Sex after hysterectomy...Just double checking

  • Thread starter Thread starter Convert_in_99
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Convert: You’re good to go! Good luck to you.

Bballer: It is a little concerning that you are in the seminary and may in the future be giving advice on NFP to married couples, yet do not know some of the basics on possible “female” problems. You may want to brush up on that a bit. God Bless you on your vocation!
 
Form is important.
Equipment is made by God to be used a certain way.

You can swing a hammer to hit me in the head. You are definitely using the hammer, but you are not using it the way it is designed. In that case you are merely using it in a disordered way.

The op has no worries. She is engaging in a natural act in the way God has designed her. The results may vary, and we do not control the results anyway so…
 
Bballer32 said:
Ok… Just two questions then.
  1. What about the whole “open to children” statement during the Rite of Matrimony?
  2. Why don’t people just go get hysterectomies or the likes instead of being on contraceptives? A married couple is not supposed to have marital relations while using contraceptives because the option for life is not there. But this way they aren’t sinning gravely.
Also, the elderly and the infertile are not the same as hysterectomies because there is still a small chance of bringing forth life.
Click to expand...
The OP isn’t getting a hysterectomy because she isn’t open to children. She is doing it for medical reasons.
 
Convert_in_99 said:
Since I’m getting a hysterectomy soon, I’m just double checking. Even though there is 100% chance of not conceiving, it’s still okay to have marital relations, right? :o
Click to expand...
Why do you post this question because with all you have been through you know the answer more than most. I am concerned about you. Your posts have been roller coasters lately and there is palpable frustration and anger in them. Please know that we are praying for you.
 
Kelfa28 said:
Really?

Geez, talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I didn’t think doctors would actually consent to do something like that.
Click to expand...
Actually I don’t know where you live but here it is recommended if the woman had any sort of complications with the birth of a child. This is why we say if it is done for a medical reason it is legit. We wouldn’t have to say that if it were always done for a medical reason would we?
 
Sue_D_Num said:
Convert: You’re good to go! Good luck to you.

Bballer: It is a little concerning that you are in the seminary and may in the future be giving advice on NFP to married couples, yet do not know some of the basics on possible “female” problems. You may want to brush up on that a bit. God Bless you on your vocation!
Click to expand...
That worries me too. A LOT.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Actually I don’t know where you live but here it is recommended if the woman had any sort of complications with the birth of a child. This is why we say if it is done for a medical reason it is legit. We wouldn’t have to say that if it were always done for a medical reason would we?
Click to expand...
Granted…I don’t pry and I don’t involve myself in most other’s medical problems.

But everyone I know, even if they have birth complications, get their tubes tied. I have a SIL and a dear friend of mine have three kids each…severe complications (SIL was med-flighted during her first pregnancy) with all three of their kids and they just got their tubes tied after the third.
I know plenty of women who got their tubes tied because they didn’t want anymore kids.

I know of only two women who had hysterectomies. My mother and my cousin.

My cousin had ovarian cancer. My mother…I’m not so sure why she had one done. I never asked.
I do know four things
A) She had major complications with my sister’s pregnancy.
B) She has been battling major abdominal health issues for as long as I can remember.
C)She had her hysterectomy almost a year after she had my sister.
D)She really wanted a third child and was disappointed she didn’t have one.

So…like I said…don’t know why she had one done but none of that directly speaks to birth control reasons.
I won’t ask…that isn’t my business anyway.

Even when I had complications during my third pregnancy and birth…my midwife and my anesthesiologist asked me if I was going to get my tubes tied…not a hysterectomy.

A hysterectomy is a much more invasive surgery then a tubal ligation.

I don’t want to say it’s not suggested…but of all the women I know who’ve had kids…almost all of them go for either an IUD, a tubal, or nothing (those being catholic friends).
 
Burt_Macklin said:
Really surprised any doctor would do that surgery.
Click to expand...
Me too. It’s a pretty intensive surgery that requires a lifetime of medical follow-up and hormonal treatment. It essentially sends a woman into early menopause and everything that entails, like loss of bone density. Tubal ligation is much easier and safer if the goal is just sterilization.
 
BlueEyedLady said:
Me too. It’s a pretty intensive surgery that requires a lifetime of medical follow-up and hormonal treatment. It essentially sends a woman into early menopause and everything that entails, like loss of bone density. Tubal ligation is much easier and safer if the goal is just sterilization.
Click to expand...
Yea, if a woman were to tell me that they had a hysterectomy for no other reason than sterilization I’d assume she were either pulling my leg or seriously misunderstood what her doctor told her.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Actually I don’t know where you live but here it is recommended if the woman had any sort of complications with the birth of a child. This is why we say if it is done for a medical reason it is legit. We wouldn’t have to say that if it were always done for a medical reason would we?
Click to expand...
I hang out from time to time at the Skeptical OB (it’s an anti-homebirth activism blog that talks a lot about childbirth disasters) and that doesn’t sound like standard procedure.

I have seen a lot of stories of emergency hysterectomies done during the course of a disastrous childbirth, but as I recall, those were 99% due to major, irreparable damage to the uterus, generally involving massive, life-threatening bleeding.

I’ve literally never heard of a hysterectomy done for birth control. The only reason the possibility comes up in CAF hypotheticals so much is that it’s a theoretical possibility. But I’ve never heard of it being done in the US for birth control–pretty much every female over 18 is familiar with the fact that a hysterectomy is a big deal.
 
Xantippe said:
I hang out from time to time at the Skeptical OB (it’s an anti-homebirth activism blog that talks a lot about childbirth disasters) and that doesn’t sound like standard procedure.

I have seen a lot of stories of emergency hysterectomies done during the course of a disastrous childbirth, but as I recall, those were 99% due to major, irreparable damage to the uterus, generally involving massive, life-threatening bleeding.

I’ve literally never heard of a hysterectomy done for birth control. The only reason the possibility comes up in CAF hypotheticals so much is that it’s a theoretical possibility. But I’ve never heard of it being done in the US for birth control–pretty much every female over 18 is familiar with the fact that a hysterectomy is a big deal.
Click to expand...
I do have a friend who had a planned hysterectomy following the birth her fourth child, but it was due to the placenta growing into the scar tissue of her previous c-sections. Placenta acreta, I believe it’s called.

My mom had a hysterectomy when she was in her late 40’s, about 25 years ago. She had massive fibroids. Pictures of her at the time looked as if she was several months pregnant.

Before she even had the surgery, she had two surgeries attempting to remove the fibroids, second opinions, clearance from the insurance that the hysterectomy was the only course of action left.
 
Xantippe said:
I’ve literally never heard of a hysterectomy done for birth control. The only reason the possibility comes up in CAF hypotheticals so much is that it’s a theoretical possibility. But I’ve never heard of it being done in the US for birth control–pretty much every female over 18 is familiar with the fact that a hysterectomy is a big deal.
Click to expand...
Yeah…that’s exactly what I thought.

I’ve never heard of it either.

Everyone I’ve spoken to gets a tubal. Less invasive, shorter recovery and it does what it’s intended for.

Even if a woman goes in with a healthy pregnancy and baby but announces she wants a hysterectomy to prevent any more births…her OB is going to say “you mean a tubal?”
 
Kelfa28 said:
Yeah…that’s exactly what I thought.

I’ve never heard of it either.

Everyone I’ve spoken to gets a tubal. Less invasive, shorter recovery and it does what it’s intended for.

Even if a woman goes in with a healthy pregnancy and baby but announces she wants a hysterectomy to prevent any more births…her OB is going to say “you mean a tubal?”
Click to expand...
Actually, that’s a rather good point.

I have a few friends who’ve had tubals, and some of them, when referring to it casually, will call it a “hysterectomy,” even though it was actually a tubal ligation.

I’m not sure if that’s a regional thing or not, though.

Also, I seem to remember (and could be totally wrong here) that 30-odd years ago or so, hysterectomies were done rather than tubals–didn’t have the procedure developed enough yet or something?

(Or I could be totally barking up the wrong tree, in which case I blame it on insufficient coffee. :coffee: )
 
Sue_D_Num said:
Convert: You’re good to go! Good luck to you.

Bballer: It is a little concerning that you are in the seminary and may in the future be giving advice on NFP to married couples, yet do not know some of the basics on possible “female” problems. You may want to brush up on that a bit. God Bless you on your vocation!
Click to expand...
I still have quite some time before Ordination. We don’t learn a whole bunch about NFP right now. Just the basics.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Actually I don’t know where you live but here it is recommended if the woman had any sort of complications with the birth of a child. This is why we say if it is done for a medical reason it is legit. We wouldn’t have to say that if it were always done for a medical reason would we?
Click to expand...
The common standard of care for preventing subsequent pregnancies if there is a history of prior pregnancy or birth complications is a postpartum tubal ligation (PPTL). These are usually done following the actual birth of the baby and delivery of placenta with a C-section (prior to closure of the surgical sites) and with a vaginal delivery, it’s often done 12-24 hours after the baby’s birth. The epidural catheter is left in (if mom had epidural) and she is given a redose into the cath prior to heading to the OR. This is much less invasive than a complete or partial hysterectomy.

When a hysterectomy is done as suggested in your post, there is often circumstances that women generally don’t disclose to others…such as a prolapsed uterus or a history of "cone biopsies or LEEP procedures to treat precancerous or cancerous cervical cells or HPV. Sometimes if there is a very strong history of uterine cancer in the family (mother, sister, maternal grandmother), a very conservative physician might suggest a preventative hysterectomy if the patient has decided she is done having children. Each situation is different, but I’m not aware of women getting hysters only for reasons of contraception or birth control. Insurance isn’t going to approve of a TVH or TAH just for prevention a future pregnancy if the only complications were a difficult pregnancy or difficult delivery that didn’t directly affect the uterus. In cases of a ruptured uterus or one with a “window”, that is only discovered when the pelvic cavity is surgically opened, so you may have a women getting a hyster directly following the delivery of the baby via C-section or if there is a placenta accreta, but this is for the removal of a “diseased” or damaged organ, not a radical method of birth control.
 
catholicmamajoy said:
When a hysterectomy is done as suggested in your post, there is often circumstances that women generally don’t disclose to others…such as a prolapsed uterus or a history of "cone biopsies or LEEP procedures to treat precancerous or cancerous cervical cells or HPV. Each situation is different, but I’m not aware of women getting hysters only for reasons of contraception or birth control. Insurance isn’t going to approve of a TVH or TAH for just for prevention a future pregnancy.
Click to expand...
I been part of a wed site devoted to women that have had or are going to have hysterectomies.

I’ve not read one story, in the thousands that have posted, of a woman that had the surgery strictly for birth control.
 
UbiCaritas said:
Actually, that’s a rather good point.

I have a few friends who’ve had tubals, and some of them, when referring to it casually, will call it a “hysterectomy,” even though it was actually a tubal ligation.

I’m not sure if that’s a regional thing or not, though.

Also, I seem to remember (and could be totally wrong here) that 30-odd years ago or so, hysterectomies were done rather than tubals–didn’t have the procedure developed enough yet or something?

(Or I could be totally barking up the wrong tree, in which case I blame it on insufficient coffee. :coffee: )
Click to expand...
There was a 1970s feminist thing about being outraged about male doctors allegedly overdoing hysterectomies. According to the feminist legend (which probably has a fair amount of truth in it), male OB/GYNs had a tendency to run to take out the uterus for any and all gynecological problems.

I don’t know how much truth there was to that complaint, but seeing as how persistent and painful “female trouble” is, I see the temptation. Presumably, the ability to use the pill therapeutically has removed a lot of the motivation to make the hysterectomy the first stop.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top