Okay to take "the Pill" if medical condition calls for its use?

  • Thread starter Thread starter InspiritCarol
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

InspiritCarol

Guest
There are two medical conditions I am aware of wherein “the Pill” is widely prescribed by doctors for treatment.

Ovarian Cysts:
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001504.htm

and
Polycystic ovary syndrome
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000369.htm

I have been operating under the assumption that the Bishops are opposed only to the “birth control” aspect of the pill.

Is it against our faith to take the pill under any circumstances?
If the Bishops get all they want from the healthcare bill, will doctors be allowed to prescribe “the Pill” for strictly medicinal reasons?

Thanks. I neither watch TV nor listen to pundits, so I am a bit out of the loop on this.

-Carol
 
InspiritCarol said:
There are two medical conditions I am aware of wherein “the Pill” is widely prescribed by doctors for treatment.

Ovarian Cysts:
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001504.htm

and
Polycystic ovary syndrome
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000369.htm

I have been operating under the assumption that the Bishops are opposed only to the “birth control” aspect of the pill.

Is it against our faith to take the pill under any circumstances?
If the Bishops get all they want from the healthcare bill, will doctors be allowed to prescribe “the Pill” for strictly medicinal reasons?

Thanks. I neither watch TV nor listen to pundits, so I am a bit out of the loop on this.

-Carol
Click to expand...
The Church allows the pill to treat medical conditions.
vatican.va/holy_father/pa…-vitae_en.html
Click to expand...
Lawful Therapeutic Means
Click to expand...
  1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.
Click to expand...
If the Bishops get all they want from the healthcare bill, doctors will not be affected and do NOT have to prescribe hormone therapy only for medicinal purposes.
 
There are legimate medical treatments that cause infertility as an unintended side effect. These side effects do not make a treatment immoral for men or women, whether married or not. Provided that a treatment is not chosen all or in part in order to achieve infertility, it does not even matter whether the patient would welcome infertility as a side effect.

Doctors are already allowed to prescribe these medications; the question is only whether or not insurance plans or employers providing health coverage are required to pay for them.

To be blunt, it is my belief that bishops do not want compelled coverage of even moral uses for the Pill because so many doctors would not feel any ethical prohibition against lying about a diagnosis in order to get contraception for patients who want it. Not a few doctors see contraception as strictly something that is between a doctor and a patient, and do not mind breaking rules to force a third party to pay for them. That is truly sad, because it means people who would be using the treatments for morally legitimate reasons have to pay for it out of pocket, but I can hardly say their analysis is anything but realistic. If doctors were trusted to follow the rules, the bishops’ position might be different.

I say “might be” because the bishops will also go to bat for other mandates of civil law that would seem to set a precedent by which having the legal right to act according to the constraints of conscience is not treated as a protected matter of religious freedom. If the only thing religious freedom means is the right to worship in this way or that, rather than to live the totality of one’s life in this way or that, then religious freedom has been seriously, seriously eroded.
 
Ah yes. EasterJoy, I misspoke.

I meant to say
would *insurance *be allowed to pay to cover medically prescribed hormones?

Does anyone know if the Bishops have been *clear *about this somewhere?
 
InspiritCarol said:
Ah yes. EasterJoy, I misspoke.

I meant o say
would *insurance *be allowed to pay to cover medically prescribed hormones?

Does anyone know if the Bishops have been *clear *about this somewhere?
Click to expand...
Yes, insurance companies would be allowed to cover them, just as before. The bone of contention is that some parties are citing ‘religious conscience’ objections to having to offer insurance coverage that includes coverage of ABCs. If the Bishops get all they ask, employers would be able to prevent their employees from accessing the ABCs coverage that is mandated to be included in all policies. So if the Bishops have their way, those subscribers who work for employers who refuse to allow the coverage, would just have to pay for it out of pocket. Though, I’m sure the HHS will just provide another way for them to get it if they really can’t afford it. The Bishops just want to make sure that employers who are morally opposed to the coverage don’t have to include it in the coverage they offer their employees.
 
Well, “back in the day”, it was very unusual for an employer insurance plan to cover birth control. Birth control pills were classified along with cosmetic surgery as 'lifestyle" medical expenses and were not routinely covered. However, virtually all of those plans allowed a doctor to prescribe the same drugs that were in birth control pills for the treatment of such things as ovarian cysts and endometriosis.

While we don’t know the specifics of each diocisan insurance plan, I would say that it is very likely that the “no contraceptive” plans that are in place now allow coverage for those drugs if used for to truly treat a medical condition. I see no reason why such coverage would not remain as it’s not morally objectionable.
 
I’ve heard that you can use “The Pill” for medical reasons (I would get a dispensation from a Bishop), but that while you take it, you must abstain from marital relations. This is because the Birth Control Pill, sometimes fails to prevent conception and instead serves as an abortifacient.
 
Not_Sure said:
I’ve heard that you can use “The Pill” for medical reasons (I would get a dispensation from a Bishop), but that while you take it, you must abstain from marital relations.
Click to expand...
This is not the Church’s position.
 
Not_Sure said:
I’ve heard that you can use “The Pill” for medical reasons (I would get a dispensation from a Bishop), but that while you take it, you must abstain from marital relations. This is because the Birth Control Pill, sometimes fails to prevent conception and instead serves as an abortifacient.
Click to expand...
No, you do not need to abstain from marital relations because you are prone to miscarry, whether or not the danger exists for reasons over which you had control. You also do not need dispensation from the bishop to take the Pill for medical reasons. Rather, you need to have due diligence when making your decision to find out whether opting out of the treatment or opting for a different treatment without that unintended side effect does not exist as an acceptable alternative by which your problem might be treated.

Even if you were to have taken the Pill with a contraceptive intention, you would need to repent and resolve not to take it again, but you would not need to refrain from marital relations until you think you are fertile again. Rather, it would be like having had a surgical sterilization or having some 5-year contraceptive injection: the couple does not have to abstain from marital relations. Neither does the non-contracepting spouse have to refuse relations to a contracepting spouse; rather, the non-contracepting spouse needs to make what effort might realistically have the effect of turning their spouse from that action.

That is how this has been explained to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top