Vasectomy for medical reasons, high risk pregnancies..anyone deal with this?

[Texas_Ryan]

I got my answer in the ask an apologist, but wanted to get some thoughts from others.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=350200

The Doctor has said no more pregnancies. Both have been high risk due to breech. Both have been c-section due to the breech and an inverted cervix which would make natural birth very dangerous for mother and baby.

The Doctor suggested I get snipped as opposed to messing with female hormones. I want to do the right thing. The thought of a celibate marriage seems impossible.

I’m going to talk to our Priest about it, but wanted to hear from some others.

 

[dkoinzan]

You have been given an excellent answer!

I have had six children. Four of those children were born through Csection. I also have high risk pregnancies and have had to have up to four shots a week for nearly nine months to be able to carry the last child. Two of our children were stillborn. We know that God has blessed us through everything. I love each and every child that we have. God created them to help get us all into heaven. Who am I to argue with God? If tomorrow I became pregnant again I would be thrilled to have a treasured gift from God. God brings us closer in joyous times and in times of suffering. Maybe you should pray to be more willing to follow God.

 

[PeterMuz]

I agree with the Apologist!! NFP is the way to go. I met a couple who has two children and cannot have any more because the wife has some severe heart problems and that pregnancy would be life threatening. They have been using NFP and have not had any more kids for last 6 years.

Be careful about the answer you get from your priest. I feel bad saying that, but so many Catholics do not understand the Church’s teaching on these types of issues and contraception. I know of priests who are just as confused as many others.

 

[kage_ar]

The apologist gave you the correct answer. Learn NFP.

Neither a tubal nor a vasectomy is moral - My husband and I used NFP for more than a decade due to my medical issues. It brings you much closer to each other!!

 

[BiologyBrain]

There really isn’t a way around it - the apologist gave you a good answer. Even with difficult cycles, it is entirely possible for a committed couple to go many many years without conceiving using NFP properly. Its not as easy as getting either of you ‘snipped’ or messing with hormones. However, through the struggles you can both learn more about one another and grow closer not only to each other, but also to God. Also, I recommend a 2nd (or even 3rd) opinion on your wife’s pregnancy options. A pro-life NFP only doctor will most likely have a different opinion that doesn’t risk your wife’s health any more than this doctor’s recommendation. Again, it would be easier to just get ‘snipped’ but morally the easy road is usually not the answer!

Good luck!

 

[rayne89]

I have congestive heart failure and was advise another pregnancy would be fatal. I have used NFP for 12 years with no pregnancies. Please take a class and really learn the method properly if there is serious reason to avoid.

 

[fermat]

Ok. I am super duper totally confused now.

Here is a reply from Fr. Vincent about how it is ok to use a brith control pill for medical reasons.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

It came up as part of this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=332452

The way I am reading this is that it is ok to use the pill and have unintended abortions, but it is not ok to have a vasectomy. If that statement is correct, how do we justify those positions?

I am sure there is a way, but I need help seeing it.

Peace
F

 

[BiologyBrain]

Ok. I am super duper totally confused now.

Here is a reply from Fr. Vincent about how it is ok to use a brith control pill for medical reasons.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

It came up as part of this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=332452

The way I am reading this is that it is ok to use the pill and have unintended abortions, but it is not ok to have a vasectomy. If that statement is correct, how do we justify those positions?

I am sure there is a way, but I need help seeing it.

Peace
F

I’m not entirely sure that Fr. Vincent is actually morally correct in his opinion. To my knowledge, when the pill is used for medical reasons the woman needs to be non-sexually active - whether she is single or married. Its not just the abortive effects of the pill that make it illicit for a Catholic - it is also the refusal being open to life.

Some of the apologists on this site (and others like it) are not quite as apologetic as the Holy Father & Holy Church intends. Sometimes they themselves were improperly catechized, but sometimes they bend and disregard the rules to ‘gain’ more people to the Church. It may not be popular, but one cannot be wrong morally by refusing to take birth control (of whatever type). However, it is entirely possible to be morally wrong by taking birth control (of whatever type). I, for myself, would MUCH rather err on the side of caution (and life for my unborn children)! I also tend to find better moral answers of this type on EWTN’s Q&A - particularly the pro-life one. However, even on EWTN there are some that dissent from the Truth. Popular culture has invaded our clergy as well as our members.

 

[Texas_Ryan]

Thanks for the responses so far.

I’m not shopping for an answer saying it’s ok, just looking for others experiences.

I know when my wife was younger, she had severe cycles and had to be on the pill because she was losing so much iron.

Also, she has odd ovulation cycles. It’s a wonder we did not get pregnant sooner!

We had to get a fertility monitor. Not to share too much, but she was ovulating on day 6 for the first baby and day 12 for the second baby.

With odd cycles like that, NFP can be quite the challenge…

I don’t want to put her health at risk.

 

[SMHW]

Ok. I am super duper totally confused now.

Here is a reply from Fr. Vincent about how it is ok to use a brith control pill for medical reasons.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

It came up as part of this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=332452

The way I am reading this is that it is ok to use the pill and have unintended abortions, but it is not ok to have a vasectomy. If that statement is correct, how do we justify those positions?

I am sure there is a way, but I need help seeing it.

Peace
F

The difference is in the reason for the medicine/medical procedure. You have to look at the primary and secondary effects of medicine.

Taking medication or having surgery performed on a reproductive organ because there is a problem (e.g. a tumor) not directly related to conception/continued pregnancy can be moral. Taking medicine or having surgery to prevent pregnancy is never moral, even if pregnancy would be dangerous.

If there was a medical reason for a vasectomy which was necessary for a man’s health then a vasectomy could be moral. (But I can’t think of any such reason; a vasectomy is far more likely to cause a problem than to fix one.)

 

[Musician]

I think you should consult a pro-life OB/GYN. I was sterilized before I converted to Catholicism and have always felt horrible about it, although I had “good” reasons for doing it. Looking back, I wish I had known about NFP. My dr. never explained how drastically you could regret this.
Having said all that, I very much feel for you in your situation. It must feel like a terrible dilemma. Try to follow the Church’s teachings to the best of your ability. There will be peace in your heart that otherwise you may miss out on.
I am praying for you.

 

[fermat]

The difference is in the reason for the medicine/medical procedure. You have to look at the primary and secondary effects of medicine.

Taking medication or having surgery performed on a reproductive organ because there is a problem (e.g. a tumor) not directly related to conception/continued pregnancy can be moral. Taking medicine or having surgery to prevent pregnancy is never moral, even if pregnancy would be dangerous.

If there was a medical reason for a vasectomy which was necessary for a man’s health then a vasectomy could be moral. (But I can’t think of any such reason; a vasectomy is far more likely to cause a problem than to fix one.)

Would that mean that while Texas Ryan may not have a vasectomy because there is no medical reason, his wife could go on the pill because there is a medical reason? Or is a high risk pregnancy considered a medical reason?

I think I am starting to see the logic, just need more clarification.

Peace
F

 

[1ke]

Ok. I am super duper totally confused now.

Here is a reply from Fr. Vincent about how it is ok to use a brith control pill for medical reasons.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=4618

It came up as part of this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=332452

The way I am reading this is that it is ok to use the pill and have unintended abortions, but it is not ok to have a vasectomy. If that statement is correct, how do we justify those positions?

I am sure there is a way, but I need help seeing it.

Peace
F

Fr. Serpa is correct. One may seek medical treatment for a disease or condition that has the **secondary and unintended effect **of temporary or permanent sterility. For example, I could get chemo for cancer even if it resulted in my ovaries being damaged and no longer producing eggs.

A vasectomy is **not **a treatment for a medical condition nor is the resulting sterility unintended. It’s purpose is to make the man sterile. The sterility is not an unintended side effect.

Regarding the Pill’s or any treatment that might cause a miscarriage as a *secondary *effect, this too could be permissable in a proportionate circumstance.

For example, a pregnant woman diagnosed with cancer of the uterus can only be treated by removing the uterus. That would cause the death of the child because currently there is no medical solution that would allow the child to continue to grow outside the womb. The death of the child is the *unintended *consequence of proceeding with treatment for the life threatening medical condition. A woman could *morally *choose to undergo this treatment even though it may result in the death of the child depending upon age of gestation, or she *could *choose to exercise heroic virtue and wait until the child is born to seek treatment (as St Gianna Molla did).

Now, would “acne” or “cramps” or “irregular period” be a *proportionate *reason for a treatment that in theory **could **cause miscarriage but is **not **known to do so with certainty (i.e. *potential *abortifacient properties of the Pill)? Moral theologians are split on this.

I suggest reading about the Principle of Double Effect.

The OP’s situation is very concrete, and there is no medical condition that would be treated by a vasectomy or tubal ligation. It is simply a matter of the doctor recommending sterilization rather than a moral means of child spacing such as NFP.

 

[1ke]

With odd cycles like that, NFP can be quite the challenge…

Perhaps you should look into the Marquette Model NFP which combines Creighton instructions with a fertility monitor. This method may give you the confidence you need.

www.marquette.edu/nursing/NFP/Model.shtml

I don’t want to put her health at risk.

Ultimately it is up to you and your wife if you choose total abstinence or if you look at ways to be intimate periodically through NFP.

Sterilization is never a moral option.

 

[1ke]

Would that mean that while Texas Ryan may not have a vasectomy because there is no medical reason, his wife could go on the pill because there is a medical reason?

No.

Or is a high risk pregnancy considered a medical reason?

No.

The criteria is not that there is a medical reason, but that whatever is being employed is a *treatment *for a disease that has an unintended side effect of temporary or permanent sterility.

The Pill, in this case, would be for the *purpose *of sterilization not a secondary side effect that can be tolerated.

 

[SMHW]

Would that mean that while Texas Ryan may not have a vasectomy because there is no medical reason, his wife could go on the pill because there is a medical reason? Or is a high risk pregnancy considered a medical reason?

I think I am starting to see the logic, just need more clarification.

Peace
F

See 1ke’s posts. She did a much better job of explaining it than I.

 

[1ke]

I’m not entirely sure that Fr. Vincent is actually morally correct in his opinion. To my knowledge, when the pill is used for medical reasons the woman needs to be non-sexually active - whether she is single or married. Its not just the abortive effects of the pill that make it illicit for a Catholic - it is also the refusal being open to life.

Some of the apologists on this site (and others like it) are not quite as apologetic as the Holy Father & Holy Church intends. Sometimes they themselves were improperly catechized, but sometimes they bend and disregard the rules to ‘gain’ more people to the Church. It may not be popular, but one cannot be wrong morally by refusing to take birth control (of whatever type). However, it is entirely possible to be morally wrong by taking birth control (of whatever type). I, for myself, would MUCH rather err on the side of caution (and life for my unborn children)! I also tend to find better moral answers of this type on EWTN’s Q&A - particularly the pro-life one. However, even on EWTN there are some that dissent from the Truth. Popular culture has invaded our clergy as well as our members.

Fr. Serpa’s answer was entirely accurate and consistent with Church teaching on the topic.

 

[TeresaAnn]

The reason why sterilization is never moral is because it allows the couple to have sex without being open to having children right? Is that the only reason? Besides these supposed health risks.

How is that different than a couple practicing NFP until their fertile days are over? I’m confused

 

[Jennifer_J]

The reason why sterilization is never moral is because it allows the couple to have sex without being open to having children right? Is that the only reason? Besides these supposed health risks.

How is that different than a couple practicing NFP until their fertile days are over? I’m confused

Each act of the marital embrace must be objectively procreative (ie, nothing done to make it sterile–whether that be surgery that removes fertility for birth control, chemicals, or physical barriers) whether the act is subjectively procreative or not (a woman is not always fertile, a man may be infertile, a woman may be pregnant). Sterilization mutilates healthy body parts and makes them not work properly for no reason other than non-fertility. Of course a diseased body part may be removed (hysterectomy).

NFP keeps the act objectively procreative, even if the woman is subjectively not fertile. Nothing interferes with the act.

You might want to check out the Catechism on these topics.

 

[HouseArrest]

The reason why sterilization is never moral is because it allows the couple to have sex without being open to having children right? Is that the only reason? Besides these supposed health risks.

How is that different than a couple practicing NFP until their fertile days are over? I’m confused

It’s not about what the couple is doing during the infertile time, it’s about what they’re doing during the fertile time (if of course they are TTA). Infertile time is irrelevant.