Vacetomy-Tubal Ligation

[Rau]

Talk to your priest. He can help you.

By explaining that vasectomy and tubal ligation are immoral and that there are other means to avoid pregnancy (which are neither mutilation not contraception) and which are moral. Right.

 

[Rau]

But the removal of intimacy can kill the marriage. Not everyone has low sex drives and gets an ego boost from boasting about how long they’ve gone without sex (read some posters on here, and stories from others about people they know/met like that).

Affection and intimacy is important in a marriage and some people are just very touchy people. To cut that out completely, like I said, can kill a marriage.

Affection and intimacy need never be lost. Sexual relations are sometimes no longer possible in a marriage.

 

[Rau]

Yes, because we are all just going to pretend celibate men are not the ones enforcing the Catholic laws, rules and regulations on sex (between consenting married couples).

This is nonsense. There is no enforcement whatsoever.

 

[WT1]

Talk to your priest. He can help you.

^^^This

The situation is too serious to take advance in an Internet forum.

 

[bjames1728]

I have been a guest reader on CAF for a while. This and similar threads encouraged me to join in to add my two cents. It concerns me that when people ask advice on long-term pregnancy avoidance, the response is often an unqualified recommendation to use NFP. Specifically, I wanted to address an issue that seems overlooked: probabilities of failure compound over time. What does that mean? Say a birth control method gives a 1-in-1000 (0.1%) chance per cycle of becoming pregnant. That sounds quite good. But consider, over about 5 years (60 cycles), this means your probability of becoming pregnant at least once is 6%. Over 10 years, 11%. Not quite so good.

You can search online “what are the real odds that your birth control will fail” and find articles on this. For many forms of birth control (NFP or otherwise), everyone should be clear-eyed about the real risk for failure over long times (and short, too). As the consequences of failure rise, tolerance for risk must drop quickly.

To the original poster: please seek qualified medical professionals to advise you on long-term pregnancy avoidance when a potential pregnancy is high-risk. Given sound medical advice, you can weigh these options and make your decisions with the help of a trusted spiritual advisor. I sympathize with you on the stress this must place on your family life and wish you the best.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have been a guest reader on CAF for a while. This and similar threads encouraged me to join in to add my two cents. It concerns me that when people ask advice on long-term pregnancy avoidance, the response is often an unqualified recommendation to use NFP. Specifically, I wanted to address an issue that seems overlooked: probabilities of failure compound over time. What does that mean? Say a birth control method gives a 1-in-1000 (0.1%) chance per cycle of becoming pregnant. That sounds quite good. But consider, over about 5 years (60 cycles), this means your probability of becoming pregnant at least once is 6%. Over 10 years, 11%. Not quite so good.

You can search online “what are the real odds that your birth control will fail” and find articles on this. For many forms of birth control (NFP or otherwise), everyone should be clear-eyed about the real risk for failure over long times (and short, too). As the consequences of failure rise, tolerance for risk must drop quickly.

To the original poster: please seek qualified medical professionals to advise you on long-term pregnancy avoidance when a potential pregnancy is high-risk. Given sound medical advice, you can weigh these options and make your decisions with the help of a trusted spiritual advisor. I sympathize with you on the stress this must place on your family life and wish you the best.

As long as that advice is not immoral right?

 

[bjames1728]

As long as that advice is not immoral right?

Whose advice? I wouldn’t expect doctors to be expert theologians, and vice versa. A doctor may well give advice that conflicts with Catholic teaching along with some that doesn’t. And a spiritual director may offer you very poor medical advice. Which leads to my suggestion that both should be carefully consulted before coming to a decision.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Whose advice? I wouldn’t expect doctors to be expert theologians, and vice versa. A doctor may well give advice that conflicts with Catholic teaching along with some that doesn’t. And a spiritual director may offer you very poor medical advice. Which leads to my suggestion that both should be carefully consulted before coming to a decision.

The decision. Any decision. Must be morally acceptable.
Artificial birth control or sterilization cannot be used as birth control. Period.
To imply otherwise or to lead someone to that conclusion through cryptic responses is taking responsibility for potential sin.

 

[CajunCatholic87]

I have been a guest reader on CAF for a while. This and similar threads encouraged me to join in to add my two cents. It concerns me that when people ask advice on long-term pregnancy avoidance, the response is often an unqualified recommendation to use NFP. Specifically, I wanted to address an issue that seems overlooked: probabilities of failure compound over time. What does that mean? Say a birth control method gives a 1-in-1000 (0.1%) chance per cycle of becoming pregnant. That sounds quite good. But consider, over about 5 years (60 cycles), this means your probability of becoming pregnant at least once is 6%. Over 10 years, 11%. Not quite so good.

You can search online “what are the real odds that your birth control will fail” and find articles on this. For many forms of birth control (NFP or otherwise), everyone should be clear-eyed about the real risk for failure over long times (and short, too). As the consequences of failure rise, tolerance for risk must drop quickly.

To the original poster: please seek qualified medical professionals to advise you on long-term pregnancy avoidance when a potential pregnancy is high-risk. Given sound medical advice, you can weigh these options and make your decisions with the help of a trusted spiritual advisor. I sympathize with you on the stress this must place on your family life and wish you the best.

Method effectiveness of a contraceptive method is expressed using the pearl index which is the expressed as the failure rate per 1300 cycles or 100 years of use. It isn’t expressed as a per cycle effectiveness as you’ve assumed. With most methods of NFP 1 out of 1300 cycles of use will result in an unplanned pregnancy.

The one thing that would concern me is that NFP studies are observational studies that exclude women with health problems and abnormally long or difficult cycles. So the effectiveness of NFP in those situations remains untested and the rate of failure is unknown. It would be good to chart first and consult with a doctor to see if you can use NFP effectively. The only option if you can’t is to abstain completely. Rotten luck to be sure.

 

[bjames1728]

The decision. Any decision. Must be morally acceptable.
Artificial birth control or sterilization cannot be used as birth control. Period.
To imply otherwise or to lead someone to that conclusion through cryptic responses is taking responsibility for potential sin.

My response was not intended to be cryptic, but it is purposefully non-committal. I know little to nothing about this person’s medical and pastoral situation, so it is inappropriate for me to provide a course of action beyond “ask medical experts for medical advice, ask spiritual experts for spiritual advice, make a decision at the intersection of the two.” If someone takes their spiritual advisor seriously, it should be implied that the decision is moral. I’m surprised that this is controversial.

My further point was to call out the challenges of long-term birth avoidance to temper the unqualified medical advice being provided in this forum. To lead someone to the conclusion that a medical course of action is safe when it may not be is taking responsibility for the subsequent harm that may occur.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My response was not intended to be cryptic, but it is purposefully non-committal. I know little to nothing about this person’s medical and pastoral situation, so it is inappropriate for me to provide a course of action beyond “ask medical experts for medical advice, ask spiritual experts for spiritual advice, make a decision at the intersection of the two.” If someone takes their spiritual advisor seriously, it should be implied that the decision is moral. I’m surprised that this is controversial.

My further point was to call out the challenges of long-term birth avoidance to temper the unqualified medical advice being provided in this forum. To lead someone to the conclusion that a medical course of action is safe when it may not be is taking responsibility for the subsequent harm that may occur.

You simply shouldn’t post if your post is non commital on catholic absolutes.
Do you disagree with this statement.
Artificial birth control when done for birth control is immoral.

 

[bjames1728]

Method effectiveness of a contraceptive method is expressed using the pearl index which is the expressed as the failure rate per 1300 cycles or 100 years of use. It isn’t expressed as a per cycle effectiveness as you’ve assumed. With most methods of NFP 1 out of 1300 cycles of use will result in an unplanned pregnancy.

The one thing that would concern me is that NFP studies are observational studies that exclude women with health problems and abnormally long or difficult cycles. So the effectiveness of NFP in those situations remains untested and the rate of failure is unknown. It would be good to chart first and consult with a doctor to see if you can use NFP effectively. The only option if you can’t is to abstain completely. Rotten luck to be sure.

The model I offered is valid if each pass/fail event is independent of every other one, like flipping a coin. This holds for pregnancy avoidance if the failure is due to the inherent method variability and not the user’s ability, like “does a condom have a hole in it?”. NFP likewise has inherent cycle-to-cycle challenges due to simple factors like ageing, transient and long-term illness, stress, etc. In that case, the model has utility to emphasize the particular challenge of long-term pregnancy avoidance.

I’m not calling into question the general utility of NFP. Rather, it’s a point of caution to temper the medical advice being provided above. Thus my suggestion that anyone in such a grave situation should make a decision only after seeking sound medical and moral advice from professionals and experts from both realms. I thought it went without saying that a moral decision should be sought.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The model I offered is valid if each pass/fail event is independent of every other one, like flipping a coin. This holds for pregnancy avoidance if the failure is due to the inherent method variability and not the user’s ability, like “does a condom have a hole in it?”. NFP likewise has inherent cycle-to-cycle challenges due to simple factors like ageing, transient and long-term illness, stress, etc. In that case, the model has utility to emphasize the particular challenge of long-term pregnancy avoidance.

I’m not calling into question the general utility of NFP. Rather, it’s a point of caution to temper the medical advice being provided above. Thus my suggestion that anyone in such a grave situation should make a decision only after seeking sound medical and moral advice from professionals and experts from both realms. I thought it went without saying that a moral decision should be sought.

No medical advice is offered. But the moral advice is standard and applies to all.

 

[bjames1728]

You simply shouldn’t post if your post is non commital on catholic absolutes.
Do you disagree with this statement.
Artificial birth control when done for birth control is immoral.

Do I agree that the only possible posts on CAF are ones offering an absolute pronouncement on catholic morals? No, that’s a strange bar to hold people to. I’m watching a concurrent thread where a lady wishing to delay pregnancy is being driven nearly to a nervous breakdown and spousal separation by too many people offering moral absolutes without proper pastoral counseling. Without knowing her full situation, it is inappropriate for this to be happening. On this thread, I also saw many people automatically tell the questioner to use NFP, which is a medical recommendation, without providing the appropriate medical and pastoral counseling for his situation.

So my recommendation stands to seek expert advice from those who can fully assess the questioner’s situation and needs. I think there’s not much more I can add, unless the OP directly asks a clarifying question. I pray that my advice helps guide him to the right people and decisions that guard the safety of his wife while fulfilling his duty to God and the Catholic Church.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Do I agree that the only possible posts on CAF are ones offering an absolute pronouncement on catholic morals? No, that’s a strange bar to hold people to. I’m watching a concurrent thread where a lady wishing to delay pregnancy is being driven nearly to a nervous breakdown and spousal separation by too many people offering moral absolutes without proper pastoral counseling. Without knowing her full situation, it is inappropriate for this to be happening. On this thread, I also saw many people automatically tell the questioner to use NFP, which is a medical recommendation, without providing the appropriate medical and pastoral counseling for his situation.

So my recommendation stands to seek expert advice from those who can fully assess the questioner’s situation and needs. I think there’s not much more I can add, unless the OP directly asks a clarifying question. I pray that my advice helps guide him to the right people and decisions that guard the safety of his wife while fulfilling his duty to God and the Catholic Church.

You of course would hold the ccc to be authoratative on the subject correct?

 

[Rau]

My response was not intended to be cryptic, but it is purposefully non-committal. I know little to nothing about this person’s medical and pastoral situation, so it is inappropriate for me to provide a course of action beyond “ask medical experts for medical advice, ask spiritual experts for spiritual advice, make a decision at the intersection of the two.” If someone takes their spiritual advisor seriously, it should be implied that the decision is moral. I’m surprised that this is controversial.

My further point was to call out the challenges of long-term birth avoidance to temper the unqualified medical advice being provided in this forum. To lead someone to the conclusion that a medical course of action is safe when it may not be is taking responsibility for the subsequent harm that may occur.

HD is “pushing back” because your answer implies that the right course of action is relative to all the advice obtained, whereas catholic theology professes certain absolutes that may not be breached. Thus, contraception is not in the possible set of answers to avoid pregnancy for a faithful catholic.

 

[CajunCatholic87]

The model I offered is valid if each pass/fail event is independent of every other one, like flipping a coin. This holds for pregnancy avoidance if the failure is due to the inherent method variability and not the user’s ability, like “does a condom have a hole in it?”. NFP likewise has inherent cycle-to-cycle challenges due to simple factors like ageing, transient and long-term illness, stress, etc. In that case, the model has utility to emphasize the particular challenge of long-term pregnancy avoidance.

I’m not calling into question the general utility of NFP. Rather, it’s a point of caution to temper the medical advice being provided above. Thus my suggestion that anyone in such a grave situation should make a decision only after seeking sound medical and moral advice from professionals and experts from both realms. I thought it went without saying that a moral decision should be sought.

Yes, but no method of contraception is expressed as a per cycle failure rate but rather per 1300 cycles failure rate. So your calculations are off by a factor. Do a quick sanity check, sterilization is 99.9 percent effective. If you were correct that would mean that after 10 years of use 13 out of 100 women would have an unintended pregnancy. That just sounds off to me and it should sound off to you, too. The real risk of pregnancy per cycle with NFP is closer to 0.0007 not 0.1.

But yes, you are correct about the limitations of NFP. The studies that purport to show the effectiveness of the method are all observational studies rather than randomized so the possibility of a bias is always there. Plus we are dealing with a person’s life work and faith so the possibility of strong confirmation bias is also there. I know I wouldn’t use it if it were my head on the chopping block. Not if my life depended on it.

 

[bjames1728]

Yes, but no method of contraception is expressed as a per cycle failure rate but rather per 1300 cycles failure rate. So your calculations are off by a factor. Do a quick sanity check, sterilization is 99.9 percent effective. If you were correct that would mean that after 10 years of use 13 out of 100 women would have an unintended pregnancy. That just sounds off to me and it should sound off to you, too. The real risk of pregnancy per cycle with NFP is closer to 0.0007 not 0.1.

Indeed, the sanity check fails, because sterilization is a one-time event. Sterilization no longer satisfies the assumption that each cycle’s pass/fail is independent of all others, so a “coin flipping” model should not be used. Rather all cycles become dependent on the success of a single surgical outcome, meaning that failure probability will not compound for that case. The model still has validity for NFP and other well known forms of birth control, as far as highlighting the general point.

I can’t comment on the effectiveness numbers, but leave that to the questioner and his wife to discuss with a medical professional with reference to their complex situation. My original concern in posting was that he was being given advice that could lead to the very harm he wishes to avoid.

 

[CajunCatholic87]

Indeed, the sanity check fails, because sterilization is a one-time event. Sterilization no longer satisfies the assumption that each cycle’s pass/fail is independent of all others, so a “coin flipping” model should not be used. Rather all cycles become dependent on the success of a single surgical outcome, meaning that failure probability will not compound for that case. The model still has validity for NFP and other well known forms of birth control, as far as highlighting the general point.

I can’t comment on the effectiveness numbers, but leave that to the questioner and his wife to discuss with a medical professional with reference to their complex situation. My original concern in posting was that he was being given advice that could lead to the very harm he wishes to avoid.

So if I understand the math correctly.

P(pregnancy) = 1 - P(no pregnancy)ⁿ where n is the number cycles of use.

So if a method is 99.9 percent effective that means that if 100 women use the method for 1 year there is a 0.1 percent chance of failure. 100 women with an average of 13 cycles means the chance of pregnancy is 0.1 per 1300 cycles.

after 10 years you have 130 cycles so, P(pregnancy) = 1 - (1299.9/1300)^130 = 1 percent chance of becoming pregnant after 10 years of use.

If you look at NFP, with an effectiveness of 97 percent, then you get a 26 percent chance of an unplanned pregnancy after 10 years of use. And that is everything is done perfectly.

If you look at the typical user effectiveness of NFP then the chance of an unplanned pregnancy goes to 97 percent after 10 years of use.

nytimes.com/interactive/2014/09/14/sunday-review/unplanned-pregnancies.html?_r=0

So, yea, it is probably a bit irresponsible to tell a woman who needs to avoid a pregnancy for a serious health reason to use NFP. Shows to go you that you shouldn’t take advice on risk from someone who isn’t affected by the outcome.

 

[jilly4ski]

Yes, because we are all just going to pretend celibate men are not the ones enforcing the Catholic laws, rules and regulations on sex (between consenting married couples).

Who better to teach that abstinence can and should be done. Someone who has forsaken all sexual relationships, their very existence shows that it can be done, that it is possible. I am not sure what better witness to abstinence you could ask for.

And as someone already said, “enforcement” doesn’t happen, your local priest doesn’t go around and demand that you show him your medical records or check your bedroom nightstand. But the Church does ask that one be honest (honesty, a virtue!) and not approach the sacrament of the Eucharist or Confession while one continues to sin.