Question about "preventive" sterilization

[felra]

josea:

But… felra, I am not talking about contraception. I am talking about amputation of a part of the body that can be dangerous for the rest, as done in case of obesity by removing an healthy stomach.

jose

Your attempts to redefine *direct *sterilization to “preventative sterilization” does not change the reality that it is contraception (solely intended to prevent inception).

Quote:

josea:

Felra, I remind you this in not about contraception, the operation does not have to be considered as an evil act.
Jose

Originally Posted by felra

The operation as you describe (intentions aside) “has the sole immediate effect of rendering the generative faculty incapable of procreation, is to be considered direct sterilization”. It is all about contraception and is considered an immoral act.

 

[rayne89]

I haven’t had a chance to read all the posts because I’m getting ready to run some errands but I will explain my situation.

I have one daughter who is now ten. After she was born I was informed another pregnancy would be fatal and I should not get pregnant again. I have congestive heart failure with other complications from a congenital heart defect. I had 2 second opinions including at the Mayo clinic and all confirmed barring divine intervention I would not survive another pregnancy. I have used NFP for 9 years.

The church gives you two options refrain from sexual relations indefinately or use NFP. We use the most conservative standards of NFP and I place my life in God’s hands. If I become pregnant despite using NFP then this is the will of God because this is the teaching of his church. It is sometimes very hard to trust in God when it’s something of this great a magnitude. I have a little girl to raise so a fatal pregnancy is not something I take lightly.

If I were to become pregnant I would not (nor morally could not)have an abortion nor have any of my reproductive organs removed since they are healthy.

I will check back later on this thread when I have more time.

God Bless!

 

[josea]

TAS2000:

Similarly, removal of the stomach to pre-empt obesity would not be licit. Removal of functioning organs before the problem exists used to be called mutilation.

This is not clear to me: is it or is it not licit the actual operation of the stomach to help against obesity?

I have never heard that the Church was against it. And the organ is healthy and there would be other methods to treat the problem than just removing the stomach. Still I did not hear anything from the Church about this issue.
I don’t know but I have the feeling that sexual related medical issues attract the attention of the moral theologians more than others.

Is it licit to operate the stomach or not?

Jose

 

[josea]

Similarly, removal of the stomach to pre-empt obesity would not be licit. Removal of functioning organs before the problem exists used to be called mutilation.

I understand now that removal of the stomach would be licit only when the problem of obesity is present.
Then, in our case, there is no problem: if the woman get pregnant, we should wait until the health risk appears to remove the organs causing the problem (uterus). Done in that circumstances should be then sterilization licit?

Jose

 

[josea]

josea:

Then, in our case, there is no problem: if the woman get pregnant, we should wait until the health risk appears to remove the organs causing the problem (uterus). Done in that circumstances should be then sterilization licit?

Jose

Please, do not missunderstand the irony!

 

[felra]

Originally Posted by josea
Then, in our case, there is no problem: if the woman get pregnant, we should wait until the health risk appears to remove the organs causing the problem (uterus). Done in that circumstances should be then sterilization licit?

Jose

josea:

Please, do not missunderstand the irony!

That does not make the case for “preventative sterilization”.

Article excerpt:

“…a simple way to determine whether a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility is morally acceptable or not is to consider whether the same treatment would be necessary for a single or celibate woman. If the answer is no, then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral.”

catholicmom.com/nfp0304.htm

We do not at all intend to hide the sometimes serious difficulties inherent in the life of Christian married persons; for them as for everyone else, “the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life.”[33] But the hope of that life must illuminate their way, as with courage they strive to live with wisdom, justice and piety in this present time,[34] knowing that the figure of this world passes away.[35] (**25. **

Humanae Vitae)

 

[TAS2000]

Irony aside, and over simplied, yes. Similar to a tubal ectopic pregnancy, it would be wrong to remove the tube if it is functioning fine and there was no pregnancy. However, once an ectopic pregnancy occurs in the tube it would be morally licit, and medically necessary to remove the tube, with the baby in it. The life threatening condition did not exist until the pregnancy occured. The potential existed. They are two different things.

Also, please do not misundersatnd, there is no direction to wait until the actual rupture occurs to do the surgery. That would be unessecarily risking the mother’s life. But you do have to wait for the pregnancy to occur. You can not pre-emptively remove the tube before there is a problem or that is direct sterilization.

I do not know the details of your particular situation, but if the pregancy would cause the uterus to pose a life threatening problem (bleeding, etc.) then the NOW malfunctioning organ could be treated.

 

[Corki]

josea:

This is not clear to me: is it or is it not licit the actual operation of the stomach to help against obesity?

I have never heard that the Church was against it. And the organ is healthy and there would be other methods to treat the problem than just removing the stomach. Still I did not hear anything from the Church about this issue.
I don’t know but I have the feeling that sexual related medical issues attract the attention of the moral theologians more than others.

Is it licit to operate the stomach or not?

Jose

Here is the point where it comes together (at least for me). 1) The uterus itself (in your example) is not unhealthy, it is just not able to complete a pregnancy. 2) other methods of treatment ARE available. The most obvious is, of course, abstinence. After all, fertility in a woman is a temporary condition. There are other treatments available as well, some better than others. One extreme position, that people don’t like but that has been approved by some in the Church, is to deliver the baby early (but as late as possible) and aggressively care for it postnatally. There is also the possibility of surgery to support the mother’s uterus during pregnancy. This is risky for the baby, but not as risky as killing him/her. Same thing for drug treatments.

I think in the case of the stomach, it would be illicit as well. In the case of pre-emptive breast removal, there are opinions from theologians that go both ways. But that is more complicated than the pregnancy situation since if a woman is going to get breast cancer, it will happen regardless of her daily activities. Pregnancy doesn’t work that way.

 

[josea]

Corki:

Here is the point where it comes together (at least for me). 1) The uterus itself (in your example) is not unhealthy, it is just not able to complete a pregnancy

Well… Do you consider healthy and organ that is not able to fulfill its function and that when at work is going to risk the life of the woman???

 

[Corki]

josea:

Well… Do you consider healthy and organ that is not able to fulfill its function and that when at work is going to risk the life of the woman???

In your OP, you gave no indication that the uterus was putting the woman’s life or health at risk UNLESS she got pregnant. So, yes, the organ is healthy and fulfilling its function most of the time. It is not when the organ is “at work” that the woman’s life is in jeopardy. It is when other actions have taken place, presumable voluntarily, that cause a life threatening situation for the woman. The answer then, is to avoid the actions that will put the woman’s life in danger.

 

[josea]

Corki:

In your OP, you gave no indication that the uterus was putting the woman’s life or health at risk UNLESS she got pregnant. So, yes, the organ is healthy and fulfilling its function most of the time. It is not when the organ is “at work” that the woman’s life is in jeopardy. It is when other actions have taken place, presumable voluntarily, that cause a life threatening situation for the woman. The answer then, is to avoid the actions that will put the woman’s life in danger.

Sorry but I can not agree.

“The main function of the uterus is to accept a fertilized ovum which becomes implanted into the endometrium, and derives nourishment from blood vessels which develop exclusively for this purpose”

If the uterus can not fulfil this task then is a defective one: it is simply not a healthy organ.

This has nothing to do of whether at rest it does not risk the life of the person. Even if this risk appears only when it is activated to perform ITS FUNCTION, it can not be considered a healthy organ because it can not fulfill its function: to maintain and develop an embryo within.

BY DEFINITION SOMETHING IS CONSIDERED TO BE DEFECTIVE NOT IF IT IS NOT USED, BUT WHEN IT FAILS AS WE TRY TO USE IT FOR WHAT IT IS MEANT TO BE USED!

This is absolutely independent of whether or not its function is freely activated. This uterus is defective because it will fail if used.

Still thinking about parallelisms with the stomach operation. I did not find any problems by moralists yet about it. Let’s go through the moral conditions again to accept an amputation as licit.

1. that the preservation or functioning** **of a particular organ provokes a serious damage or constitutes a threat to the complete organism [that is the principle of totality];

Again, the functioning of the uterus provokes a serious damage (independently of freely activated or not, it could be activated by rape also).

This point applies to sterilization and for the stomach operation to fight obesity.

1. that this damage cannot be avoided, or at least notably diminished, except by the amputation in question and that its efficacy is well assured;

In both cases there are ways to avoid the direct amputation.

1. that it can be reasonably foreseen that the negative effect, namely, the mutilation and its consequences, will be compensated by the positive effect: exclusion of a damage to the whole organism, mitigation of the pain, etc.

This is clear for both cases.

But point 2) is only applied to sexual-related issues and no to the stomach operation. Why?

Jose

 

[TAS2000]

Josea, I respect that you are facing a tough burden, but no matter how many times you disect it the answer will be the same. It is not morally acceptable to preventatively sterilize.

If a surgery existed to replace the defective uterus, or fix the defect, that would be ok. But as long as the uterus is not life threatening, what you are talking about is morally wrong.

I doubt you are going to find an official document about stomach stapling, or even about cosmetic surgery. These are not issues with the same importance as the denial of human life. Thus the Church has spoken on this more serious subject. Very specifically in fact.

For full text see the vatican document “Responses to questions proposed Concerning “uterine isolation” and related matters”:

“In point of fact, the uterus as described in no. 2 does not constitute in and of itself any present danger to the woman. Indeed the proposal to substitute “uterine isolation” for hysterectomy under the same conditions shows precisely that the uterus in and of itself does not pose a pathological problem for the woman. Therefore, the described procedures do not have a properly therapeutic character but are aimed in themselves at rendering sterile future sexual acts freely chosen. The end of avoiding risks to the mother, deriving from a possible pregnancy, is thus pursued by means of a direct sterilization, in itself always morally illicit, while other ways, which are morally licit, remain open to free choice.”

You feel that you should be able to do what you want because the uterous has a defect. But the proper medical response would be to fix the defect. I think if it weren’t so easy for doctors to just say, “let’s just sterilize you then we won’t have to worry about it”, they might try harder to find CURES, not just mask the real problems.

 

[josea]

TAS2000:

If a surgery existed to replace the defective uterus, or fix the defect, that would be ok. But as long as the uterus is not life threatening, what you are talking about is morally wrong.

I doubt you are going to find an official document about stomach stapling, or even about cosmetic surgery. These are not issues with the same importance as the denial of human life. Thus the Church has spoken on this more serious subject. Very specifically in fact.

I think the all issue is a misunderstanding. You said: “as long as the uterus is not life threatening, what you are talking about is morally wrong”. It would be life threatening when used, and this should be enough to consider the issue morally licit. I never heard about a moral premise talking about using an organ or not using an organ except in the case of the reproductive function. Why?

Sexual contact is not only good but necessary for a normal couple, no matter what people said talking about the right that a person has about sex or not (that is just an opinion or a philosophical thought). Even Paul was saying that in one of his letters. Sex is not only meant for reproduction. It is very difficult to ask two people that are married, that are supposed to have sex (because the sexual attraction was one of the most important and basic things of marriage from all points of view you want) a man and a woman that are supposed to sleep together in the same bet to refrain from a sexual relation when there are life threatening problems that could be solved by a simple operation. The same people that say that the person has not right to sex (???) are the ones saying that sexual activity within marriage can be demanded by the man or the woman and if one of them does not give it, it would be a sin. Is there a right to sex or not then?

The uterus is defect, it can not support other pregnancy and children will never come. Why is necessary to have it if the only thing that can bring to the woman is pain, suffering and death?

This is not about contraception because the children even if wanted are not able to come anymore. Why should this person be condemned to avoid the wonderful things of a normal sexual life? Remember that this is not about having or not children because I want to have a new car or serious economical reasons (in the last case NFP acceptable and good)… it is about the life of the woman absolutely afraid of dying if NFP fails. This is unfair, it does not make any sense to me, I do not understand it at all and I hope the Church will change this horrible burden for many couples only based in some doubted philosophical concepts and logic. I accept it only because of obedience and afraid of the consequences of not doing so.

 

[LittleDeb]

I have been quietly reading this thread and have only posted once, but I feel I need to say more at this time. Before I go on, please understand that I feel some of the pain and frustration in the original post. I do have a somewhat defective uterus. The wonderful blessing for me is that mine is helped by pregnancy. On my paternal side, massive hemoraging runs in the family. Pregnant or not the women in my family have severe troubles with defective uteruses.

The one thing I would advise is that The Church is right! The members of my family who (outside Church teaching) had otherwise healthy uteruses removed, traded them in on a whole host of other problems. Those of us who have hung on and trusted and been blessed with better health. There is not a woman on that side of the family who has had more than two live births. I hope to be the first to beat those odds.

Any one of us can die from having a baby. It is so hard for me to understand how a doctor’s written garantee of certain death from pregnancy is any more reliable than one who says that everything will be all right. My family has been putting their faith in doctors. I don’t. I put my faith in God. My cousin, who while single and on contraception had a massive hemorage and complete hysterectomy, changed her life after that. She decided God was the answer instead. Doctors are only as good as their Hippocratic oath, “First do no harm.” Removing a uterus on a guess is harmful. (As is tubal ligation.)

My point is that we don’t know a body part is bad until is really goes bad. Preventative measures include monitoring NOT removal. NFP is truly a gift in this case. It allows the woman to still function completely normally as she was made to function. Plus, she has the added bonus of knowing God’s plan for her life. I am reposting my encouragement to read the article here on Catholic Answers, “That Celibate Bachelor was Right!” complete with the link this time. www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9804fea1.asp In this article she talks about the blessings because of her husband having a vasectomy reversed even though she has life threatening issues with pregnancy.

Please know that I pray for all women who struggle with the teaching on contraception, sterilization, and abortion. I understand the pain and the fear. I now understand that God is in charge. His will not miine, and I have been blessed for it. I hope that the OP will be blessed for it too.

 

[josea]

LittleDeb:

I have been quietly reading this thread and have only posted once, but I feel I need to say more at this time. Before I go on, please understand that I feel some of the pain and frustration in the original post. I do have a somewhat defective uterus. The wonderful blessing for me is that mine is helped by pregnancy. On my paternal side, massive hemoraging runs in the family. Pregnant or not the women in my family have severe troubles with defective uteruses.

The one thing I would advise is that The Church is right! The members of my family who (outside Church teaching) had otherwise healthy uteruses removed, traded them in on a whole host of other problems. Those of us who have hung on and trusted and been blessed with better health. There is not a woman on that side of the family who has had more than two live births. I hope to be the first to beat those odds.

Any one of us can die from having a baby. It is so hard for me to understand how a doctor’s written garantee of certain death from pregnancy is any more reliable than one who says that everything will be all right. My family has been putting their faith in doctors. I don’t. I put my faith in God. My cousin, who while single and on contraception had a massive hemorage and complete hysterectomy, changed her life after that. She decided God was the answer instead. Doctors are only as good as their Hippocratic oath, “First do no harm.” Removing a uterus on a guess is harmful. (As is tubal ligation.)

My point is that we don’t know a body part is bad until is really goes bad. Preventative measures include monitoring NOT removal. NFP is truly a gift in this case. It allows the woman to still function completely normally as she was made to function. Plus, she has the added bonus of knowing God’s plan for her life. I am reposting my encouragement to read the article here on Catholic Answers, “That Celibate Bachelor was Right!” complete with the link this time. www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9804fea1.asp In this article she talks about the blessings because of her husband having a vasectomy reversed even though she has life threatening issues with pregnancy.

Please know that I pray for all women who struggle with the teaching on contraception, sterilization, and abortion. I understand the pain and the fear. I now understand that God is in charge. His will not miine, and I have been blessed for it. I hope that the OP will be blessed for it too.

Thank you very much for your post!

 

[fix]

LittleDeb:

My family has been putting their faith in doctors. I don’t. I put my faith in God.

Amen. Experts have a place, but their advice must be in the service of truth, not contradict the truth. So much of what we hear today is in conflict with the will of God. That some procedure can be done in no way means it ought to be done.

 

[felra]

The uterus is defect, it can not support other pregnancy and children will never come. Why is necessary to have it if the only thing that can bring to the woman is pain, suffering and death?

Because the uterous is part of the reproductive good in and of itself. To intentionally act against a good is immoral and illicit. There is no actual present [physical] pain, suffering, and death resultant from a potential future pregnancy.

This is not about contraception because the children even if wanted are not able to come anymore. Why should this person be condemned to avoid the wonderful things of a normal sexual life? …it is about the life of the woman absolutely afraid of dying if NFP fails.

As a previous poster sensitively pointed out, it is about taking up one’s cross (which we do not always get to pick) and dying to self (desire and limited understanding) so as to have fellowship and experience eternal life in Christ. It is about casting out fears and walking in the abundant life of faith.

This is unfair, it does not make any sense to me

, I do not understand it at all and I hope the Church will change this horrible burden for many couples only based in some doubted philosophical concepts and logic. I accept it only because of obedience and afraid of the consequences of not doing so.

I hope that you do not miss the opportunity that God is offering you (and your wife) to unite yourself more fully with His suffering and loving will for your marriage and experience life in Christ more abundantly. God desires mature son’s and daughter’s and the way of the cross is the central way to maturing in one’s faith.

Forgive me is this is off the deep end for you, but you may find this helpful to make sense of the cross presented to you in your marriage:

APOSTOLIC LETTER
***SALVIFICI DOLORIS “On the Christian Meaning of Human Suffering” ***

OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II ~ February 11, 1984

Saint Paul speaks of various sufferings and, in particular, of those in which the first Christians became sharers "for the sake of Christ ". These sufferings enable the recipients of that Letter to share in the work of the Redemption, accomplished through the suffering and death of the Redeemer. *The eloquence of the Cross and death *is, however, completed by *the eloquence of the Resurrection. *Man finds in the Resurrection a completely new light, which helps him to go forward through the thick darkness of humiliations, doubts, hopelessness and persecution. Therefore the Apostle will also write in the Second Letter to the Corinthians: “For *as we share abundantly in Christ’s sufferings, so *through Christ we share abundantly in comfort too”(59). Elsewhere he addresses to his recipients words of encouragement: “May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ”(60). And in the Letter to the Romans **he writes: **“I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, *to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, *holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship”(61).

The very participation in Christ’s suffering finds, in these apostolic expressions, as it were a twofold dimension. If one becomes a sharer in the sufferings of Christ, this happens because Christ *has opened his suffering to man, *because he himself in his redemptive suffering has become, in a certain sense, a sharer in all human sufferings. Man, discovering through faith the redemptive suffering of Christ, also discovers in it his own sufferings; he *rediscovers them, through faith, *enriched with a new content and new meaning.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j..._jp-ii_apl_11021984_salvifici-doloris_en.html

 

[puzzleannie]

am I missing something, isn’t sterilization by definition preventative? Obviously such surgery could be undertaken to treat an illness or disease, and renderine the person sterile could be an unintended side effect, but as sterilization prevents pregnancy, what other kind is there?

 

[Ham1]

Interesting thread here.

Josea,

I think there is a distinction here between diseased and defective. A diseased uterus will cause damage to the woman’s body if it is not removed. A defective uterus will only cause damage IF the woman becomes pregnant. Certainly then the woman has good reason to avoid pregnancy by abstaining or using NFP. The Church has no problem in the removal of a diseased organ in order to preserve the rest of the body. However, a defective organ does not necessarily warrant removal if there is a means of preventing the defect from causing damage to the body.

Another good point that you brought up earlier is that the Church does teach that organs having to do with human sexuality are treated differently than other organs because of their unique role in creation. For this reason, your stomach analogy does not completely follow. For instance, while the Church has no problem with organ transplants, the Church does teach that sexual organs are not to be tranplanted.

 

[Corki]

Sexual contact is not only good but necessary for a normal couple, no matter what people said talking about the right that a person has about sex or not (that is just an opinion or a philosophical thought). Even Paul was saying that in one of his letters. Sex is not only meant for reproduction. It is very difficult to ask two people that are married, that are supposed to have sex (because the sexual attraction was one of the most important and basic things of marriage from all points of view you want) a man and a woman that are supposed to sleep together in the same bet to refrain from a sexual relation when there are life threatening problems that could be solved by a simple operation. The same people that say that the person has not right to sex (???) are the ones saying that sexual activity within marriage can be demanded by the man or the woman and if one of them does not give it, it would be a sin. Is there a right to sex or not then?

]

Sexual contact, as you call it, is an objective good. It is NOT necessary, if you mean essential, for a good, normal marriage. This is not to say that a couple would marry if they never intended to share the conjugal bond. However, it is NOT necessary that the couple engage in sex whenever the attraction strikes. Sometimes it is necessary to withhold that part of our union for a period of time, even indefinitely. This doesn’t mean that the couple can’t have a happy and normal marriage.

Not too long ago, if a man had had a heart attack, he was told that he shouldn’t have sex anymore since it could trigger another attack. Do you think that his marriage was somehow lessened if his wife agreed to abstain in order to preserve his health and life? Now, medicine has evolved to a state that this kind of abstention is no longer necessary. Hopefully, soon this will be the case with women who have uteruses that cannot tolerate another pregnancy. If anything, the woman’s case is less extreme, since time (and menopause) will eventually eliminate the risk to her health.

Yes, it is difficult. I have a family member that is going on two years of abstinence. In her case, it is not her health but her husband’s that is the concern. It is hard but it doesn’t mean that they love each other less or that they somehow have less of a marriage.

Sex only seems to be discussed as an absolute necessity when someone wants to find a loophole to Church teaching.