The Church has got to be kidding on this one, right?

[Traditional_Ang]

pgoings:

Given what is now known about genetics and the ability to reliably predict (within limits) the likelihood of certain conditions developing, I find it difficult to believe that existing cancer or excessive bleeding of the uerus are the only factors which constitute “a clear and presnt danger to the woman’s life” for the purpose of determining whether a hysterectomy is licit. One must consider totality over the lifetime of the person, not just totality at the moment; this is the very definition of prudence.

PGoings:

Our Lord said what He said, and Genetics only can talk in terms of PROBABILITIES or POTENTIALITIES. The same reasoning as yours is being used by Insurance Company executives who are trying to write exclusions into insurance policies regarding what they will and will not cover for individuals. If they succeed, Insurance Companies will call the “Genetic Preconditions” such as the one you describe “Pre-existing Conditions” and refuse to cover their treatment.

The same reasoning as yours is being used to justify human cloning, selective abortion and the the denial of services or education to people based on the results of genetic testing.

Can’t you see the end result of your logic? Can’t you see how people would justify the above? If you can, do you really believe these are moral or ethical?

Because of that thinking, and because of our Lord’s words. I can’t give you any agreement. The Moral Teaching of the Church is what it is for a reason, and that is that it has to be able to be used in all situations where an ethical or moral decision is called for.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

pgoings:

Fr Hogan’s area of expertise seems to be medieval history rather than moral theology. His assertion that “women with the gene you describe have a very, very good chance in not developing breast cancer” is still a matter of vigorous scientific and medical debate, and is far from settled. If his conclusion is based on this, then it is perilously contingent. While he may, in fact, be entirely correct, I would not consider what he has written for EWTN’s forum to be the final word on the subject.

Pgoings:

Fr. Hogan’s area of expertise doesn’t really matter, because what’s he wrote is the Teaching of the Church.

Instead of spending a bunch of effort trying to say why the Church is wrong, why don’t you ask why the Church has come the conclusions she has come to?

I think you’ll find that it will yield much better spiritual fruit for you.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Pug:

Truly, I am surprised to see disagreement here,…I am talking about a situation in which the uterus is removed, and sterility will result … as a side effect. If the woman wanted sterility, then cutting her tubes would suffice. But … That has no effect on future cancer risk. Do we agree it is indirect here (I specify that she is not secretly seeking sterility)?

If you have access to The Way of the Lord Jesus, volume 3, Difficult Moral Questions, by Germain Grisez, please see question 53 (it is only a few pages). It is not legal for me to type it out here?

I am familiar with double effect as a concept. I will try to use the website you provided, but I have not learned via this precise definition:

1. The object is reduction of cancer risk. The object is overall total bodily health. There is argument on this thread about reduction of risk as an object, but that is not the argument you gave against my hypothetical, so I will let this one pass.
2. The woman is not seeking sterility. If that were her object, she could just accept having her tubes cut. But I specified that this would not meet her needs.
3. Sterility is not in itself causing the reduction of cancer risk. I don’t think it is like the case of making a person sterile specifically so they can’t get pregant again. Then the sterility is what is doing the deed. But it is the lack of a uterus, not sterility per se that is reducing cancer risk. Otherwise cutting the tubes would work. Sterility itself does not reduce cancer risk. The bad side effect is not producing the good.
4. That the woman won’t get uterine cancer follows at least as immediately from the removal of the uterus as that she won’t be able to carry a child in the uterus.
5. The reason I mention age has to do with how removal of a uterus has an effect on a woman based on her age. Removal of a uterus from a younger woman has the side effect of sterility, a huge side effect. Removal of a uterus from a 55 year old woman does not have that side effect, as she is already sterile (from menopause). The removal of a uterus from the 45 year old woman who has just cause to abstain for the remainder of her fertile years is less affected by sterility than a 25 year old woman just married. You cannot accept certain side effects without proportionate reason. That is part of the principle of double effect, so far as I know. If accepting the side effects would break the golden rule or be disproportionate somehow, you can’t do it. Removal of a uterus to prevent some future thing on a woman who is 25 and just married and is fertile and is free to reproduce is not reasonable. But the 45 yr old woman has already reached the decision that she is not morally free to seek pregnancy.

Also, the reason I specify that she is currently pregnant is that her impending cesarean section is what is making the additional surgical risk minimal (to meet the burden of it being in the best interest of overall bodily health). Removal of a uterus from a woman just to reduce cancer risk is probably not balanced out right if she has to undergo an entire surgery for it. Surgery carries serious health risk.

Although your objection did not appear to be on the grounds of #1, it seems to me that is the most promising basis for one. Either that or you attempt to say that one cannot pursue one good to the detriment of a different good, even if only as a side-effect (and you are classifying health and reproduction separately). But I assume that is not your argument.

Sorry this is so long! Also, I have no desire to go against Church teaching. I am just trying to work out the specifics of this hypothetical scenario as an exercise in understanding.

Pug:

Since you said before that you felt ill at ease about this one, I’ll try to clarify what I said earlier - The problem is doing something which is Evil NOW in order to prevent a potential FUTURE problem, when she has other means for avoiding having that problem.

In the case of Genetic Testing, we’re talking about PROBABILITIES or PREDISPOSITIONS. We’re not talking about things that already are. Because of that, what I’ve said before has to be the governing principle. So, If the risk of cancer can be MINIMIZED by yearly PAP-Smears, Endoscopic examinations and any MRI/PET scans as may be indicated to catch the cancer in its earliest stages, while having the woman exercise and eat a diet designed to reduce the risk of cancer, this must be done instead.

We can not all FUTURE POSSIBILITES to trump PRESENT moral REALITIES.

Anything else allows for the kind of logic I dealt with in another post, unless Genetic Testing provides us with information about something that will DEFINITELY HAPPEN. Even then, I would be reticent to act on it because of what what people with ill will would justify with that information.

In Christ, Michael

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Linnyo:

Don’t be ridiculous. It is not wrong of these priests to give permission for a woman to help her health. The only wrong is the church making such a rule in the first place!

Well said. Exceptions are always made to the law when a dire need arises. Christ healed men on the Sabbath even when scribes of the law objected citing that, if a man can pull his ox out of a well on the Sabbath, a man should receive healing. No one expects a police officer to go unarmed in order to follow the Commandment “Thou Shall Not Kill” except maybe total pacifists. I believe this is all reactionary actions brought about by the increased use of non-medical birth control with no basis in reason. This woman is already been made a enunch by God due to her medical condition. Dragging this out for her and her husband only brings her needless suffering.

 

[Pug]

Traditional Ang:

So, If the risk of cancer can be MINIMIZED by yearly PAP-Smears, Endoscopic examinations and any MRI/PET scans as may be indicated to catch the cancer in its earliest stages
…snip…
I would be reticent to act on it because of what what people with ill will would justify with that information.

Michael,

I agree with you about the danger that people could use some info to justify sterilizing themselves. I think that danger might be very great on this topic.

Okay, I see your point better. It is about trading something real for potential, instead of real for real. I will think about that. Also, I am so likely to think in terms of people who can’t get routine medical care, whereas you are thinking about access to good preventative medicine. I’m not sure if it matters (access to good preventative care), but I ought to account for it better in my thought.

Thanks for the clarification. Have a blessed Passion Sunday (Palm Sunday)!

 

[setter]

Originally Posted by Linnyo
Don’t be ridiculous. It is not wrong of these priests to give permission for a woman to help her health. The only wrong is the church making such a rule in the first place!

CrossoverManiac:

Well said. Exceptions are always made to the law when a dire need arises. Christ healed men on the Sabbath even when scribes of the law objected citing that, if a man can pull his ox out of a well on the Sabbath, a man should receive healing. No one expects a police officer to go unarmed in order to follow the Commandment “Thou Shall Not Kill” except maybe total pacifists. I believe this is all reactionary actions brought about by the increased use of non-medical birth control with no basis in reason. This woman is already been made a enunch by God due to her medical condition. Dragging this out for her and her husband only brings her needless suffering.

The important distinction needs to be made whether these “exceptions to the law” are morally permissible/licit according to the “rules” of Catholic moral theology or not. Otherwise, the person consciously offering such an illicit/immoral “exception” or the person consciously choosing such an illicit/immoral “exception” has put their eternal soul in a precarious state.

1789 Some rules [of conscience] apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Linnyo]

setter:

The important distinction needs to be made whether these “exceptions to the law” are morally permissible/licit according to the “rules” of Catholic moral theology or not. Otherwise, the person consciously offering such an illicit/immoral “exception” or the person consciously choosing such an illicit/immoral “exception” has put their eternal soul in a precarious state.

1789 Some rules [of conscience] apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

I would hardly consider sterilisation as evil in the case of a woman having this procedure in order to save her health. In itself it causes no harm to anyone other than the woman. It is not abortive or anything. This should be a case where exception is made.

 

[fix]

Linnyo:

I would hardly consider sterilisation as evil in the case of a woman having this procedure in order to save her health. In itself it causes no harm to anyone other than the woman. It is not abortive or anything. This should be a case where exception is made.

It seems from the information in the OP the case is one that describes direct sterilization. That is always wrong.

 

[setter]

Linnyo:

I would hardly consider sterilisation as evil in the case of a woman having this procedure in order to save her health. In itself it causes no harm to anyone other than the woman. It is not abortive or anything. This should be a case where exception is made.

But, you must first answer this question: Would marital constinence be a sure fired 100% effective way to “save her health”? If so, then the procedure is morally illicit. I understand that this is very difficult for many to wrap their minds around because the proposed “medical solution” appears so incidental and compassionate, and the current culture readily endorses direct sterilization over self-sacrifice. However, it is this simple and exhaustive as I have presented before:

Originally Posted by setter

I represent the following statement because although it is prone to be readily discarded out of hand as coming across as overly simplistic and appears inadequate to consider all the various medical nuances, I have found that it remains wholly consonant with Catholic moral theology and the instruction found in Humanae Vitae and other authoritative Church statements: A simple way to determine whether a proposed treatment that impacts a woman’s fertility is morally acceptable or not is to consider whether the same treatment would be necessary for a single or celibate woman. If the answer is no, then the proposed drug or procedure is immoral. <<<

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. 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; (CCC 2370).

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). (CCC 2399)

 

[pgoings]

Our Lord said what He said, and Genetics only can talk in terms of PROBABILITIES or POTENTIALITIES.

Which words of Our Lord are you thinking of here?

The same reasoning as yours is being used by Insurance Company executives who are trying to write exclusions into insurance policies regarding what they will and will not cover for individuals. If they succeed, Insurance Companies will call the “Genetic Preconditions” such as the one you describe “Pre-existing Conditions” and refuse to cover their treatment.

I’m opposed to this practice for a number of reasons, but it’s not necessarily immoral. Why do you believe that it is?

The same reasoning as yours is being used to justify human cloning, selective abortion and the the denial of services or education to people based on the results of genetic testing.

My reasoning is that a genetic defect, itself an existing pathological condition, in some cases implies a strong possibility of developing a further pathology, namely cancer. When such a condition is discovered, it may licitly by addressed by excising a breast, uterus, etc., for the purpose of enhancing the overall wholeness of an individual. So, in the first place, how could this be used to justify abortion? And, although this should be its own topic, why is “the denial of services or education to people based on the results of genetic testing” necessarily immoral?

The Moral Teaching of the Church is what it is for a reason, and that is that it has to be able to be used in all situations where an ethical or moral decision is called for.

And I would respond that the Church’s position is not at all clear in situations like this. Thus far no one has produced anything in support of a very restrictive policy on excisions and amputations except for an essay from the EWTN web site which has a short quote from Pope Pius XII’s address to the Congress of Urology in 1953. The quotation itself lays down moral guidelines, but the Pope clearly leaves the question of whether a given condition fits these guidelines to the medical doctors involved.

 

[pgoings]

Instead of spending a bunch of effort trying to say why the Church is wrong, why don’t you ask why the Church has come the conclusions she has come to?

I think you’ll find that it will yield much better spiritual fruit for you.

In the first place, I’m not saying that the Church is wrong. I am saying that the application of moral principles to certain medical questions has not yet been authoritatively addressed by the Church.

In the second place, could we dispense with the sarcasm and condescension? I don’t see how it’s at all helpful.

 

[fix]

Direct sterilization of either men or women, whether permanent or temporary, is not permitted in a Catholic health care institution. Procedures that induce sterility are permitted when their direct effect is the cure or alleviation of a present and serious pathology and a simpler treatment is not available.34

Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops

This seems to indicate that removal of an uterous that is not currently diseased is illicit if the reason is for contaception.

 

[Pug]

fix:

This seems to indicate that removal of an uterous that is not currently diseased is illicit if the reason is for contaception.

I am in concurrence with your point that contraception can’t be the reason someone is doing the action.

“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

from the ccc 2370

 

[CrossoverManiac]

fix:

This seems to indicate that removal of an uterous that is not currently diseased is illicit if the reason is for contaception.

When the uterus can become life-threatening with the onset of pregency, that uterus is diseased. That’s like a doctor telling a person with a messed-up leg that he wouldn’t need an operation to repair the damage done to it if only he’d learn to accept being confined to a wheelchair.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

And because the uterus can not sustain a pregancy (either by certain miscarriage or even by killing the mother), the woman, in such a case, is already steril. Removing the uterus is only lessening the effects of pre-existing stelization.

 

[Genesis315]

Some people are too focused on the carnal. Someone in such a situation shoould realize that bearing a Cross faithfully is the surest way to Heaven.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Genesis315:

Some people are too focused on the carnal. Someone in such a situation shoould realize that bearing a Cross faithfully is the surest way to Heaven.

And the surest way to Hell is heaping burdens on the shoulders of other people. Christ Himself rebuked the Pharisees for such action.

 

[Genesis315]

CrossoverManiac:

And the surest way to Hell is heaping burdens on the shoulders of other people. Christ Himself rebuked the Pharisees for such action.

Those burdens were the “traditions of men.” This is a God-given “burden.” Jesus says we are not worthy unless we take up our Cross–like when St. Joseph found out he would have to abstain for the rest of his life.

 

[CrossoverManiac]

Genesis315:

Those burdens were the “traditions of men.” This is a God-given “burden.”

God didn’t say this woman shouldn’t have her uterus removed. That was the Church. So, yes, it is a tradition of men.

Like when Jesus says we are not worthy unless we take up our Cross. Like when St. Joseph found out he would have to abstain for the rest of his life.

Since you have such a strong faith in abstance and celebacy, maybe you should set an example for us and abstain for the rest of your life since you seem so quick to pin that burden on others.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

pgoings:

Which words of Our Lord are you thinking of here?

*"Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat (or drink), or about your body, what you will wear. Is not life more than food and the body more than clothing?

Look at the birds in the sky; they do not sow or reap, they gather nothing into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are not you more important than they?

Can any of you by worrying add a single moment to your life-span?

Why are you anxious about clothes? Learn from the way the wild flowers grow. They do not work or spin. But I tell you that not even Solomon in all his splendor was clothed like one of them. If God so clothes the grass of the field, which grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?

So do not worry and say, ‘What are we to eat?’ or ‘What are we to drink?’ or ‘What are we to wear?’ All these things the pagans seek. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.But seek first the kingdom (of God) and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.

Do not worry about tomorrow; tomorrow will take care of itself. Sufficient for a day is its own evil. Matt. 6: 25-34*

*He said to (his) disciples, "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life and what you will eat, or about your body and what you will wear. For life is more than food and the body more than clothing.

Notice the ravens: they do not sow or reap; they have neither storehouse nor barn, yet God feeds them. How much more important are you than birds!

Can any of you by worrying add a moment to your lifespan? If even the smallest things are beyond your control, why are you anxious about the rest?

Notice how the flowers grow. They do not toil or spin. But I tell you, not even Solomon in all his splendor was dressed like one of them. If God so clothes the grass in the field that grows today and is thrown into the oven tomorrow, will he not much more provide for you, O you of little faith?

As for you, do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, and do not worry anymore. All the nations of the world seek for these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these other things will be given you besides. Luke 12:22-31*

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we shall go into such and such a town, spend a year there doing business, and make a profit” - you have no idea what your life will be like tomorrow. You are a puff of smoke that appears briefly and then disappears. Instead you should say, “If the Lord wills it, we shall live to do this or that.” James 4:13-15

With the exception of disorders such as Down’s Syndrome, a Genetic Predisposition is not the disorder itself. It’s only a marker saying that there is a probability that someome may get the disease. That is esp. truse of Cancer of the breast of cancer of the uterus, or any other form of cancer where environmental factors figure so prominantly.

I really do wish that you would stop treating the genetic Predisposition towards certain types of cancer as if those who had those PREDISPOSITIONS were inevitably going to get those cancers. There is no basis in science for that, and practicing medicine as if there were would not be sound medical practice or moral medical practice.

I see no reason to remove an otherwise healthy uterus when there are other ways to medically manage someone who has a GENETIC PRDISPOSITION to cancer of the uterus. If the woman couldn’t reduce her risk of cancer by not smoking, eating a healthier diet that’s higher in fiber and lower in fats (esp. transfats) and following the Church’s Teaching on sexuallity and Contraception, and by following a more extensive monitoring regime than would otherwise be called for, you might have a point. But, the fact is that women can do these things - They don’t have to smoke, or eat high fat diets or be promiscuous, and Insurance Companies can be made to foot the bill for the extra tests the monitoring regime would require.

Or, Would you rather remove an otherwise heathy organ on a “What might be?”

In Christ, Michael