Medication question

[TeacherMama1]

I want to preface this that my husband and I use NFP. However my cycles are very irregular due to a hormonal imbalance. Doctor recommended taking medproxyprogesterone days 16-25 of my cycle to become more regular. He stresses it is not birth control. However, I was wondering if anyone can tell me if this is permissible in the eyes of the church. Might also ask our priest. Thank you!

 

[Allegra]

It would be permissible, if used for non-birthcontrol, medical reason, even if it did have the side effect of causing infertility. Since it isn’t birth control, then it’s perfectly fine.

 

[Rau]

Did your doctor discuss with you any risks that may accrue to a baby should you be, or become, pregnant while taking that drug. I think that’s worth understanding.

 

[TheLittleLady]

We cannot give medical advice. The Church permits us to take medicine to correct or cure a disease/illness.

 

[Pattylt]

I would also research how it might effect the NFP. If it changes your cycles, it could interfere with NFP practice.

 

[Rau]

The Church permits us to take medicine to correct or cure a disease/illness.

Of course. Whether one should be sexually active during the taking of medication is another question.

 

[TheLittleLady]

If you know of some official Catholic teaching that tells anyone in a valid marriage to abstain because of medication? Please, present your sources, I am eager to learn.

 

[PennyinCanada]

I am asking this question to learn something.
If in the course of a year I have 13 periods, but due to irregular cycles, I only have to put up with 10 periods, what is the down side of this?
Illness, stress, etc can delay a period. Is that all that’s going on? Is there a more serious problem? Because for myself, having only 10 periods in the year is a bonus I would take.

 

[Rau]

If you know of some official Catholic teaching that tells anyone in a valid marriage to abstain because of medication? Please, present your sources, I am eager to learn.

If you were taking a drug known to cause birth defects - would you continue with marital relations unchanged?

 

[Anicette]

Is it you who have ask your doctor some medication and for what reasons?

The answers depend of your reasons, the nature and the consequences on the drug, including on your fertility, the practice of NFP and of course on the consequence on the child.

Listen your doctor but also do your own search.

 

[Anicette]

It’s a protein from progesterone, which is something they give to pregnant women regularly to prevent miscarriage so I highly doubt it’s harmful.

With all the current medical scandals, if I wear the OP I wouldn’t trust any anonymous advise on the internet. I would look into it myself and ask my providers many questions.

All drugs might have side effects, even legal ones.

 

[Allegra]

I don’t think she’s looking for medical advice. She has that. She’s looking for moral advice. There’s no moral issue here. Church teaching is clear that it is permissible to use medicines for non-contraceptive reasons.

 

[Rau]

Church teaching is clear that it is permissible to use medicines for non-contraceptive reasons.

Could I ask you the same question I asked earlier? Were you in need of a medication known to cause birth defects, would you continue normal marital relations?

 

[Allegra]

Depends on the medication. If it was a class X drug, which the OPs medication isn’t, then I probably wouldn’t, particularly if I was using the drug temporarily. For other classifications, I would probably just continue to use NFP.

 

[Rau]

I would probably just continue to use NFP.

“Continue to use”?? Not sure how that assumption (that NFP was in use arises, though the OP mentions it). What I am trying to get at is this: Do we need to be concerned about all the foreseeable consequences of our actions, or only those we intend? Hence: If taking a drug known to cause birth defects, would one have a moral obligation to take steps to avoid pregnancy? I think we probably agree the answer is “yes”.

 

[Allegra]

No, I don’t think we do. The fact is, pregnancy itself has a significant rate of producing children with birth defects. My first born was born with several birth defects. I would love for you to come through my computer screen and tell me to my face that she shouldn’t have been born! Because we don’t know what caused her birth defects, there was considered to be a slightly elevated risk of subsequent children having birth defects, but we still had more children, who did not have birth defects. Even if I had known we had a real increased risk of birth defects, we would have still had more children. Birth defects are only one tiny drop in the comprehensive ocean of lousy things that can happen to people. They are not a fate worse than death or a fate worse than non-existence. So, no. We are under no moral obligation to do everything within our power to make certain that children with birth defects don’t exist. If I was temporarily on a class X medication, I would probably abstain to avoid pregnancy at that time. Otherwise, I would use NFP, as I usually do when I am not trying to be pregnant. If a time came that we wanted to be pregnant again, I would discontinue the medication first, if possible.

 

[Lenny]

I think you miss the vain of the question. If there were birth defects associated with this drug, then abstinence could be applied. After all do you not abstain over lent? You are supposed to. This is why one cannot marry over lent.

BTW Our middle daughter has several physical and mental handicaps.

 

[Allegra]

One could abstain, but I don’t think one is morally obligated to abstain for that reason.

 

[Rau]

So, no. We are under no moral obligation to do everything within our power to make certain that children with birth defects don’t exist.

That’s a strawman Allegra since it’s not my statement nor any other statement on this thread.

There is a common moral fallacy - and I don’t accuse any poster here of making it - of believing that the unintended consequences of our acts are always excused because they were not the intention, that is, not what motivated the act (such as the taking of a medication).

Another thread on CAF - about 3 weeks ago - addressed the circumstance of a person taking a drug (for a medical purpose) with abortifacient properties. Several posters suggested this was not a problem - it’s a proper medication - and no change to marital relations was required. The thread was subsequently heavily edited by the moderator to remove the posts that gave faulty moral advice (not something I’d seen before on CAF, maybe the practices have changed). I’ll see if I can find the moderator’s explanation and post it.

The CAmoderator wrote: “we’ve deleted and modified a number of other posts by various members, because they misapplied the Church’s teaching on the Principle of Double Effect. A couple should not have marital relations while the wife is taking an abortifacient pill.” [This comes from a PM, so I can’t figure out how to quote it here in the usual way…] Note that abortion was of course not the purpose of taking the pill!

This was that thread - as I say - many posts were deleted:

Question about abortifacients Moral Theology

So a bit of a complex question. My wife takes birth control due to a genetic condition. She has tried alternate medications for years and nothing treats her condition except one specific type of birth control pill. We spoke to our Priest about this and he enlightened us about the dual effect doctrine. My question is, since this medication can function as an abortifacient, should condoms also be used to counteract this effect? My leaning is yes but I’m not sure. Any guidance would be appreciated. …

The specifics are not the same as in this thread - I mention it because of the principal I mentioned earlier.

 

[Rau]

I think you miss the vain of the question.

I think so.

After all do you not abstain over lent? You are supposed to.

That’s news to me!