NFP and Asthma

[SemiThomist]

My mom brought up this quandary a little while ago:

Recently a girl X got married. She has asthma, so much that getting pregnant would probably kill her. Would it be OK for her to get her tubes tied so that she could have a normal married life with her husband. I initially said no, and added that she and her husband would have a good reason for using NFP, which is 99% effective.

She then seemed to come to the conclusion that the only options for the bride were 1) tubes tied or 2)celibacy, as a woman wouldn’t want to sleep with her husband knowing it might result in a 1% chance of death. After I lot of arguing, I conceded that maybe, maybe, the tubes tied thing might be permitted under double effect. (Did I commit a mortal sin?) Though probably not.

Anyway, is there anyone here with knowledge of this kind of situation? Any NFPers in the same situation? If a woman has an ashma case so hard preganancy could kill her, is NFP still a viable option (if she’s married and doesn’t want to be celibate)?

 

[Rence]

No, that doesn’t fall under the principle of double effect. NFP or total abstinence is her only choice. One is not permitted by the Church to get their tubes tied to avoid pregnancy.

No, you didn’t commit a mortal sin, you just made a mistake. Just tell her like it is and you’ll have corrected it

You can also point her to Humanae Vitae, to her priest, or to the diocese for a counselor.

 

[Newbie2]

Doesn’t really matter what the medical condition is…sterilization is a mortal sin.

Double effect doesn’t apply here…it would only apply IF somehow sterlization was medically necessary to treat life-threatening asthma. Sterilization in this case is directly intended to prevent pregnancy, not treat asthma.

 

[1ke]

Would it be OK for her to get her tubes tied so that she could have a normal married life with her husband.

No. She cannot commit a mortal sin. She can use natural family planning.

I initially said no, and added that she and her husband would have a good reason for using NFP, which is 99% effective.

1. tubes tied or

This is not an option at all. It is a mortal sin.

2)celibacy, as a woman wouldn’t want to sleep with her husband knowing it might result in a 1% chance of death.

Your mother is being a bit melodramatic, perhaps out of ignorance as to how NFP works.

After I lot of arguing, I conceded that maybe, maybe, the tubes tied thing might be permitted under double effect. (Did I commit a mortal sin?) Though probably not.

This is not correct and no a tubal ligation would not be allowed under “double effect.”

No, you didn’t commit a mortal sin, what makes you think you did?

If a woman has an ashma case so hard preganancy could kill her, is NFP still a viable option (if she’s married and doesn’t want to be celibate)?

Certainly.

 

[3DOCTORS]

The horse has left the barn already, but for persons not already married, the best sequence of events would be:

• Woman discusses her medical condition with her physician, making clear that contraception or sterilization are not on the table as options.
• If possible, physician and woman formulate a plan how to deal with a pregnancy if it occurs, to help her get through it.
• If physician honestly believes a pregnancy would definitely be fatal, then woman should consult with her priest as to what to do.
• She might also consider getting more than one medical opinion.
• When she has the information and counsel to make a decision, she talks things over with her fiance’
• If they can mutually arrive at a decision to be open to life and do what they can to minimize risks, trusting in God, they can get married.
• If they are genuinely convinced that they would have reservations about being open to life, then they can’t get married yet.

This is just the only way to really follow Church teaching, which sometimes does call on us to take up a Cross and even to sacrifice. If the couple waits until they have already married and then asks if they can do a moral evil (sterilization) to accomplish a moral good (diminishing her risk of dying from complications) - that is not possible. Basic moral theology. Many couples put themselves in these dilemmas because they don’t face the issues honestly at an earlier stage of their relationship.

Perhaps the woman who is already married can consult a specialty asthma hospital or the Mayo Clinic or something - and maybe also the John Paul II Institute. There have to be some Catholic doctors out there who are pro-life and could possibly help in this situation. Because doesn’t she want to be able to have a baby anyway?

 

[SemiThomist]

Well, the couple in question isn’t Catholic, but I don’t think she’s the only married woman in the world with this problem.

 

[puzzleannie]

My mom brought up this quandary a little while ago:

Recently a girl X got married. She has asthma, so much that getting pregnant would probably kill her. )?

she must be unique in medical literature. I have asthma as do most of the women in my family and we have no special problems in pregancy.

No one may use artificial contracteption to prevent pregnancy. Period. It is a mortal sin, and it is a killer of marital intimacy.

If she can’t get pregnant for some reason–her medication could pose a threat to a potential fetus, her own health risk, whatever–the option of her and her husband, and it should be a choice made together is to abstain from relations, either periodically with the help of NFP and modern ovulation prediction, or completely until the health situation resolves. Period. End of sentence. This is real life folks. There are times in every marriage, for a myriad of reasons, when pregnancy and/or sexual activity is impossible or ill-advised. If you have not the maturity to deal with that reality you are not ready for marriage, much less for sex.

 

[3DOCTORS]

I had a non-Catholic friend who had asthma - this was around 25-30 years ago that she got married and had her two children - possibly more but they moved and we lost contact. She did have difficulty during labor, and was on the Pill because of her worry about this. But she recovered fine and each child was fine.

I don’t know particulars like if she took daily asthma meds or anything like that - if she did, the children weren’t affected. As for the mother, well, high-risk pregnancy knowledge has surely improved between then and now, too.

I’m not a doctor, so if I’m mistaken about this, corrrect me - but this occurs as a possibility: Some mothers who would be high-risk with a regular delivery could successfully have a C-section delivery. If baby can be delivered more quickly, maybe an asthmatic mom would then have less time of enduring the stress and possible breathing problems stemming from prolonged labor? That might be something she could talk to her doctor about.

 

[Equites_Christi]

After I lot of arguing, I conceded that maybe, maybe, the tubes tied thing might be permitted under double effect. (Did I commit a mortal sin?) Though probably not.

Doh, you were doing so good! There were no prior signs of scrupulosity!
Giving someone a tentative idea, with such pains for phrasing it dubiously; I can’t see how you did any grave matter with any sort of consent.

But, now I’ll make myself look smart by saying what everyone else already said and the answer is no.

 

[Rence]

she must be unique in medical literature. I have asthma as do most of the women in my family and we have no special problems in pregancy.

She’s not unique According to the research about 33% of asthmatics get worse from pregnancy, and 33% actually have reduced symptoms and feel better and the other 33% have no change at all. So it really depends on the individual. If one’s asthma is under control, it’s not usually an impediment to having children, but if it’s not under control, then it could pose a problem. The only way this woman would know for sure is to talk with her doctor.

 

[puzzleannie]

If one’s asthma is under control, it’s not usually an impediment to having children, but if it’s not under control, then it could pose a problem. The only way this woman would know for sure is to talk with her doctor.

or wait until she actually becomes pregnant and deal with symptoms as they arise, instead of trying to play God and imagine every possible outcome and control it by committing a mortal sin

 

[Rence]

or wait until she actually becomes pregnant and deal with symptoms as they arise, instead of trying to play God and imagine every possible outcome and control it by committing a mortal sin

Right, I agree with you. But if she’s arleady having trouble controlling her asthma, it would be prudent to consult with her doctor. IMOHO, there’s no sense in becoming pregnant when someone is already actively sick and having trouble controlling symptoms. That way she’s not tempted to commit a mortal sin in the first place

 

[Marie682]

Where do you get the 1% chance of death statistic? Uncontrolled asthma can complicate a pregnancy, but the claim that “she has asthma, so much that getting pregnant would probably kill her” is erroneous.

I think it’s very sad that a recently married woman would consider getting her tubes tied based on such an exaggerated fear. As long as she finds a good doctor who can help her keep the asthma under control, there’s really no reason to avoid pregnancy.

 

[larry85704]

Suppose a couple enters into The Sacrament of Matrimony knowing that they cannot have children. Church teaching allows them to get married as long as they are open to children if God chooses to grant them children. The Church teaches that they must be open to having children.

It seems to me that if a couple were to get married with the intention of never having children and never being open to that possibility then their marriage would be invalid. They should not have been married, at least in the Church.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

She’s not unique According to the research about 33% of asthmatics get worse from pregnancy, and 33% actually have reduced symptoms and feel better and the other 33% have no change at all. So it really depends on the individual. If one’s asthma is under control, it’s not usually an impediment to having children, but if it’s not under control, then it could pose a problem. The only way this woman would know for sure is to talk with her doctor.

Getting worse doesn’t mean fatal.

 

[manualman]

It seems to me that if a couple were to get married with the intention of never having children and never being open to that possibility then their marriage would be invalid. They should not have been married, at least in the Church.

I think you are correct, but only if that was the intent at the time they married. If they LATER became anxious about the asthma and decided THEN to never have kids, the marriage is valid (though potentially in danger if they aren’t discerning carefully and prayerfully).

But you can’t do something wrong hoping that good will come of it. Sexual intimacy is a gift and a privilige, not an entitlement, a fact I must often remind myself! (headaches, long work hours, much kid homework, fertile times…)

 

[Incomplete]

My mom brought up this quandary a little while ago:

Recently a girl X got married. She has asthma, so much that getting pregnant would probably kill her. Would it be OK for her to get her tubes tied so that she could have a normal married life with her husband. I initially said no, and added that she and her husband would have a good reason for using NFP, which is 99% effective.

She then seemed to come to the conclusion that the only options for the bride were 1) tubes tied or 2)celibacy, as a woman wouldn’t want to sleep with her husband knowing it might result in a 1% chance of death. After I lot of arguing, I conceded that maybe, maybe, the tubes tied thing might be permitted under double effect. (Did I commit a mortal sin?) Though probably not.

Anyway, is there anyone here with knowledge of this kind of situation? Any NFPers in the same situation? If a woman has an ashma case so hard preganancy could kill her, is NFP still a viable option (if she’s married and doesn’t want to be celibate)?

If pregnancy can kill her, if it’s vital she doesn’t become pregnant, getting tubes tied is not the answer. She needs to abstain.

When I was pregnant, I was looking at maternity clothing and began chatting with a woman also looking at maternity clothing. She had had her tubes tied three years prior. Fortunately, her attitude was good. She told me about her youngest (age 8) who had just recently said she’d like to have a younger sibling. In hardly any time the mother got confirmation that she was, indeed, pregnant.

 

[larry85704]

Hello

Boy, I realize it is early in the morning, but have a cup of coffee people.

If a couple, when they get married, know they will not have children and active take steps to not have them they should not be married. Let me say that again, they should not be married.

If they get married I don’t see how it can be a valid marriage. If they have sex in any way they are committing a sin. Or did somebody decide sex outside of marriage is ok now? So, if they have sex using NFP, XYZ or PPD it doesn’t matter.

Abstaining is not an option either. We you abstain you are decided to take an active step not to be open to children. The Church does not ask what step the couple will take to not have kids. And yes, if you are 80 you can get married. You just must say, truthfully, that you are open to the possibility of children.

Now, if they are married, and are taking steps, again it does not matter what steps, not to have children in their marriage then they are in an invalid marriage. No sex is permissible and by living together they are quite possibly doing a no-no. I am not talking about abstaining for a week because mommy is sick either, I am talking about a couple that decides never to have children in their marriage.

Again, it doesn’t matter why the couple decides not to have kids. The Sacrament of Matrimony is reserved for a man and a woman that love one another and are willing to have kids. To cannot take away the man and woman, or the kids, or the love.

 

[manualman]

If pregnancy can kill her, if it’s vital she doesn’t become pregnant, getting tubes tied is not the answer. She needs to abstain.

When I was pregnant, I was looking at maternity clothing and began chatting with a woman also looking at maternity clothing. She had had her tubes tied three years prior. Fortunately, her attitude was good. She told me about her youngest (age 8) who had just recently said she’d like to have a younger sibling. In hardly any time the mother got confirmation that she was, indeed, pregnant.

Believe it or not, I can top that! My folks had a friend some time back that had had a partial hysterectomy (uterous removed, ovaries remain) who got pregnant. She had a weird pregnancy, massive bed rest and I don’t remember if the baby survived…

It was big local news at the time, but that was years and years ago.

 

[Rence]

Hello

Boy, I realize it is early in the morning, but have a cup of coffee people.

If a couple, when they get married, know they will not have children and active take steps to not have them they should not be married. Let me say that again, they should not be married.

If they get married I don’t see how it can be a valid marriage. If they have sex in any way they are committing a sin.

I don’t know where you got that from, but that’s completely untrue. Where did that come from? If they have sex, even using NFP, they are not sinning – because they are still open to children. They haven’t done anything to interfere with the procreative and untive properies of marriage. They can’t use artificial birth control methods. In addition, the use of NFP is forces one to determine if they really need to wait or if it’s okay to get pregnant.

Or did somebody decide sex outside of marriage is ok now? So, if they have sex using NFP, XYZ or PPD it doesn’t matter.

According to Humanae Vitae, they can use NFP.

Abstaining is not an option either. We you abstain you are decided to take an active step not to be open to children. The Church does not ask what step the couple will take to not have kids. And yes, if you are 80 you can get married. You just must say, truthfully, that you are open to the possibility of children.

I do believe they can abstain completely but it has to be consensual. I’d check with my priest on that one…

Now, if they are married, and are taking steps, again it does not matter what steps, not to have children in their marriage then they are in an invalid marriage. No sex is permissible and by living together they are quite possibly doing a no-no. I am not talking about abstaining for a week because mommy is sick either, I am talking about a couple that decides never to have children in their marriage.

I’m sorry, but where did you get all that? Have you read Humanae Vitae? It actually spells out what can and can’t be done…

Again, it doesn’t matter why the couple decides not to have kids. The Sacrament of Matrimony is reserved for a man and a woman that love one another and are willing to have kids. To cannot take away the man and woman, or the kids, or the love.

That’s true but by using NFP, one is being open to having children because as we know, all things with God are possible, and no form of birth control (none at all) is completely fool proof. By not using an artificial means you are within the confines of the Church. And the Church does allow one to use NFP for various reasons, including the health of the mother.

I’d be surprised though if her doctor told her that it was unsafe for her to have children. But, after seeing her doctor, that’s something this couple is going to have to deal with and either be true to their vows or not…