From a reflector I am on that should help enlighten. We have to remember under what circumstances double effect applies and how it must be used.
Matt
The argument is whether it is ever moral (for a married woman) to take the Pill for a medical reason. The answer to that is, yes, with
conditions. Taking a pill is a morally neutral act, and sometimes taking a drug that has repercussions on the reproductive system is medically prudent. However, NFP-only physicians assert that this therapy should be only a temporary expedient, typically not exceeding three months. The Pill may be an expedient way to stop hemorrhagic bleeding, for example, but if it is at all possible, the patient should try to resolve the root cause of the problem.
The other condition on the use of the Pill is that it has a potential to act as an abortifacient. During the time a woman is on the Pill, it would not be prudent to have marital relations. The Principle of the Double Effect can only be applied for a proportionate reason. Taking the Pill may be necessary, in an emergency like hemorrhage, to save the woman’s life. The suppression of ovulation involves the sacrifice of a lesser good (fertility) for a higher good (the woman’s life). The question is frequently asked whether there is a proportionality between the continued suppression of fertility that involves a risk of abortifacient action, and the recovery of the woman’s health. This may indeed be proportionate, but now another aspect of the Principle of the
Double Effect comes into play–the issue of abortifaciency may be
entirely avoided without any sacrifice of the therapeutic good of the
drug. The couple may abstain, and, according to Pope John Paul II, must:
“From the moral standpoint, it is never licit to co-operate formally in evil. Such co-operation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act against innocent human life or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it” (Evangelium Vitae, 25 March, 1995, n. 74).
Therefore, during the course of an abortifacient therapy, abstinence would be required. This would be a natural incentive against long-term or indefinite treatment with synthetic sex hormones. To the extent that abstinence is difficult for the couple, it would provide motivation for patients to seek assistance from an NFP-only physician, which may sometimes take additional effort and expense. As arduous as it may be to obtain NFP-only treatment, there is no proportionality between “inconvenience and expense” and the higher good of a human life. There is no proportionality between the unitive bonding of the couple and the
higher good of a human life. Abstinence is a remedy for the risk to
human life, and it is available to anyone without cost.
Additionally, this motivation is providential, since alternative
treatments that avoid long-term use of synthetic steroids are, in the opinion of NFP-only physicians, more effective in resolving the root causes.
So, this is not a matter of “reactionary hardliners vs. squishy
liberals.” In the answer to the moral question, the nuances of the
conditions have to be borne in mind. The NFP-counselor needs to
understand that the “contraceptive” effect of the Pill would be
proportionate to the good of health, one organ’s effectiveness (in
conception) would be sacrificed in the interests of the whole body’s health. If the Pill were ONLY contraceptive, then a couple could possibly accept its contraceptive nature as an unintended, secondary consequence of an otherwise good act. The health benefit of the therapy would not depend directly upon its birth control effects. As soon as the risk of endangering a human life enters the picture, the stakes become too serious, there is no longer a balance of proportionality.
According to CCL’s medical advisors and NFP-only physicians, there is no medical indication for using the Pill. It is a birth control drug. That does not mean there cannot be situations where it is more expedient to use the Pill than to do nothing until a second opinion from an NFP-only physician is secured.
When we are asked whether the Pill may be taken for medical reasons, we need to answer that it may be the only expedient short-term solution to a gynecological emergency. It would be an oversimplification to issue an absolute negative. That said, you don’t want the questionner to leave your presence without mentioning that for as long as a woman was taking the Pill she would want to avoid all genital contact with her spouse. You would also recommend that a woman in this situation ask her physician about non-Pill alternatives, and perhaps allow us the opportunity to assist her in gaining a consultation with an NFP-only physician.
