Sterilization when mother's health is in jeopardy?

[momof4here]

Hi! I am new here and a newly baptized Catholic. I am going to have my fourth child in early September. My first two children I had without any difficulty. With my third pregancy I delivered my son stillborn after being in the hospital for a month. I was very ill with heavy bleeding and my doctor said he was sorry but it was good that my son was born because my life was at stake. I was still not deterred in my desire to have more children, so I became pregnant two more times which ended in miscarriage. Since then I found out that I have hormone issues and a clotting disorder. I really wanted to have another baby so I went on three medications as soon as I found out I was pregnant again. I then delivered a beautiful healthy baby boy after a very high risk pregnancy. Last summer we were surprised to find out we were pregnant again, but delighted. I took all my medicine again, but this time I had a late miscarriage and had to be hospitalized. It looks like all is well in this my 8th pregnancy and I am 18 weeks into this high risk pregnancy. The issue that I struggle with is what to do about future pregnancy. I struggle because on one hand I feel I have an obligation to not put my life at risk because I have a family that I love to take care of. I understand the church’s teachings, but I have had a hard time using NFP due to severe hormone issues. My husband and I were wondering what we should do? When I am pregant I don’t feel well because of all the medication and worry. I also spend lots of time at doctor’s office and sometimes hospitals, away from my family. It’s hard on the whole family. Also, as I approach 35 my doctor feels it will be increasingly risky for me to become pregnant. My husband and I have considered sterilization, but aren’t sure if there are any exceptions for health. Any opinions? Thanks so much. Sorry so long.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I am speaking in general on this topic. I’m not giving you medical advice.

Direct sterilization is intrinsically evil, and always gravely immoral. Direct sterilization is a medical procedure directed at sterilizing the individual. Intrinsically evil acts are not morally justified for any purpose, in any circumstance.

Indirect sterilization is sometimes moral. The difference is that indirect sterilization is a medical procedure NOT directed at sterilizing the individual, but directed at treating a medical disorder. The treatment of the medical disorder must NOT be by the means of sterilization; the sterilization must be an unintended consequence. Indirect sterilization is moral when the intention is good and the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences.

Pope Paul VI: “Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children. Equally to be condemned, as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the man or of the woman, whether permanent or temporary.”
Pope Paul VI, Humanae Vitae, n. 14.

USCCB: “Formal cooperation in the grave evil of contraceptive sterilization, either by approving or tolerating it for medical reasons, is forbidden and totally alien to the mission entrusted by the Church to Catholic health care facilities.”
National Conference of Catholic Bishops (now called the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops), Statement on Tubal Ligation, 3 July 1980, n. 3.

 

[kage_ar]

Sterilization is never a moral option. When health is in danger, abstain. The alternative is NFP. Perhaps learning a different method with a fertility monitor would help?

From the CCC:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2366

2368 A particular aspect of this responsibility concerns the regulation of procreation. For just reasons, spouses may wish to space the births of their children. It is their duty to make certain that their desire is not motivated by selfishness but is in conformity with the generosity appropriate to responsible parenthood. Moreover, they should conform their behavior to the objective criteria of morality:
When it is a question of harmonizing married love with the responsible transmission of life, the morality of the behavior does not depend on sincere intention and evaluation of motives alone; but it must be determined by objective criteria, criteria drawn from the nature of the person and his acts, criteria that respect the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love; this is possible only if the virtue of married chastity is practiced with sincerity of heart.156
2369 "By safeguarding both these essential aspects, the unitive and the procreative, the conjugal act preserves in its fullness the sense of true mutual love and its orientation toward man’s exalted vocation to parenthood."157
2370 Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.158 These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:159
Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality. . . . The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle . . . involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.160 2399 The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).

 

[1ke]

Hi! I am new here and a newly baptized Catholic. I am going to have my fourth child in early September. My first two children I had without any difficulty. With my third pregancy I delivered my son stillborn after being in the hospital for a month. I was very ill with heavy bleeding and my doctor said he was sorry but it was good that my son was born because my life was at stake. I was still not deterred in my desire to have more children, so I became pregnant two more times which ended in miscarriage. Since then I found out that I have hormone issues and a clotting disorder. I really wanted to have another baby so I went on three medications as soon as I found out I was pregnant again. I then delivered a beautiful healthy baby boy after a very high risk pregnancy. Last summer we were surprised to find out we were pregnant again, but delighted. I took all my medicine again, but this time I had a late miscarriage and had to be hospitalized. It looks like all is well in this my 8th pregnancy and I am 18 weeks into this high risk pregnancy.

I am very sorry you have suffered so many medical complications in your desire to have children.

The issue that I struggle with is what to do about future pregnancy. I struggle because on one hand I feel I have an obligation to not put my life at risk because I have a family that I love to take care of. I understand the church’s teachings, but I have had a hard time using NFP due to severe hormone issues. My husband and I were wondering what we should do?

If you have a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, and certainly your explanation above would suggest you do, you can avoid pregnancy through abstention. That abstention from sexual relations can be for as long as you need to avoid pregnancy. It can be complete abstinence or it can be periodic abstinence through observations (NFP).

If you struggle with reading your signs of fertility, I suggest that you contact instructors in several methods. Perhaps one would give you more clear readings, for example Marquette combines Creighton with an electronic fertility monitor.

What you cannot do is sin through contraception or sterilization.

When I am pregant I don’t feel well because of all the medication and worry. I also spend lots of time at doctor’s office and sometimes hospitals, away from my family. It’s hard on the whole family. Also, as I approach 35 my doctor feels it will be increasingly risky for me to become pregnant. My husband and I have considered sterilization, but aren’t sure if there are any exceptions for health. Any opinions? Thanks so much. Sorry so long.

Sterilization is always a gravely immoral act, a sin against the sixth commandment. There is never a situation in which one can sterilize oneself morally.

I urge you to talk to your NFP instructor, investigate other methods, and perhaps even contacting www.popepaulvi.com for medical guidance.

If after consultation you do not have confidence in using post ovulatory times of your cycle for intimacy, you and your husband may be called to abstain indefinitely.

 

[momof4here]

Thanks! I had not heard of the Marquette method. Very helpful!

 

[momof4here]

We are actually planning on expanding our family, but plan to do so through adoption. We are going to be foster parents for zero to three with the willingness for adoption. We should definitely take a NFP class again. Its been years!

 

[The_Bucket]

We are actually planning on expanding our family, but plan to do so through adoption. We are going to be foster parents for zero to three with the willingness for adoption. We should definitely take a NFP class again. Its been years!

I wholeheartedly endorse that idea. For the record, my wife also has a clotting disorder and one that led to both the premature birth of our son but also pulmonary embolisms for her. Very lucky both of them made it. And then just a few months after his birth, we found out about our daughter! Well we got a good OBGYN who put her on injectable blood thinners and folic acid regiments and everything turned out fine. Daughter was born via c-section but nearly at full term and has had no problems. Smooth recovery for my wife too and our little ones are nearing their second and first birthdays respectively.

Of course, you should always follow your doctors advice… unless they’re advocating direct sterilization of course. Brush up on very conservative methods of NFP and use the modern technology of Marquette if applicable. It should serve you well.

 

[Seatuck]

Hi! I am new here and a newly baptized Catholic. I am going to have my fourth child in early September. My first two children I had without any difficulty. With my third pregancy I delivered my son stillborn after being in the hospital for a month. I was very ill with heavy bleeding and my doctor said he was sorry but it was good that my son was born because my life was at stake. I was still not deterred in my desire to have more children, so I became pregnant two more times which ended in miscarriage. Since then I found out that I have hormone issues and a clotting disorder. I really wanted to have another baby so I went on three medications as soon as I found out I was pregnant again. I then delivered a beautiful healthy baby boy after a very high risk pregnancy. Last summer we were surprised to find out we were pregnant again, but delighted. I took all my medicine again, but this time I had a late miscarriage and had to be hospitalized. It looks like all is well in this my 8th pregnancy and I am 18 weeks into this high risk pregnancy. The issue that I struggle with is what to do about future pregnancy. I struggle because on one hand I feel I have an obligation to not put my life at risk because I have a family that I love to take care of. I understand the church’s teachings, but I have had a hard time using NFP due to severe hormone issues. My husband and I were wondering what we should do? When I am pregant I don’t feel well because of all the medication and worry. I also spend lots of time at doctor’s office and sometimes hospitals, away from my family. It’s hard on the whole family. Also, as I approach 35 my doctor feels it will be increasingly risky for me to become pregnant. My husband and I have considered sterilization, but aren’t sure if there are any exceptions for health. Any opinions? Thanks so much. Sorry so long.

Ohh, I’m so sorry for the losses you have suffered and your difficulties and that of your family . You are already getting the information that direct sterilization is always an intrinsic evil . There really isn’t any way around it. Abstinence or a conservative NFP regime are your only options. Consider getting a new NFP teacher and finding the method that will work best with your irregularities. You could try to contact the Paul VI Institute and see if they have any recommendations either for a doctor,treatment or method.
Prayers for you . I know this is difficult.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

I struggle because on one hand I feel I have an obligation to not put my life at risk because I have a family that I love to take care of.

Yes you have an obligation to your children, they are more important than anything. Use a bit of common sense here and go ahead with the sterilization.

 

[Rence]

We are actually planning on expanding our family, but plan to do so through adoption. We are going to be foster parents for zero to three with the willingness for adoption. We should definitely take a NFP class again. Its been years!

Well, if it’s been years, you’re missing out on a lot of really good informtion. I hope that you take a class again. You’ll be able to combine some methods too.

But no, the Church forbids sterilization, even if the mother’s life is in jeapordy. In that case, like others said, you have to abstain, or use NFP carefully.

Good luck

 

[Yorkshireman]

I would say have the sterilization. If God wants you to have a baby, you still will become pregnant even after a sterilization.

 

[larry85704]

Right and wrong. Sometimes it just isn’t simple.

The catechism does teach that if you do something, like killing a person, for the right reason, they are about to kill you for example, you commit no sin. So, it seems reasonable that getting sterilized for the right reason would not be sinful. I guess the tough part is figuring out if your reason is right or wrong.

You can decide not to have sex anymore; that is a solution. But, I am honestly not sure that is a solution that is morally right. One could argue it places a strain on a marriage, is a temptation to sin and deprives the couple of the unititive aspects of sex.

I know that some priests will tell you that it is ok to get sterilized, some will not. And depending on how you read the catechism, you will either conclude that is it ok, or not. I guess you just have to do what the Holy Spirit leads you to do. One thing I am sure of, no matter what you do, is that God will still love you.

Me, I vote for protecting the life that exists. That would be mothers, children and dads. Loosing a mom is really bad.

I know some people say to abstain. They are convinced that is the right thing to do, or use NFP. So, I ask this question, suppose the couple uses NFP and gets pregnant. It can happen. Now if mommy dies as the result of that pregnancy and you told the couple to not get sterilized then you are responsible for the well being of the family she leaves behind. Now please consider that the you I refer to is the Church.

Oh, maybe I am wrong. Are the people that advocate NFP willing to babysit while dad works? Or maybe wash some clothes, or change some diapers? Or how about this, are you willing to abstain from sex for the rest of your life? Can you really ask someone to do something you could not do? Sounds like a heavy burden to me. I recall Jesus wasn’t real fond of heavy burdens, not that that has anything to do with it.

Or, would you say that as a Church, being in a position of authority, has no responsibility for it’s teachings? Everybody knows that if the couple has a child and something bad happens the Church will not assist in the care of the family.

If you are a woman and talk to your priest about your husband beating you up I think the priest will always tell you to leave. Priests, and the Church, didn’t used to do that. Priests got to feel a little guilty about having funerals for women that died at the hands of their spouse. That act of responsibility by the Church came as the result of a painful lesson. The Vatican’s recent announcement about Bishops reporting criminal behavior is the result of another painful lesson.

So, as a Church do we have a responsibility for our teachings?

 

[presidentjlh]

But no, the Church forbids sterilization, even if the mother’s life is in jeapordy.

So even if this means that without sterilization she dies, the Church is against it?

This seems to be contradicting to me. I thought that if a medical procedure is necessary to save a life, it’s not a sin then. For example, if a woman is pregnant and it is determined that the mother and child will die at birth no matter what, I thought that in such a case that abortive surgery, while tragic, is necessary, and therefore not a sin.

 

[baltobetsy]

So even if this means that without sterilization she dies, the Church is against it?

This seems to be contradicting to me. I thought that if a medical procedure is necessary to save a life, it’s not a sin then. For example, if a woman is pregnant and it is determined that the mother and child will die at birth no matter what, I thought that in such a case that abortive surgery, while tragic, is necessary, and therefore not a sin.

Directly intended abortion is always wrong and always forbidden. If a medical procedure to save the mother’s life results in abortion as an unwanted side effect, it is morally permissible. Do you see the difference?

Betsy

 

[presidentjlh]

Directly intended abortion is always wrong and always forbidden. If a medical procedure to save the mother’s life results in abortion as an unwanted side effect, it is morally permissible. Do you see the difference?

Betsy

Ahhhh, I see it now. So if a procedure to save the mother’s life results in the unwanted side effect of sterilization, it’s not a sin. So it’s not really “sterilization” in the sense that it’s main purpose is to save the mother…

 

[vera_dicere]

Ahhhh, I see it now. So if a procedure to save the mother’s life results in the unwanted side effect of sterilization, it’s not a sin. So it’s not really “sterilization” in the sense that it’s main purpose is to save the mother…

But the problem with this situation regarding the OP is not getting sterilized isn’t what could kill her, its falling pregnant that could kill her, and the purpose of direct sterilization is prevention of pregnancy.

If a woman had ovarian cancer or serious cysts and the ovaries were removed, she would be sterilized as a result, but the intention wasn’t to sterilize it was to save her by removing said tumors/cysts.

Sterilization in this situation is willed to prevent pregnancy that could be dangerous, but the operative word here is prevent. Long and short of it, all pregnancies carry the risk that they could become life threatening. Therefore, it is a form of contraception/direct sterilization and gravely disordered.

 

[Rence]

Ahhhh, I see it now. So if a procedure to save the mother’s life results in the unwanted side effect of sterilization, it’s not a sin. So it’s not really “sterilization” in the sense that it’s main purpose is to save the mother…

No, I don’t think it was explained to you correctly. The Church does not deny live saving medical procedures to the woman. HOWEVER, sterilization in this case is for the PRIMARY reason of contraception, not for saving her life. That makes it forbidden by the Chuch because this is not a life saving intervention. But If the woman had a cancerous or diseased uterus, and the primary intervention was to remove the uterus (even if she were pregnant), that would be acceptable: primary: remove the uterus, secondary but unfortunate result is sterilization and/or losing the fetus, if she was pregnant at the time. See the difference? In the latter case, she can choose to wait until the fetus is viable and do a C-section at the same time as removal of the uterus but that is completely up to her and her doctor as to the gravity of her situation, and the Church does not require she wait if her doctor says she can’t. She can have chemo/radiation as well. These are all options that don’t seek to abort the fetus as a primary intervention.

Another example: if the mother was in a trauma, and had to have her uterus removed (among other probably inteventions), or had to undergo surgery to save her life, there is risk to the unborn, but every measure would be taken to save both. The woman has to have the life-saving interventions, even if it puts the fetus at risk. Again, this is a life-saving intervention as primary, not seeking to abort the pregnancy.

You can’t, for example (without being in conflict with the Church’s teachings), just remove the fetus and keep the uterus in there.

Keep in mind people: the OP can do whatever she chooses, however, if she chooses to be sterilized to avoid a future pregnancy, she will be sinning. And will have to go to confession and have to work towards being reconciled with the Church.

Though, always, one should consult with their priest regarding these matters. They really are better than all of us here in explaining things.

 

[kage_ar]

Keep in mind people: the OP can do whatever she chooses, however, if she chooses to be sterilized to avoid a future pregnancy, she will be sinning. And will have to go to confession and have to work towards being reconciled with the Church.

.

And to think “I’ll just go have myself neutered and then confess it” is to add the sin of presumption.

 

[Yorkshireman]

Sometimes we get too wrapped up in doctrine. If God sees it as essential that a mother has another baby, she will, even after sterilization. It’s called a miracle.

 

[Holly3278]

Sterilization is *never *the moral choice. In a case where a pregnancy would put the mother’s life in danger, there is two options:

1. 
   *]Practice natural family planning and hope and pray that a pregnancy does not occur.
   *]Abstain from sexual activity and have a Josephite marriage for the rest of your life.