The pill to regularize cycles

[Em_in_FL]

Your wife wouldn’t be taking a contraceptive, she’d be taking “legitimate” medicine to help with a medical problem. The fact that said medicine would render her unable to conceive is an unfortunate side effect- is chemotherapy sinful because it might cause such issues?

But therein lies the issue…

IS “abnormal cycles while breastfeeding” a MEDICAL PROBLEM???

From everything I’ve read (correct me if I’m wrong with links and documentation) this is a normal and healthy reaction during breastfeeding.

 

[Tosk]

But if a woman is married and is having marital relations, the choice to have sexual relations that is contracepted is the choice of an intrinsically evil act. This is a mortal sin regardless of whether it is contraception or abortifacient contraception.

My understanding is that all chemical contraceptives, including all hormone contraceptives and even some spermicides, are sometimes abortifacient.

From what I was told by my priest you’re mistaken. The contraceptive effect is only a side effect of the medication and is not intended. A woman who has sex while she is taking the pill for medical reasons is not contracepting but is only accepting the side effect of her medical treatment. The contraceptive effect is an unintended side effect of a morally neutral action and so sex is permitted. If what you are saying was true women on chemo or any medical treatment that left them sterile would not be able to have sex.

 

[1ke]

From what I was told by my priest you’re mistaken. The contraceptive effect is only a side effect of the medication and is not intended. A woman who has sex while she is taking the pill for medical reasons is not contracepting but is only accepting the side effect of her medical treatment. The contraceptive effect is an unintended side effect of a morally neutral action and so sex is permitted. If what you are saying was true women on chemo or any medical treatment that left them sterile would not be able to have sex.

You are correct regarding the sterility side effect.

That is not, however, the basis of his statement regarding refraining from relations. The abortifacient effect is the basis of his statement. You stated the pill does not have abortifacient properties. However, this is false. It does indeed have abortifacient properties, and the pharmacology information provided by the manufacturers verify this. That does not mean it always acts in this manner, merely that it is designed to act in this manner as one of three ways it “prevents” pregnancy. Those three ways are:

suppress ovulation
inhibit implantation
inhibit sperm transport

The level of estrogen in modern pills is much lower than the original pills (because of stroke, heart attack and fatalities in early pill users) and it is the high levels of estrogen that made the pills completely ovulatory suppressant. Therefore, the reformulated, lower-dose pills (rings, patches, etc) also act in the other two ways to “prevent” pregnancy in the cycles where eggs are released. This is well-documented in their own literature. I’m not sure why you state the pill does not have abortifacient properties.

Clearly inhibiting implantation by the thinning of the uterine wall is deliberately abortive, not conception preventive.

That is what Ron Conte is referring to.

 

[utunumsint]

But therein lies the issue…

IS “abnormal cycles while breastfeeding” a MEDICAL PROBLEM???

From everything I’ve read (correct me if I’m wrong with links and documentation) this is a normal and healthy reaction during breastfeeding.

I have not volunteered that information. You are assuming that this is the issue. I do not wish to discuss it here. But I assure you that I have discussed it with my priest, who did consult with a cannon lawyer with a doctorate in moral theology. And I do have an NFP only doctor, who is trying to resolve our issues using other means. But these means are burdonsome, and somewhat extraordinary. Our priest has assured us that we do not have to go through months and even years of diagnostic experimentation in order to acheive the goal of regularizing her cycles.

My intentions with this post was to ask about a kind of pill that prevents ovulation, but can be used in conjunction with breastfeeding. Because there doesn’t seem to be any options like this on the market.

I believe I have received my answer, so thank you all.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Em_in_FL]

My intentions with this post was to ask about a kind of pill that prevents ovulation, but can be used in conjunction with breastfeeding. Because there doesn’t seem to be any options like this on the market.

I believe I have received my answer, so thank you all.

That’s probably a question that should be posed to a doctor… not in a “Moral Theology” forum…

You and your wife will be in my prayers…

 

[utunumsint]

That’s probably a question that should be posed to a doctor… not in a “Moral Theology” forum…

You and your wife will be in my prayers…

Thank you. We really do need them. Believe me that this is the last thing I want for my wife and it breaks my heart that this is what we have to resort to.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Ok, a couple of things here:

(a) The pill doesn’t “regulate” a cycle. It supresses a woman’s hormones and creates an artificial “cycle.” It isn’t even a real menstrual cycle.

The artificial cycles can be used to help regulate the real cycles this is a common therapy

(b) A priest can’t give you permission to do anything that is intrinsically disordered (i.e., a moral evil, a sin)

The priest was not claiming such. The therapy is allowed by church rules and that is most likely what he was refering to

(c) Your later posts indicate your reason for trying to “regulate” her cycle have to do with contracpetion, not some medical necessity, based on this statement where someone suggested using NFP, “Not if you have constant cervical mucus, wildly irregulat cycles, and an obvious hormone issue that was present before the pregnancy.”

I do not agree with this assessment

(d) Contraception is always a moral evil. You cannot use the pill for what you are proposing.

spacing is allowed

Bottom line: you cannot contracept. You seem to be trying to use the idea of “regulating” her cycle in a way that is for contraception and trying to call it something else.

Unless maybe we are missing something. For what medical purpose are you proposing the pill to “regulate” her cycle as a solution? A medical *necessity *that cannot be treated any other way *may *indeed be morally permissable with a secondary, unintended side effect of infertility. But, that doesn’t seem to be what you are describing here.

I disagree the therapy is allowed always was. Whether “he” the wife, and doctor even all agree on the plan is one issue. Whether the therapy is allowed either way is a different issue. The Church allows spacing children. The Church allows therapeutic treatments, so I do not see a violation.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sure there are doctors willing to ignore the science and the information provided by the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the pill and who will state that the pill “regulates” a cycle. It doesn’t change the pharmacology or the facts.

LOL. So says Dr. 1ke. However, **I **measure by results. My doctor was right. It worked.

 

[pnewton]

This is not accurate. You have misstated the criteria required for the principle of double effect to be legitimately used. One can NEVER do evil so that good may come of it. That is a teaching readily found in the Catechism (see below). First, here are the criteria necessary to employ the principle of double effect:
First, that the action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent; second, that the bad result not be directly intended; third, that the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result; and fourth, that the good result be “proportionate to” the bad result.

More precisely, you do not agree with me that it is accurate, as I do not agree with you and believe it to be so. The good and the bad effects can be simultaneous. It is not the medical nature of the medice that is evil. It is rather the contraceptive effect that is evil. Even this effect can be eliminated by continence.

I understand what the Church says about taking contraceptives, but it always includes all contraceptive methods in declaring it intrinsically evil. Therefore, the medicine prescribed is no more intrinsically evil than latex rubber is intrinsically evil.

A bad effect may be the consequence of a morally good act, or it may occur simultaneously along with it, but the anticipated good must never be a result of evil actions

Here is an excellent article that explains the principle

catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609uan.asp

In this case abortion is recognized as a secondary effect of saving the mother’s life:

The principle is simple: The direct killing of an innocent life is a grave evil and is never allowed, but when the mother’s life is in danger, medical ethics have always recognized the principle of double effect. And so has the Catholic Church, which has long protected the life of the mother. In 1907, long before abortion on demand was legal through most of the Western world, the Catholic Encyclopedia included this statement in its article on abortion:
If medical treatment or surgical operation, necessary to save a mother’s life, is applied to her organism (though the child’s death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life is thereby directly attacked

.

 

[choy]

Actually, the church does allow the pill to be used solely for the purpose of regulating a woman’s cycle. However, you have a problem here because I assume you and your wife will continue to have marital relations, and therefore, the pill will either prevent pregnancy, or cause a chemical abortion. If your wife is going to use the pill, you must not have marital relations during that time.

thecatholicletter.com/birth-control-abortion-article-subjects-40/100-the-catholic-birth-control-a-sex-faq#3

didn’t he say the wife was breastfeeding? so she can’t get pregnant anyways

 

[Newbie2]

It isn’t true that the pill is an abortifacient…

The package inserts seem to suggest that they can be.

The pill does not regularize anything, the pill makes women have a fake cycle.

And how is that “fake cycle” not regular???

And, as mentioned above, it won’t regulate the cycle, it’ll just give the appearance of regulation.

What?? Please elaborate on the difference between the “appearance of regulation” and “regulation”.

Ok, a couple of things here:

(a) The pill doesn’t “regulate” a cycle. It supresses a woman’s hormones and creates an artificial “cycle.” It isn’t even a real menstrual cycle.

.

It’s an artificially regulated cycle, but nonetheless it’s a cycle and regulated by the use of artificial hormones.

I’m sure there are doctors willing to ignore the science and the information provided by the pharmaceutical companies who manufacture the pill and who will state that the pill “regulates” a cycle. It doesn’t change the pharmacology or the facts.

.

 

[Em_in_FL]

didn’t he say the wife was breastfeeding? so she can’t get pregnant anyways

Not true.
Many women can ovulate and become pregnant while breastfeeding.

And how is that “fake cycle” not regular???

What?? Please elaborate on the difference between the “appearance of regulation” and “regulation”.

It’s an artificially regulated cycle, but nonetheless it’s a cycle and regulated by the use of artificial hormones.

Yes, the “cycle” that a woman has on the pill is very regular, but it’s not a menstrual cycle, it’s technically called withdrawal bleeding…
The pill tricks your body into thinking it’s already pregnant (so ovulation won’t occur). The withdrawal bleed isn’t even necessary - it’s just to ease the fears of women who want that regularity as proof that they’re not pregnant. There are forms of the pill now that remove the withdrawal bleed entirely (by not using the placebo pills).
So again, it’s not a “natural cycle”… it’s entirely fake and simply to do coming off the hormones while you’re on the placebos.

Yes, as pnewton has described, it can sometimes work to re-trigger a woman’s natural menstrual cycle after she stops using the pill, but that’s merely because her body has had unnatural burst of pregnancy-like hormones, and then had them removed when she stopped. It’s not the intended use of the pill, just a side-effect that can sometimes happen. The opposite (post-pill infertility) can also happen.

Please see the links I mentioned in this post for reference on the difference between the pill’s withdrawal bleeding cycle vs a regular menstrual cycle.

I don’t think medical credentials are required to use google…

knowyourperiod.com/pill_main.htm

knowmycycle.com/menstrual-questions.aspx

contraception.about.com/od/additionalresources/g/WithdrawalBleed.htm

 

[theengel]

Hello All–

I’m the one who wrote the article mentioned in one of the first few posts from The Catholic Letter.

I had written what I thought to be the truth, and I see there’s some argument over that here. In the interests of always adhering to the truth, can those of you on either side of the fence (of whether or not it’s permissible to use the pill for legitimate medical purposes) give as many authoritative references as possible.

I get about 10-20 visitors on my site per day, specifically trying to find the answer to this question. I want to make sure and give them as accurate an answer as possible.

Thanks,
Erice:>

 

[theengel]

Here is what Fr. Serpa said on this matter on this very site:

This is a very important matter that is widely misunderstood:

The Church considers a miscarriage to be a physical evil. Since abortion DELIBERATELY causes a miscarriage, it is therefore also a MORAL evil. The Church sees an UNintended miscarriage as only a physical evil since it is not deliberately caused by the couple.

The use of the pill for medical reasons may cause an UNintended miscarriage. Women often have unintended miscarriages—sometimes without even knowing it. It is only miscarriages that are INTENDED that the Church considers immoral. The Church never allows the pill to be used as an abortifacient. But it does allow the use of the pill for medical reasons with the possiblity of producing an unintended miscarriage—without obliging the couple to abstain from sexual relations during that time.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

Perhaps it would be better to explain what “intended” means.

If we were to do something that we had reason to believe would end another person’s life (even if ending that life was not the purpose of our action) would it still be morally acceptable?

For example, let’s say I’m stuck to a railroad track and a train is coming. The train will crush me and end my life. But I am close to a mechanism that will derail the train. If I derail the train, whoever is on the train will die. I wouldn’t “intend” to kill them, but I must derail the train in order to prevent my own death.

 

[utunumsint]

For those interested, I am not an expert on these matters. I have to rely on what I’ve been told concerning this issue. I suppose I could seek a dispensation directly from the bishop, but that seems excessive. I trust the priest I talked about concerning this. He is very orthodox, a priest of the traditional latin mass, and he did his due diligence.

That being said, my wife and I have determined that we cannot use progesterone only pills because in 50% of women, ovulation is not prevented. Thefore fertilization is much more likely, and the abortafacient effects are much more likely to happen. Abortion with this drug is the primary intended effect.

The estrogen/progesterone pill has as its primary purpose to stop ovulation from happening. Thefore fertilization is much less likely to happen. We can live with this.

So we will wait six months until breastfeeding is done, and in the mean time, we will continue seeing our NFP only doctor to see if we can determine a better solution to her issues.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Hello All–

I’m the one who wrote the article mentioned in one of the first few posts from The Catholic Letter.

I had written what I thought to be the truth, and I see there’s some argument over that here. In the interests of always adhering to the truth, can those of you on either side of the fence (of whether or not it’s permissible to use the pill for legitimate medical purposes) give as many authoritative references as possible.

I get about 10-20 visitors on my site per day, specifically trying to find the answer to this question. I want to make sure and give them as accurate an answer as possible.

Thanks,
Erice:>

? ? I am not really following you but Humanae Vitae is quite clear on therapy treatments even when abortion is a direct side effect. Humanae Vitae is widely available to include the vatican web site.

 

[ryecroft]

I don’t know if this is going to help you or not, but I have permission to be on the pill for medical reasons and I’m married and do NOT abstain - it has to do with being a secondary justification (there is another phrase for it, but I can’t remember it this second)- but you need to ask your cannon lawyer friend or a priest if you qualify for that - I’m not sure if trying to get a cycle regular is going to be considered as grave matter as some of the problems I have.
I completely understand about the ccles - I’ve had to get transfusions due to the severity of mine. Basically what the church says is that because I’m not taking the birth control in order to prevent pregnancy, I’m allowed to take it - you should look at some of the other posts on here or threads as this invariably gets into a debate over someone saying that there is no cause (even if the priest o.k.ed it) for even the possibility of taking the pill, having relations even if the chances of having a “chemical” abortion are minute. I’ll see if I can go over mine and find it. Oh and Fr. Serpa has spoken on this matter so you might want to check some of his posts regarding this.
Good Luck-
Rye aka Annie

 

[kage_ar]

? ? I am not really following you but Humanae Vitae is quite clear on therapy treatments even when abortion is a direct side effect. Humanae Vitae is widely available to include the vatican web site.

From HV, the word “abortion” is used exactly ONE time (emphasis mine):

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

14. 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. (14) 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. (15)

 

[utunumsint]

This is the section including the lawful therapeutic use clause.

Unlawful Birth Control Methods

1. 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. (14) 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.

Lawful Therapeutic Means

1. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever.

I guess the question is whether the method use is directly intending an abortion. From what I understand, this would not be our intention at all. We would be using this to regulate our cycles.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Texas_Roofer]

So are you hinting you wrote this?

3 - If a woman is using birth control for medical reasons other than preventing pregnancy, it is okay to have sex?

.

No, but not because she would be preventing pregnancy. Any chemical birth control products on the market right now used to regulate things like menstrual cycles also have abortifacient properties. In other words, they would not be guilty of using birth control, but they would be guilty of murder. If your doctor is recommending such drugs, seek a second opinion. Most of the time, other drugs can be used to accomplish the same medical benefits that birth control does. .

Perhaps it would be better to explain what “intended” means.

If we were to do something that we had reason to believe would end another person’s life (even if ending that life was not the purpose of our action) would it still be morally acceptable?

For example, let’s say I’m stuck to a railroad track and a train is coming. The train will crush me and end my life. But I am close to a mechanism that will derail the train. If I derail the train, whoever is on the train will die. I wouldn’t “intend” to kill them, but I must derail the train in order to prevent my own death.

Both posts are greatly errored