Survivor and birth control

[Macbethsfool]

Hello, I am just curious if you guys have any theories/information on this:

So I really like the show survivor, and I am curious if the women have to use tampons/pads/diva cups, or do they need to take birth control or other things to control their period? If so, would that be against Catholic teaching, even though it’s not for trying to prevent pregnancy?

Sort of random, but I think about it quite a lot!

Also, that would not be acceptable to miss Mass for, right?

I am a big fan of Survivor, but am slowly realizing that if I have to miss Mass, AND take birth control, I don’t think I can lol.

Thanks!

 

[EZweber]

I am not familiar with Survivor, but from what you have said, you do not have a good reason to miss Mass. I would need more information to decide on the birth control, but it sounds like it could be problematic.

 

[JanetF]

I would imagine they can get dispensation for missing mass, since it may not be offered in the remote locales where they are filming the show.

I have no idea about what they do to control their periods while participating, but it’s quite possible that since the conditions are somewhat harsh, their cycles will be disrupted anyway.

It would be interesting to find out what the producers suggest to catholics who apply to be on the show.

 

[GiftofMercy]

My opinion won’t be popular. In the show ‘survivor’ they play for an immunity Idol.

To me, that breaks one of the 10 commandments. Not a healthy reality show for christians in that respect.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

So I really like the show survivor, and I am curious if the women have to use tampons/pads/diva cups, or do they need to take birth control or other things to control their period? If so, would that be against Catholic teaching, even though it’s not for trying to prevent pregnancy?

I would say they are able to take whatever hygiene articles, for women’s concerns, that they would use in everyday life. It would be very difficult to justify using ABC pills to regulate their cycles, if they did not already take them for this licit therapeutic purpose.

Also, that would not be acceptable to miss Mass for, right?

If they are in a part of the world where there is no Mass available, then they would have no obligation.

My opinion won’t be popular. In the show ‘survivor’ they play for an immunity Idol.

To me, that breaks one of the 10 commandments. Not a healthy reality show for christians in that respect.

I have to think this is just play-acting. No one in the cast could seriously believe that there is any actual spiritual aspect to what is, in essence, a stage prop.

This said, I have always been just a little rankled by the “Idol” series of talent shows. I would have chosen another title — “Superstar” would work just fine.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

Pretty sure they would be allowed to use normal period products if that’s what they wanted to do. It’s a TV show- tonnes of stuff goes on behind the scenes that they wouldn’t want audiences to know about.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

I’m sure they can use feminine projects. The crew or camera staff can carry them.

 

[F_Marturana]

There’s probably a medical team as well.

 

[babochka]

It would be very difficult to justify using ABC pills to regulate their cycles, if they did not already take them for this licit therapeutic

If a person is not sexually active, the use of hormones to regulate cycles, or for any reason, is a non-issue from a moral perspective. It is truly an issue between a woman and her doctor.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

It would be very difficult to justify using ABC pills to regulate their cycles, if they did not already take them for this licit therapeutic

Let me clarify. My comment had nothing to do with sexual activity, nor with the per se morality of taking ABC pills. For the sake of charity, I am going to assume that everyone on Survivor remains celibate “for the duration”. I simply meant that it is difficult to justify taking a medication, one that drastically alters one’s metabolism or organism, solely for lifestyle reasons. The menstrual cycle is a normal human bodily function and ordinarily does not need to be medicated or suppressed.

It would be akin to someone with normal cholesterol levels taking lipid medication so that they could embark upon a diet full of fatty foods, or to use a more common example, taking steroids or performance-enhancing drugs for athletic reasons. It is contrary to good medical ethics to take medications that, strictly speaking, you do not need. Many doctors would not even prescribe unneeded medications.

Slightly irregular periods, taken all by themselves, are not a reason to take ABC pills for therapeutic purposes. There is no real threat to one’s health. Wildly irregular periods, excessive bleeding, or endometriosis, on the other hand, are a sufficient reason to take ABC pills to regulate the cycle.

 

[babochka]

babochka:

It would be very difficult to justify using ABC pills to regulate their cycles, if they did not already take them for this licit therapeutic

Let me clarify. My comment had nothing to do with sexual activity, nor with the per se morality of taking ABC pills. For the sake of charity, I am going to assume that everyone on Survivor remains celibate “for the duration”. I simply meant that it is difficult to justify taking a medication, one that drastically alters one’s metabolism or organism, solely for lifestyle reasons. The menstrual cycle is a normal human bodily function and ordinarily does not need to be medicated or suppressed.

It would be akin to someone with normal cholesterol levels taking lipid medication so that they could embark upon a diet full of fatty foods, or to use a more common example, taking steroids or performance-enhancing drugs for athletic reasons. It is contrary to good medical ethics to take medications that, strictly speaking, you do not need. Many doctors would not even prescribe unneeded medications.

Slightly irregular periods, taken all by themselves, are not a reason to take ABC pills for therapeutic purposes. There is no real threat to one’s health. Wildly irregular periods, excessive bleeding, or endometriosis, on the other hand, are a sufficient reason to take ABC pills to regulate the cycle.

Again, I would refer a woman to her doctor to determine the best course of action, given her particular circumstances. What you have said borders on medical advice, in determining what is or isn’t a good medical reason to take a particular medication.

I have never been one to take medication much at all for mild problems, but as I have settled into middle age, I find myself more open to medications that enhance my ability to lead a certain lifestyle and to prevent aggravation. This is a personal decision.

If I were expecting to be in rugged conditions, isolated and without opportunities for good hygiene for several months, I would have no problem getting a Depo Provera shot for the purpose of suppressing my period for a short time. Psychologically, having this one hardship removed could be very helpful. Long term, I would be hesitant because of the significant side effects of the hormones, but this would be something to discuss with my doctor, not my priest. ( At my present age, hormonal treatment would be medically unwise. I am referring to how I would have used such matters when I was younger.)

It really isn’t up to you or me to decide if a drug or therapy is medically justified in a particular case. Hormonal drug treatment is not always artificial birth control.

 

[jag]

It would be akin to someone with normal cholesterol levels taking lipid medication so that they could embark upon a diet full of fatty foods

No, it wouldn’t. The case you are describing means treating your body as a machine in order to get an inordinate pleasure, refusing to practice temperance and refusing to face consequences… oh, same as taking birth control in order to have sex without the possibility of pregnancy.

Taking hormones to avoid having the period during a time when it would be a handicap in a competition (example: a swimmer during Olympic Games) is not akin to birth control, even less if you are not going to have sex

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

My opinion won’t be popular. In the show ‘survivor’ they play for an immunity Idol.

To me, that breaks one of the 10 commandments. Not a healthy reality show for christians in that respect.

No one is actually worshipping it. It’s tongue in cheek. Just because the word “idol” is used doesn’t mean anyone is actually worshipping it.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

It would be interesting to find out what the producers suggest to catholics who apply to be on the show.

I can’t imagine they’ve ever given it any thought. If a potential contestant asked them how the show would impact their religious practice, I assume the producers would just shrug and say “I dunno, ask your clergy, I guess.”

 

[1ke]

If so, would that be against Catholic teaching, even though it’s not for trying to prevent pregnancy?

It is not against Church teaching to take medicine as a treatment for a medical condition when that medicine has a secondary effect of temporary sterility.

Taking them for convenience to not menstruate during a television competition would be a decision you and your doctor would need to discuss. Morally, I don’t see it as problematic.

Also, that would not be acceptable to miss Mass for, right?

That would be something you would need to discuss with your priest and obtain advice for. If it is not possible to go to mass, we do not have an obligation.

Whether or not competing in a television reality series would be good for you spiritually, given the dubious nature of much of the competition-- that’s a different question and one that would require spiritual direction from your pastor or another person.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

What you have said borders on medical advice, in determining what is or isn’t a good medical reason to take a particular medication.

The OP asked for readers’ opinions, and I gave mine. There is no medical reason to regulate or suppress a normal or even slightly irregular period — only lifestyle reasons.

If I were expecting to be in rugged conditions, isolated and without opportunities for good hygiene for several months, I would have no problem getting a Depo Provera shot for the purpose of suppressing my period for a short time.

I can see that. However, isn’t Survivor, at least to a limited extent, a staged competition? There is a production crew on hand, and medical emergencies would be dealt with as in normal life. It’s not quite the same thing as being alone in the Amazon for six months.

Hormonal drug treatment is not always artificial birth control.

I know that. Birth control isn’t even the issue here. Hormonal regulation or suppression of cycles is the issue. Infertility would just be a side effect.

Taking hormones to avoid having the period during a time when it would be a handicap in a competition (example: a swimmer during Olympic Games) is not akin to birth control, even less if you are not going to have sex

I can also see this, but again, the issue is not birth control. A woman on her period, if she is adversely affected by this as many women are, would be handicapped vis-à-vis other women in the competition who are not on their period.

I do concede that there can be legitimate lifestyle reasons for taking medications where there is, strictly speaking, no clinical reason. But my sensus catholicus tells me that there has to be a good reason, proportionate to both the lifestyle issue at hand, and the extent to which the medication affects the organism, to justify taking it. People can legitimately disagree as to what is proportionate.

 

[DeniseNY]

The OP asked for readers’ opinions, and I gave mine. There is no medical reason to regulate or suppress a normal or even slightly irregular period — only lifestyle reasons.

That would be between the woman and her doctor.

 

[jag]

People can legitimately disagree as to what is proportionate

Agree
10chars

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The OP asked for readers’ opinions, and I gave mine. There is no medical reason to regulate or suppress a normal or even slightly irregular period — only lifestyle reasons.

See my comment immediately above:

I do concede that there can be legitimate lifestyle reasons for taking medications where there is, strictly speaking, no clinical reason. But my sensus catholicus tells me that there has to be a good reason, proportionate to both the lifestyle issue at hand, and the extent to which the medication affects the organism, to justify taking it. People can legitimately disagree as to what is proportionate.

I have known a couple of Catholic doctors who were kind of persnickety about giving medication where there were non-medicinal lifestyle change options. A priest once told me “first regime, then medicine, then surgery”, which made perfect sense to me.

 

[HeDa]

I am pretty sure a woman, who has an irregular menstrual cycle combined with heavy bleeding and pains that knocks her out for a day or two every time, would not put herself in a situation like being on a remote island for weeks/months for a TV show.

When I and my study buddies were informed of the dates we were going to be hiking in the mountains, there was growling among the women and we knew the reason without asking one another. There were some of us who were not looking forward to 14 nights in tents I can tell you!