Using "the pill" for medical reasons?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ruby007
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ruby007

Guest
Hey guys.

I’ve been reading about using the pill for medical reasons and from what I can gather, it’s acceptable but only if the reasons are pretty serious. If women’s health issues make you uncomfortable, don’t read on. 😛
I’ve recently been diagnosed with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. This means:

-ovaries are full of cysts that can potentially turn cancerous
-if cysts rupture, it will be painful & hospital treatment will be required
  • increased chance of diabetes and heart attack down the track
  • increased chance of endometrial cancer
  • increased chance of miscarriage
My periods at the moment are also so painful that I sometimes need to take a couple days off work.

I want to know if this is serious enough to justify going on “the pill” for medical reasons. There is no known cure for this condition yet; it can only be alleviated by taking hormonal therapy and the thing that seems to work best and has been recommended to me is the pill.

I will look into other treatments as well but nothing I’ve seen so far seem to deal with this as well as the pill would. I really want to go on the pill as soon as possible so I can stop worrying about this but my mother is unsupportive and I need to know if she’s right about this being a morally questionable thing to do, as I do plan to have sex in the future and there is that possibility of the pill preventing implantation.
 
Ruby007 said:
Hey guys.

I’ve been reading about using the pill for medical reasons and from what I can gather, it’s acceptable but only if the reasons are pretty serious. If women’s health issues make you uncomfortable, don’t read on. 😛
I’ve recently been diagnosed with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome. This means my ovaries are full of cysts that will need to be checked on regularly to ensure they haven’t turned cancerous. If they get too big or rupture, I’ll have to go to hospital.

The likelihood of getting diabetes is significantly increased, as is the possibility of heart attack when I’m older. There’s also increased chance of miscarriage. Atm, my periods are heavy and sometimes often so painful I have to take a couple days off work.

I want to know if this is serious enough to justify going on “the pill” for medical reasons. There is no known cure for this condition yet; it can only be alleviated by taking hormonal therapy and the thing that seems to work best and has been recommended to me is the pill.

I will look into other treatments as well but nothing I’ve seen so far seem to deal with this as well as the pill would. I really want to go on the pill as soon as possible so I can stop worrying about this but my mother is unsupportive and I need to know if she’s right about this being a morally questionable thing to do, as I do plan to have sex in the future and there is that possibility of the pill preventing implantation.
Click to expand...
I didn’t read past your first sentence (thank you for the warning). Talk to a priest (preferably your parish priest) for the correct answer. My uninformed answer- the morality of using this medication, or any other medication, is based on the intent of usage.
 
This is a perfectly legitimate option. My understanding is also that this would be the best option to preserve fertility if you wish to have children in the future. If you can you might try to find a sympathetic doctor who will work with you on finding the formula least likely to prevent implantation, although a formula that suppresses ovulation well and is taken regularly should make that unlikely to happen.
 
I’d recommend you discuss this with your doctor and pastor, not random strangers on the internet. You will receive a lot of different answers here, not all of them in line with Church teaching.

You can contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center to ask questions also. In general, yes, treatments for a disease or medical condition are morally permissible even when they have foreseen but unintended side effects such as sterility (temporary or permanent). You are correct that the treatment must be proportionate to the problem. This can be classified under the Principle of Double Effect.

I can recommend the Pope Paul VI Institute for a second opinion, medically speaking. They take an approach to female reproductive diseases that does not include hormonal birth control pills. They have been successful in many cases treating female issues and preserving or restoring fertility.
 
Using hormones to treat medical conditions is acceptable, even if the hormones are those usually used for contraception.

It remains a judgement call as to when the condition is so serious as to require treatment, and you should work with your doctor on this. Also note that your treatment may need to be varied later, if/when you want to have children. That’s probably something worth discussing now.

Here are a couple of pertinent answers from apologists on this site regarding these very issues:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=15756

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618
 
Hey everyone, thanks for your replies. I’m going to seek further (name removed by moderator)ut and alternative options regarding this but I feel better knowing that I can use this if I need to.
 
1ke said:
I’d recommend you discuss this with your doctor and pastor, not random strangers on the internet. You will receive a lot of different answers here, not all of them in line with Church teaching.

You can contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center to ask questions also. In general, yes, treatments for a disease or medical condition are morally permissible even when they have foreseen but unintended side effects such as sterility (temporary or permanent). You are correct that the treatment must be proportionate to the problem. This can be classified under the Principle of Double Effect.

I can recommend the Pope Paul VI Institute for a second opinion, medically speaking. They take an approach to female reproductive diseases that does not include hormonal birth control pills. They have been successful in many cases treating female issues and preserving or restoring fertility.
Click to expand...
This. ^^^^^. And may The Lord bring you comfort and peace. Amen
 
PCOS is something that is diagnosed by exclusion, meaning that other things causing the same symptoms are ruled out. PCOS can be potentially dangerous, like the possible complications you list, but for most people it is more of a syndrome that is uncomfortable, painful and annoying, like irritable bowel syndrome. Yes, birth control can help, but so can things like diet and exercise.

Birth control pills that prevent implantation are essentially chemical abortofacients. They also increase the risk of other female cancers. In addition, they can do things like cause gall bladder problems. Also, statistically women who take birth control have more difficulty conceiving and higher rates of sterility after going off of it, than women who don’t. So to “fix” PCOS, you are opening yourself up to possible new health issues.

You say you plan to have sex soon but don’t speak of your marital status. Are you married, or are you just speaking hypothetically?

I had PMS symptoms all month for several years in my 20s. I took a lo-dose birth control pill. It really helped. I was unmarried and chaste so pregnancy was not an issue. But it killed my gall bladder (common side effect). After several years, I went off of it, and since then have had a normal cycle with minimal PMS symptoms.

If you are in a position to practice chastity while you take the pill, you could do so with the hope that a few years on it will correct your cycle. If you are married, then perhaps it would be good to follow up with a NaPro trained doctor. There are other options out there.

fertilitycare.org/
 
Caroline723 said:
PCOS is something that is diagnosed by exclusion, meaning that other things causing the same symptoms are ruled out. PCOS can be potentially dangerous, like the possible complications you list, but for most people it is more of a syndrome that is uncomfortable, painful and annoying, like irritable bowel syndrome. Yes, birth control can help, but so can things like diet and exercise.

Birth control pills that prevent implantation are essentially chemical abortofacients. ** They also increase the risk of other female cancers**. In addition, they can do things like cause gall bladder problems. **Also, statistically women who take birth control have more difficulty conceiving and higher rates of sterility after going off of it, than women who don’t. ** So to “fix” PCOS, you are opening yourself up to possible new health issues.

You say you plan to have sex soon but don’t speak of your marital status. Are you married, or are you just speaking hypothetically?

I had PMS symptoms all month for several years in my 20s. I took a lo-dose birth control pill. It really helped. I was unmarried and chaste so pregnancy was not an issue. But it killed my gall bladder (common side effect). After several years, I went off of it, and since then have had a normal cycle with minimal PMS symptoms.

If you are in a position to practice chastity while you take the pill, you could do so with the hope that a few years on it will correct your cycle. If you are married, then perhaps it would be good to follow up with a NaPro trained doctor. There are other options out there.

fertilitycare.org/
Click to expand...
No they don’t, and no, they don’t.

Birth control pills may increase the risk of breast cancer, but they also reduce the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers. And since women with PCOS are at a higher than average risk of both endometrial and ovarian cancer, it lowers the overall risk of a PCOS’er developing cancer.

And no, there is no “statistical” link between birth control use and infertility. I could show you over a dozen peer-reviewed published studies that refute that myth.

So please stop spreading misinformation as a scare tactic to steer people away from treating a medical condition.
 
UnCatholicBride said:
No they don’t, and no, they don’t.

Birth control pills may increase the risk of breast cancer, but they also reduce the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers. And since women with PCOS are at a higher than average risk of both endometrial and ovarian cancer, it lowers the overall risk of a PCOS’er developing cancer.

And no, there is no “statistical” link between birth control use and infertility. I could show you over a dozen peer-reviewed published studies that refute that myth.

So please stop spreading misinformation as a scare tactic to steer people away from treating a medical condition.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but as part of my studies for a Masters in Nursing, I did a comprehensive review of all of the major studies done on this topic, dating back to the 1960s. I did this as part of a group that included pro-abortion, pro-contraception members.

The data consistently showed that women who had taken contraceptives had double and triple the rate of infertility (defined as not conceiving after one year of trying) as those who had either used abstinence or NFP. But when you look at the actual percentages, all these groups were still in the single digits so the results are considered negligible. But from my perspective, when I see the same trend across 30 or so studies, I consider that “negligible difference” to mean something. And the pro-choice, pro-contraception member of my group agreed. Oh, and it doesn’t help that drug companies usually fund studies on links between birth control and infertility.

And I am not sure why you are highlighting what I said about the pill and increased risk of cancer when you say yourself that it increases the risk of breast cancer. Yes, I am aware the pill decreases the risk of other cancers. What I had initially said was within the context of informing the OP that she may see taking birth control as a way to decrease risk of one type of cancer, but she is also putting herself at risk for another type of cancer.
 
Caroline723 said:
Sorry, but as part of my studies for a Masters in Nursing, I did a comprehensive review of all of the major studies done on this topic, dating back to the 1960s. I did this as part of a group that included pro-abortion, pro-contraception members.

The data consistently showed that women who had taken contraceptives had double and triple the rate of infertility (defined as not conceiving after one year of trying) as those who had either used abstinence or NFP. But when you look at the actual percentages, all these groups were still in the single digits so the results are considered negligible. But from my perspective, when I see the same trend across 30 or so studies, I consider that “negligible difference” to mean something. And the pro-choice, pro-contraception member of my group agreed. Oh, and it doesn’t help that drug companies usually fund studies on links between birth control and infertility.

.
Click to expand...
The problem with the majority of those studies is that they did not exclude women who took the pill for therapeutic reasons, and women who are on the pill for therapeutic reasons have a higher likelihood of having clinical infertility regardless of their use of birth control pills.

When you look at the more recent studies which only focused on women taking the pill for contraceptive reasons, you’ll see that there’s not a higher rate of clinical infertility when you compare apples to apples.
 
UnCatholicBride said:
The problem with the majority of those studies is that they did not exclude women who took the pill for therapeutic reasons, and women who are on the pill for therapeutic reasons have a higher likelihood of having clinical infertility regardless of their use of birth control pills.

When you look at the more recent studies which only focused on women taking the pill for contraceptive reasons, you’ll see that there’s not a higher rate of clinical infertility when you compare apples to apples.
Click to expand...
It was two years ago that I did this comprehensive review. If more recent studies have published since then I’d love to see them. What shocked my group the most at the time was the dearth of studies on a topic that affects half of the world’s population. It’s a grossly understudied topic (on a billion dollar industry).

I don’t believe there is data on the percentage of woman taking birth control for therapeutic purposes, but a sufficient sample size should eliminate a false skew of results. I don’t believe that would alter the results of every study.
 
UnCatholicBride said:
Birth control pills may increase the risk of breast cancer
Click to expand...
Oral contraceptives have been medically shown to increase risk in breast, cervical, and liver cancer. While it would not be immoral to use an OC for medical reasons, as described in the Paul VI quote, one should discuss other side effects with one’s doctor.
 
I think this tendency for many Catholics to demonize the OCP as somehow inherently evil in and of itself, somewhat like the temperance movement’s approach to “demon rum” in the Prohibition era, really winds up making the anti-contraception position come off as arising from ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

Certainly, OCP do have medical risks, but even if OCPs were totally risk-free, it would not at all affect the morality of using them for contraceptive purposes, it would still be immoral, just as much as barrier methods, withdrawal, etc.

Using OCPs off-label to treat medical conditions certainly requires prudence and judgment, and I’m sure there are people who use medical conditions as an excuse when they’re really using the OCP for contraception, BUT I am charitable enough to NOT assume everyone does this. Certainly not people like the OP who are bringing this up for discussion.

(It’s not immoral to take methotrexate for rheumatoid arthritis either, even though it would be to take it as an abortifacient.)
 
I’m pretty sure I’ve complained about that before. 😃

But seriously, medications have risks. Aspirin has risks. Medications just come with risks. There are several medications that, while not used as birth control, can interfere with fertility. There are a fair few that could cause serious problems with pregnancy, even before a woman might know she was pregnant. That’s unfortunately just part of medical care in fertile, sexually active women.
 
Using the pill for medical reasons is perfectly fine. Birth control pills for treatment of PCOS is pretty standard and seems to help a lot. I was prescribed the pill when I was 17 because I had extremely irregular, heavy, and painful periods and I too had to take a lot of time off from school and was overall miserable. The pill was a lifesaver and my quality of life certainly improved after taking them so using them for medical reasons is not bad or wrong. Then again I think birth control pills used for preventing unwanted pregnancy is fine too, but I am sure I am in the minority here
 
I do not believe that it is immoral to take the pill to ease symptoms of things like PCOS. I took it for several years to alleviate symptoms that were making me miserable. My previous posts were just to alert the OP that there can be serious side effects to taking hormonal contraceptives, regardless of the reason why they’re taken.

Yes, all medications cause side effects. But I would be curious to know of women: would you be more apt to take medicine that has a possible side effect of infertility vs a side effect of cancer? If you were told there was a 5 or 7% chance of infertility, would you risk it?

If you go into any research library search engine, and look up studies on the effects of birth control on fertility, you will be shocked at how few studies of a size that offers reliable statistics, are available. There are less than 20, and most of them are funded by drug companies. Yet we have these very high infertility rates.

It is so commonplace for a women to take contraceptives that many doctors don’t give it a second thought to offer them as an easy and inexpensive fix. In my experience, being prescribed these meds from at least 3 different doctors, not one of them talked to me about the risks.

I went to a medical conference on neonatal complications hosted by Med Students for Life and a leading neonatologist referred to mainstream ob-gyn care as “If all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.” He was speaking in particular to abortion and complicated pregnancies, but that quote can be applied to many gynecological practices as well. My own SIL was unable to get pregnant for 5+ years, went to several fertility doctors, who just wanted to “try” drugs, until she went to a Napro MD, who did exploratory surgery and found out she had endometriosis and her ovaries and/or uterus was fused to her intestines.

I just think that in this particular field of medicine, it really does matter who is telling you to go on oral contraceptives.
 
Ok I’m going to give you the correct answer and you can search for one that suits your will or you can except this one which is in line with the Church.
YES you can use the pill for medical use
NO you can’t have sex while your on it, you must be abstinent.
 
Roxygirl1488 said:
Ok I’m going to give you the correct answer and you can search for one that suits your will or you can except this one which is in line with the Church.
YES you can use the pill for medical use
NO you can’t have sex while your on it, you must be abstinent.
Click to expand...
The Church does not teach this; the above statement is incorrect.

If a medication is used for a non-sterilization purpose but has sterilization as an unintended consequence, then it may be taken, and no, one need not abstain while on it.

See Humanae Vitae: "15. 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. (19) "

Abstinence when using those therapeutic means is not required, or else Pope Paul VI would have said so. If it were, there would be similar teachings about men who are required to spend time in hot tubs as part of physical therapy. :rolleyes:
 
UbiCaritas said:
The Church does not teach this; the above statement is incorrect.

If a medication is used for a non-sterilization purpose but has sterilization as an unintended consequence, then it may be taken, and no, one need not abstain while on it.

See Humanae Vitae: "15. 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. (19) "
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top