Sterilization Dilemma

[Seatuck]

It’s a catch-22 situation, but I do believe (not 100% sure) that there are situations where the Church does allow sterilization when there is a clear and high risk of death from future pregnancies. Maybe someone with expertise in this area would care to clarify.

Nope. It’s never allowed to prevent pregnancy. The couple may use an ultra conservative nfp method or they may abstatin to protect the life of the wife.

Sterilization that occurs as a result from removing diseased organs or from another treatment such as radiation to treat cancer is not sinful though.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

What you seem to be forgetting here are the following:

1. because of previous health complications, a hysterectomy (major surgery) would have put her life at risk, it was not just a question of here are two treatments, choose which one you want to have; she needed treatment for a serious condition and the ablation allowed her to avoid the life-threatening risks of hysterectomy (in her case; not so in all cases)
2. ablation changes the interior of the uterus in such a way that any future pregnancies would either be prevented or plagued by life threatening complications for both mother and child; so choosing the safer procedure (ablation) would not safeguard the woman’s life if done without the tubal ligation because she would be avoiding the high risk to her life posed by hysterectomy only to replace it with the high risk to her life posed by abnormal attachment of the placenta in any future pregnancy.

It’s a catch-22 situation, but I do believe (not 100% sure) that there are situations where the Church does allow sterilization when there is a clear and high risk of death from future pregnancies. Maybe someone with expertise in this area would care to clarify.

Like I mentioned before, I do not know what the best option was medically and am not trying to figure out which procedure is best (it would be silly for me to attempt this) and I sympathize with the OP having to do such a difficult decision, but I do know that direct sterilization is never ok, regardless of clear/high risk of death from pregnancy. The links I posted above states this too. Also, if tubal ligation were part of the procedure, necessary for the relief of the bleeding, this would have been just fine, but the tubal ligation is not to treat the ailment, just to avoid any dangerous pregnancies.

As a side note, ablations can have side effects too and some include ending up needing a hysterectomy anyways, but like I said, I am not trying to discuss which procedure is the best for the patient, just which ones are not morally acceptable. The best moral answers are not always the easiest ones.

 

[seekerz]

Like I mentioned before, I do not know what the best option was medically and am not trying to figure out which procedure is best (it would be silly for me to attempt this) and I sympathize with the OP having to do such a difficult decision, but I do know that direct sterilization is never ok, regardless of clear/high risk of death from pregnancy. The links I posted above states this too. Also, if tubal ligation were part of the procedure, necessary for the relief of the bleeding, this would have been just fine, but the tubal ligation is not to treat the ailment, just to avoid any dangerous pregnancies.

As a side note, ablations can have side effects too and some include ending up needing a hysterectomy anyways, but like I said, I am not trying to discuss which procedure is the best for the patient, just which ones are not morally acceptable. The best moral answers are not always the easiest ones.

Direct sterilization means that the purpose of the procedure was simply to destroy the normal functioning of a healthy organ so as to prevent the future conception of children.

In the case of ablation, the organ (uterus-tubes are a continuous complex rather than separate organs) has been damaged in the course of a necessary treatment. The reason for ligating the tube is that the uterus after ablation cannot function normally i.e the lining where the baby would normally implant is gone.

Still you may be right in your opinion, but I’m just not sure.

 

[Dan_Grelinger]

Thanks to all for the well thought out discussion. I for one will readily admit that this is a very complex subject, and I benefited from the opportunity to discuss it with such faithful and reasoning persons.

I sincerely hope and pray that the OP receives whatever he needs from God. He and his wife have been asked by Christ to share a rather large portion of His cross, and from what I can tell, have carried it admirably.

Dan

 

[BEattitude]

This situation seems to be unique. I am wondering if Dr. Hilgers didn’t recommend the hysterectomy because he didn’t want to tie the tubes with the other procedure. Certainly any dr. would be extremely cautious when just removing a major organ when somebody has a blood clotting issue. Arent blood clots the BIGGEST risk after surgery? Pulmonary embolus etc. IT would seem irresponsible to procede with major surgery if it could be done with less risk.

This is a little different but I asked my priest about it. My dr. wanted to put me on meds that were incompatible with pregnancy. The only option was to take the pills with BC pills, or not take them at all. My priest said, if I needed the pills, then I have to follow the drs. orders. It was a matter of “HEAL” or “Don’t HEAL” which would be more responsible.

Something doesn’t seem right here.

 

[stadre]

This situation seems to be unique. I am wondering if Dr. Hilgers didn’t recommend the hysterectomy because he didn’t want to tie the tubes with the other procedure. Certainly any dr. would be extremely cautious when just removing a major organ when somebody has a blood clotting issue. Arent blood clots the BIGGEST risk after surgery? Pulmonary embolus etc. IT would seem irresponsible to procede with major surgery if it could be done with less risk.

There are side effects to every operation even just from the anesthesia. Only knowing about these procedures from this thread, my guess is there are several reasons why he would treat this way. How successful is the ablation normally? Dr. Hilgers uses many techniques to reduce complications in all his surgeries. I do not believe that he would recommend a major surgery because he wouldn’t do a tubal. His practice is based on the church’s teachings. If the best treatment is the ablation, he would have said it. (Remember that he is one of very few doctors who will do major surgery for polycystic ovaries. Most, if you can get them to do anything, will perform the ablation on those with significantly reduced results. It seems to me that this could be the same type of situation–only the other doctor has now insisted on the sterilization.)

This is a little different but I asked my priest about it. My dr. wanted to put me on meds that were incompatible with pregnancy. The only option was to take the pills with BC pills, or not take them at all. My priest said, if I needed the pills, then I have to follow the drs. orders. It was a matter of “HEAL” or “Don’t HEAL” which would be more responsible.

Something doesn’t seem right here.

One of the saddest and most difficult things for us, I believe, is that our priests are poorly formed and “allow” us to sin out of what I guess is compassion (however wrongly dealt with).

As lifeisbeautiful has stated several times, it is never licit to render oneself infertile for the sake of being infertile. While, in this case, your doctor may have refused to treat you (which may or may not change your moral culpability), there are ways to avoid a pregnancy which our church teaches as moral. One can use a natural method to determine fertile/infertile times or one can abstain. (I won’t quote them here, because of their length, but they are found in the catechism #2366-2372.)

It is very difficult for us, as Catholics, when we are constantly dealing with physicians who do not believe as we do and do their best to push us into things which do not conform to our faith.

Also, I need to say that I am not judging anyone who has already been in one of these situations. I am and will continue to try to share what our church does teach to hopefully help anyone who may come into such a situation. Once done, all it takes to make it right is the wonderful sacrament of confession. How loving and merciful is our God!!!:heaven:

 

[seekerz]

One of the saddest and most difficult things for us, I believe, is that our priests are poorly formed and “allow” us to sin out of what I guess is compassion (however wrongly dealt with).

I can think of at least one other reason for that “compassion” other than being poorly informed: to be successful, NFP or abstinence have to involve 2 willing persons and the reality is some spouses (even Catholic ones) have trouble cooperating. With the hyperfocus on sexuality in our society it’s easy to see why they would. If both spouses aren’t on board, especially with abstinence then we would be placing them at risk of other mortal sins, if you know what I mean…

 

[LittleDeb]

Since I will most likely be facing this exact situation in the near future, I have been seeking out both medical and moral considerations. While I am in NO WAY judging the OP in his circumstances I do want to say that I believe the second doctor to be in grave error, both morally AND medically.

Please allow me to explain. There is a difference between sterility and infertility from an objective POV. A hysterectomy leaving the ovaries would leave the wife infertile while not sterile. On the other hand the ablation alone would have left the wife fertile. The tubal ligation would be an intentional, direct act to cause infertility, and the important part here is the AND, tubal ligation still leaves her with un-natural infertility, with the possibility of fertility. She is not sterile. The ovaries remain. The second doctor has given the couple a false sense of security. Tubal ligation fails all the time and comes with its own set of syndromes.

By going through this very trying issue myself, I have found that God never puts us in a situation where “it is okay here” sort of morality. The uterus is the diseased organ. It must be treated to cause no problems at all, or it must be removed. (eg A “dead” hand can remain as long as it does not cause the wrist to be in danger, but if gangrene develops the hand must be removed.) The fallopian tubes are a healthy organ that must not be touched if possible. They might be cauterized in the partial hysterectomy or removed all together as a side effect. But cutting them and cauterizing them alone when they are not the problem is both medically and morally unsound. “First do no harm.”

How would they treat a nun in this circumstance? Either partial hysterectomy or ablation alone. Anyone would look at a doctor like he had two heads if he gave a tubal ligation to a nun. A good doctor would advise her however, that if she ever left the religious life, or were sexually assaulted, the chance remains for conception if the uterus remains.

I have watched myself as a Catholic fall into the trap of believing that medical science, “knows best.” But after meeting women who suffered a second ectopic pregnancy because her doctor, left the (diseased) tube to preserve her “fertility”. Her fertility was still there either way. He left the ability to conceive in that particular tube. That was morally and medically unsound.

In medical terms true sterility is only in the total absence or removal of eggs or sperm. Everything else is just infertility. In moral terms true sterility is the removal of procreation from the act of intercourse. Every thing else is just infertility by design.

If I lose my ovaries in my battle, I have already composed a response. “I may be medically sterile, but I am morally procreative!”

God bless you all. And OP if you got through my long-winded response…You are forgiven either way. Forgive yourself and move forward. Don’t let Satan win now, with his whispers of guilt. God’s forgiveness is total and absolute.

 

[setter]

How would they treat a nun in this circumstance? Either partial hysterectomy or ablation alone. Anyone would look at a doctor like he had two heads if he gave a tubal ligation to a nun. A good doctor would advise her however, that if she ever left the religious life, or were sexually assaulted, the chance remains for conception if the uterus remains.

Exactly. A simple way to determine if a medical procedure or drug that affects the reproductive system is licit or not for a married woman, is to answer this question: Would this same treatment be necessary for a single or celibate woman – if the answer is no, then the procedure or drug is morally illict.

God bless you all. And OP if you got through my long-winded response…You are forgiven either way. Forgive yourself and move forward. Don’t let Satan win now, with his whispers of guilt. God’s forgiveness is total and absolute.

Exactly.

 

[seekerz]

Exactly. A simple way to determine if a medical procedure or drug that affects the reproductive system is licit or not for a married woman, is to answer this question: Would this same treatment be necessary for a single or celibate woman – if the answer is no, then the procedure or drug is morally illict.
Exactly.

It’s not always as simple as that because there are conditions which will affect a married woman which are not seen in celibate women e.g complications of pregnancy and delivery (current or past), effects of sexually transmitted diseases (if either partner has ever been unfaithful even in the remote past). In addition, procedures in a woman celibate by vocation, would not necessarily have to take into account preservation of fertility, child-bearing ability or ability to participate in the marriage act.

It would be great if we had good OB/GYN’s available everywhere who were also well versed in the moral teachings of our Church, but somehow that seems to be lacking (not that there aren’t any, but there doesn’t seem any fixed mechanism to get that knowledge out to them). Adding to the problem is that many Catholic women are not aware of all the moral teachings regarding their health (with the notable exception of abortion/contraception). Last, but not least, medical issues themselves can pose dilemmas and result in differing opinions of what is and is not, necessary (especially when doctor, patient and Church are not of one mind).

What we need is much more education on these matters than goes on presently and much more compassion regarding people who have made these decisions in the face of all the above-mentioned complicating influences.