERY successful (both at preventing for medical reasons & acheiving w/ medical concerns). Look into the Pope Paul VI Institute (here) for more information. They are wonderful & have a very scientific but still 100% Catholic perspective! They have great success treating varying ob/gyn disorders such as PCOS, PMDD, PMS, endometriosis, repeated miscarriages, prematurity, hormonal disorders (associated w/ pregnancy & not), etc.

I don’t think the principle of double effect is actually present in using contraception while still engaging in intercourse. That would be like saying aborting a baby is allowable (by the Church) if the mother’s life is in danger. That’s not really true. The only true effect contraception (hormonal bc) can actually have on a woman’s body is to prevent conception, implantation, or both. It does not actually treat anything - it merely covers up the symptoms. Therefore, it would never be licit in a sexually active woman.

The only principle of double effect that I’m familiar with is that of having a tubal pregnancy which has become infected. It is morally licit to remove the portion of tube including the baby b/c removal of the tube is actually the treatment for the infection that is life-threatening. The tube itself is diseased, and removal of it will cure the woman. The un-intended side-effect is that the child must be removed as well. The same goes for a case where the woman has invasive uterine cancer that must be removed quickly. If she’s pregnant it is morally licit for her to have her entire uterus removed, including the baby. It is never encouraged, however, by the Church for something meant to kill the baby (or prevent it from coming into being) to be morally licit.

First of all you seem to think that all ABC is some sort of abortifacient, not all of them are. I asked a Catholic GYN and she gave me a choice of some that I could use.

Secondly, it took me a long time and quite a bit of time asking on here about Double Effect - after speaking to a priest about my perdicament (aving been on ABC pills since I was 13 most of the time and now being married) I was told that since I was not using the pills to just keep from getting pregnant, that indeed the double effect issue was valid and that I could continue to use them. I was told that to use an IUD I could cause some abortions, but that it was highly speculative. Also my gyn told me that the was NO CONCLUSIVE evidence that all IUD’s caused the body to get rid of fertilized eggs. I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but I now sleep with a clear consience knowing that I am not doing anything wrong using birth control. It serves multiple puposes - please don’t tell me to try NFP because we have - more than one kind and we can’t take those types of chances - we can not “try another method and see if it works” - we did that twice, sticing the the Chricton (sp) method and one other method - I wound up pregnant on both and sick as a dog. I don’t really think it’s fair to tell a married woman that if she is sick with certain debilitations that she either has to choose between abstinance or some form of NFP. My best friend tried Billings NFP after her mother-in-law bothered her about it for quite a while - they stuck to it like glue then she wound up pregnant, sick and having to make that choice that none of us ever have to want to make. Perhaps one day when they go about setting up all the rules for Catholicism, they’ll bring more married women in to help the process. I know many Catholic couple who find it really amazing that a panel of mostly men who are mostly unmarried are able to make up and decide upon the rules that married men and women are supposed to live by.

 

[RobbyS]

First of all you seem to think that all ABC is some sort of abortifacient, not all of them are. I asked a Catholic GYN and she gave me a choice of some that I could use.

Secondly, it took me a long time and quite a bit of time asking on here about Double Effect - after speaking to a priest about my perdicament (aving been on ABC pills since I was 13 most of the time and now being married) I was told that since I was not using the pills to just keep from getting pregnant, that indeed the double effect issue was valid and that I could continue to use them. I was told that to use an IUD I could cause some abortions, but that it was highly speculative. Also my gyn told me that the was NO CONCLUSIVE evidence that all IUD’s caused the body to get rid of fertilized eggs. I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but I now sleep with a clear consience knowing that I am not doing anything wrong using birth control. It serves multiple puposes - please don’t tell me to try NFP because we have - more than one kind and we can’t take those types of chances - we can not “try another method and see if it works” - we did that twice, sticing the the Chricton (sp) method and one other method - I wound up pregnant on both and sick as a dog. I don’t really think it’s fair to tell a married woman that if she is sick with certain debilitations that she either has to choose between abstinance or some form of NFP. My best friend tried Billings NFP after her mother-in-law bothered her about it for quite a while - they stuck to it like glue then she wound up pregnant, sick and having to make that choice that none of us ever have to want to make. Perhaps one day when they go about setting up all the rules for Catholicism, they’ll bring more married women in to help the process. I know many Catholic couple who find it really amazing that a panel of mostly men who are mostly unmarried are able to make up and decide upon the rules that married men and women are supposed to live by.

The old maxim that hard cases makes bad law certainly applies here. Married people all have different attitudes toward sex, have different physiologies and want more or less number of children. Bernard Shaw, I have read, had a wife who was disgusted by sex. He remained faithful to her, even though he was an an atheist and had only platonic relationships with women in the theatre. I wonder if I could have done that? So it is humanly possible, but it requires heroic devotion. Bu don’t be bitter toward the “mostly unmarried men” (priests?) making the “rules.” They have their own crosses to bear, and might be able to help you. Sometimes a dilemma is not a dilemma.

 

[Island_Oak]

The old maxim that hard cases makes bad law certainly applies here. Married people all have different attitudes toward sex, have different physiologies and want more or less number of children. Bernard Shaw, I have read, had a wife who was disgusted by sex. He remained faithful to her, even though he was an an atheist and had only platonic relationships with women in the theatre. I wonder if I could have done that? So it is humanly possible, but it requires heroic devotion. But don’t be bitter toward the “mostly unmarried men” (priests?) making the “rules.” They have their own crosses to bear, and might be able to help you. Sometimes a dilemma is not a dilemma.

I find this post thoroughly offensive…and I’m not even part of the debate or dilema. Really…how dare you. The OP and other posters here are not addressing mere inconvenience, a preference for fewer children or a spouse who doesn’t care for sex. They are facing life and death decision making. Not many of us ever have to face choice of risking our own life-the life of a partner–an unborn child OR never again being intimate with the partner we love most in the world. For those couples with regular, predictable, manageable health and fertility–for whom NFP works and is safe…wonderful. But to allow no alternative other than a type of isolation that in most cases would destroy a healthy marriage borders on immoral.

Even in circumstances where there may be the rare individual who can respond to life’s most challenging dilemas with “heroic devotion,” he or she may not be married to another of such fortitude. Almost none of us anticipate that level of commitment when we commit to marriage. We are commiting to partnership, selfless compromise, parenthood, fidelity and YES intimacy~physical, emotional and spiritual. To EXPECT the herosim of abstinence from every couple that cannot risk additional pregnancies is EXTREME and unconscionably burdensome. It is a factor that continues to isolate people plagued by health limitations and perhaps cut from less-than-heroic cloth from their Church–the place that should be their greatest source of support and comfort.

 

[ryecroft]

I find this post thoroughly offensive…and I’m not even part of the debate or dilema. Really…how dare you. The OP and other posters here are not addressing mere inconvenience, a preference for fewer children or a spouse who doesn’t care for sex. They are facing life and death decision making. Not many of us ever have to face choice of risking our own life-the life of a partner–an unborn child OR never again being intimate with the partner we love most in the world. For those couples with regular, predictable, manageable health and fertility–for whom NFP works and is safe…wonderful. But to allow no alternative other than a type of isolation that in most cases would destroy a healthy marriage borders on immoral.

Even in circumstances where there may be the rare individual who can respond to life’s most challenging dilemas with “heroic devotion,” he or she may not be married to another of such fortitude. Almost none of us anticipate that level of commitment when we commit to marriage. We are commiting to partnership, selfless compromise, parenthood, fidelity and YES intimacy~physical, emotional and spiritual. To EXPECT the herosim of abstinence from every couple that cannot risk additional pregnancies is EXTREME and unconscionably burdensome. It is a factor that continues to isolate people plagued by health limitations and perhaps cut from less-than-heroic cloth from their Church–the place that should be their greatest source of support and comfort.

THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU You made part of my point very, very well - thank you again Island Oak

 

[Middleman]

Island Oak makes several good points. It’s great when NFP works out, but in the case a life-threatening pregnancies, sterilization is the best option unless a couple can very accurately practice NFP with total commitment by both partners. Most average people aren’t going to handle totally abstaining from sexual relations while sharing a home with an attractive spouse. For many people, sex is one of the most important parts of marriage. It’s one of the most joyful parts of marriage, and makes some of the less fun parts of marriage worth it. It strengthens the bonds that hold marriage together.

Your average person probably isn’t really up to heroic devotion, but would like to make it through each day in an imperfect world.

 

[LJN21]

Island Oak makes several good points. It’s great when NFP works out, but in the case a life-threatening pregnancies, sterilization is the best option unless a couple can very accurately practice NFP with total commitment by both partners. Most average people aren’t going to handle totally abstaining from sexual relations while sharing a home with an attractive spouse. For many people, sex is one of the most important parts of marriage. It’s one of the most joyful parts of marriage, and makes some of the less fun parts of marriage worth it. It strengthens the bonds that hold marriage together.

Your average person probably isn’t really up to heroic devotion, but would like to make it through each day in an imperfect world.

Subjective Morality anyone…

 

[kage_ar]

Island Oak makes several good points. It’s great when NFP works out, but in the case a life-threatening pregnancies, sterilization is the best option unless a couple can very accurately practice NFP with total commitment by both partners. Most average people aren’t going to handle totally abstaining from sexual relations while sharing a home with an attractive spouse. For many people, sex is one of the most important parts of marriage. It’s one of the most joyful parts of marriage, and makes some of the less fun parts of marriage worth it. It strengthens the bonds that hold marriage together.

Your average person probably isn’t really up to heroic devotion, but would like to make it through each day in an imperfect world.

Seems our modern culture puts sex before God. God created sex for a reason, he created eating for a reason. We are to curb our appeteits for food and for sex, not be slaves to it. Sex is created to exist in marriage. Marriage is NOT created for sex.

Why would God create something, raise it to a sacrament, then, make it impossible for people to live it?

God is God or he is not. You cannot have it both ways. God either established a Church or he did not. You cannot have it both ways. If God is God, he is God of your sex life as well as everything else. Why do people want to kick God out of the marital bedroom?

 

[BiologyBrain]

Also my gyn told me that the was NO CONCLUSIVE evidence that all IUD’s caused the body to get rid of fertilized eggs. I don’t know where you’re getting your information

I’m getting my information from the product inserts, the Physicians Desk Reference, and other highly reputable sources.

Here’s a link to the Mirena IUD product insert that specifically says that it can & does hinder implantation of the fertilized egg (zygote - baby). Mirena “How does the Mirena work? It may thicken the cervical mucus, thin the lining of the uterus, inhibit sperm movement and reduce sperm survival.” Thinning the lining of the uterus means that the fertilized egg - zygote can attempt implantation but will not succeed. Therefore it IS abortifacient.

Here’s a link to the Physicians Desk Reference on Birth Control Pills - PDR Where it says “**They may also keep a fertilized egg from sticking to the lining of the uterus (womb) and growing into a baby.” **Again, if the fertilized egg (zygote/baby) can’t implant its an abortifacient.

Here’s a link to the Physicians Desk Reference on IUDs - PDR Where it says “IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb “unfriendly” to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing (FER-til-eyez-ing) an egg. **An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.” **Again, stopping implantation equals abortifacient.

I’m not pointing this out to make you feel guilty or cast aspersions at your decision. However, I hope you’re getting the correct and complete information. The PDR has absolutely NO REASON to exaggerate the abortifacient effects of the contraceptive devices. Neither do the package inserts. Actually, they’re best served by hiding those portions, but in all honesty they CAN’T.

I tried to indicate that I wasn’t sure the principle of double effect was in place for birth control. Sorry if you didn’t get that sense.

I’m also sorry that you don’t feel that NFP worked for you at all. I’m not entirely confident that it couldn’t if you had the kind of experience I have. Its essential to work w/ a doc who understands NFP and is thoroughly trained in using it to manage problems. That’s the entire purpose of the Pope Paul VI Institute. They train doctors & nurses in women’s health w/o relying on birth control. They specialize in a wide range of ob/gyn problems and have a tremendous positive success rate.

All in all, I am a huge proponent of NFP (specifically Creighton & that espoused by the PPVI) for all women b/c I believe (and the medical data shows) it to be healthier for women as well as completely morally sound. Its true that sometimes the sacrifice appears to be too much to take. However, with appropriate instruction, support, guidance, and prayer life w/o birth control is entirely possible and not such a burden.

 

[ryecroft]

I’m getting my information from the product inserts, the Physicians Desk Reference, and other highly reputable sources.

Here’s a link to the Mirena IUD product insert that specifically says that it can & does hinder implantation of the fertilized egg (zygote - baby). Mirena “How does the Mirena work? It may thicken the cervical mucus, thin the lining of the uterus, inhibit sperm movement and reduce sperm survival.” Thinning the lining of the uterus means that the fertilized egg - zygote can attempt implantation but will not succeed. Therefore it IS abortifacient.

Here’s a link to the Physicians Desk Reference on Birth Control Pills - PDR Where it says “**They may also keep a fertilized egg from sticking to the lining of the uterus (womb) and growing into a baby.” **Again, if the fertilized egg (zygote/baby) can’t implant its an abortifacient.

Here’s a link to the Physicians Desk Reference on IUDs - PDR Where it says “IUDs are thought to prevent pregnancy by making the womb “unfriendly” to sperm and eggs. Sperm is either killed, or kept from reaching and fertilizing (FER-til-eyez-ing) an egg. **An IUD also may keep a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb and growing into a baby.” **Again, stopping implantation equals abortifacient.

I’m not pointing this out to make you feel guilty or cast aspersions at your decision. However, I hope you’re getting the correct and complete information. The PDR has absolutely NO REASON to exaggerate the abortifacient effects of the contraceptive devices. Neither do the package inserts. Actually, they’re best served by hiding those portions, but in all honesty they CAN’T.

I tried to indicate that I wasn’t sure the principle of double effect was in place for birth control. Sorry if you didn’t get that sense.

I’m also sorry that you don’t feel that NFP worked for you at all. I’m not entirely confident that it couldn’t if you had the kind of experience I have. Its essential to work w/ a doc who understands NFP and is thoroughly trained in using it to manage problems. That’s the entire purpose of the Pope Paul VI Institute. They train doctors & nurses in women’s health w/o relying on birth control. They specialize in a wide range of ob/gyn problems and have a tremendous positive success rate.

All in all, I am a huge proponent of NFP (specifically Creighton & that espoused by the PPVI) for all women b/c I believe (and the medical data shows) it to be healthier for women as well as completely morally sound. Its true that sometimes the sacrifice appears to be too much to take. However, with appropriate instruction, support, guidance, and prayer life w/o birth control is entirely possible and not such a burden.

IF you look all of that says “may cause” not does cause - anyway, there is other birth control where that isn’t even a situation so I won’t get into a debate about it. I’m glad that NFP worked for you -it doesn’t work for everyone - we tried more than one type of NFP for nearly two years and each time, even though we stuck to the rules we had unfortunate pregnancies. Needless to say this is no longer something I have to worry about as we have found that the doctirine of second effect does work for us and we have a priest to back us up -so your wondering if it was in effect for birth control - in our case it deffinately is -and there are some birth control pills that are not considered abortifacients - instead of going blindly by the physicians desk reference, you should ask a catholic gyn if your really interestd - it may not be for all out there -but in our case it goes along with the Catholic Church. We put a lot of time and energy in trying to use NFP, but I must say, NFP is NOT for every single couple out there especially those with serious medical issues. It wasn’t for laziness or any other reason that we quit trying-but we were not about to walk into another situation where not only could I have to get transfusions again but also wind up pregnant - my mom always taught me once shame on them but more than once shame on you - unfortunately, we tried two types and I’m not about to have a third try.

 

[monorail]

Needless to say this is no longer something I have to worry about as we have found that the doctirine of second effect does work for us and we have a priest to back us up -so your wondering if it was in effect for birth control - in our case it deffinately is -and there are some birth control pills that are not considered abortifacients - instead of going blindly by the physicians desk reference, you should ask a catholic gyn if your really interestd - it may not be for all out there -but in our case it goes along with the Catholic Church.

From trosch.org/phi/dbl-efft.htm, on the principle of double effect:

1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely 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.
3. 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.
4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things.

In my opinion, taking birth control pills to “minimize your bleeding” or whatever, then rejoicing at the loophole, fails criteria (2) and (4). That is just my opinion.