Viagra type drugs

[pastprime]

What is the teaching of the Church on the viagra type drugs? I, myself feel that they are morally objectionable. It puts a third party (the drug company) in the bedroom. Any guidence out there?

 

[JimG]

What is the teaching of the Church on the viagra type drugs? I, myself feel that they are morally objectionable. It puts a third party (the drug company) in the bedroom. Any guidence out there?

I don’t think the Church has any teaching which would prohibit the treatment of a medical condition–in this case–impotence, bu the use of drugs.

The only problem that I can see with such drugs is that, like painkillers and some other drugs, they can be used as “lifestyle drugs” by people who don’t actually need them to treat a medical condition.

 

[Elizium23]

Viagra is not comparable to contraception by any means. As noted, it treats a true medical disability; fertility is not a disease. It is a moral good to treat impotence so that a husband and wife may enjoy the marital embrace. Just think, marriages are invalid due to impotence, this has the possibility to make them valid!

It would be wrong to use this medication from a motivation of lust or illicit sexual relations. It would probably be a sin for a doctor to knowingly prescribe this to an unmarried or healthy man. But the indicated use for a moral purpose can only be a good thing.

 

[pastprime]

I see it as against nature and denying what could possibly a gift from God.

 

[Elizium23]

Impotence is not a gift from God. No disease can be called a “gift”. Some diseases are blessings in disguise, and can bring strength and bravery to one who suffers. But God ordained that man should have medicine to treat and cure disease. Medicine is a true gift from God. It extends our earthly lives and brings happiness and joy to our suffering existence. It cannot be a sin for a married couple to enjoy the conjugal love that they have a right to by exchanging their vows of consent. God ordained marriage as a symbol of love between man and woman, and anything that prevents the enjoyment of that love is not a gift.

 

[1ke]

What is the teaching of the Church on the viagra type drugs? I, myself feel that they are morally objectionable. It puts a third party (the drug company) in the bedroom. Any guidence out there?

these medications are perfectly moral.

the church has no teaching against a medication that corrects a defect and assists the natural process of the marital embrace. there is no moral problem with a man taking this to assist him in the marital embrace.

 

[bzkoss236]

If you reject viagra, then for the same reasons you mentioned, one should also reject excedrin or tylenol, or any other pain medication, or fever medication, or any medication for that matter. Why consider treating one condition or disease moral and others immoral is hypocrisy.

 

[underacloud]

I see it as against nature and denying what could possibly a gift from God.

Whenever the body stops working as it should, it is perfectly moral to treat it. If you got cancer, would you consider it a gift from God, or would you treat it with available medical interventions?

 

[1ke]

Whenever the body stops working as it should, it is perfectly moral to treat it. If you got cancer, would you consider it a gift from God, or would you treat it with available medical interventions?

We need to be careful here, although this medication is perfectly moral one is not obligated to avail oneself of it. There is no sin in choosing not to utilize such drugs.

I don’t think we can compare it to a serious, life threatening illness that most people would choose to treat. But, there is no sin in not taking treatments for cancer either.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

What is the teaching of the Church on the viagra type drugs? I, myself feel that they are morally objectionable. It puts a third party (the drug company) in the bedroom. Any guidence out there?

If you really are " pastprime " I would suggest you accept your advancing age gracefully as God’s plan. Now if you were a young man and were not able to do what was necessary to beget children in your marriage, then I would say see a good Catholic doctor and try to find out what the problem was. Even then, if the therapy required drugs I might want to discuss it with my pastor - if it was a viagra type drug. Also, all drugs have side effects more or less harmful.

 

[epan]

What is the teaching of the Church on the viagra type drugs? I, myself feel that they are morally objectionable. It puts a third party (the drug company) in the bedroom. Any guidence out there?

Erectile Disease, which is also sometimes referred to as Erectile Dysfunction is a medical condition, which can also be a symptom of cardiovascular illness. One’s judgement on how to treat it should not be clouded by the fact that men get erections when sexually aroused. Erections also occur naturally during sleep, and in response to a variety of factors, such as hormonal fluctuations. Just ask any teenaged male, if you want to embarrass him.

If you or anyone you know has erectile difficulties, please consult a physician. It could be a symptom of other serious conditions.

There is no moral implication to using drugs to treat ED. In fact, the use of the longer term ED medication, Cialis, has been shown in low doses to be beneficial to cardiovascular health. There is nothing immoral about normal erectile response, in my opinion.

 

[underacloud]

We need to be careful here, although this medication is perfectly moral one is not obligated to avail oneself of it. There is no sin in choosing not to utilize such drugs.

I don’t think we can compare it to a serious, life threatening illness that most people would choose to treat. But, there is no sin in not taking treatments for cancer either.

I said it is perfectly moral to treat it. I said nothing to imply it was obligatory. Regardless, it leads into an interesting discussion…

It is arguably moral not to treat certain conditions, yes. But it is more complex than to say it is always moral to choose no treatment. Can a parent of young children choose not to treat a life threatening illness? Is such a thing moral?

Is it moral to make no effort to treat sexual problems, given that they affect your spouse too? Perhaps your spouse doesn’t care. But perhaps your spouse does.

So, to not treat it may be a more complex issue. But the choice to treat it is not so complex…it is morally fine.

 

[1ke]

It is arguably moral not to treat certain conditions, yes. But it is more complex than to say it is always moral to choose no treatment. Can a parent of young children choose not to treat a life threatening illness? Is such a thing moral?

Yes.

Is it moral to make no effort to treat sexual problems, given that they affect your spouse too? Perhaps your spouse doesn’t care. But perhaps your spouse does.

yes.

 

[TheHolyTrinity]

What is the teaching of the Church on the viagra type drugs? I, myself feel that they are morally objectionable. It puts a third party (the drug company) in the bedroom. Any guidence out there?

To take Viagra is morally acceptable. As it restores natural function.

 

[underacloud]

Yes.

yes.

Well, what some people would consider complex moral issues seem not to be for you. But I disagree.

“CCC 2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.”

The needs of others have to be weighed in such considerations - the needs of children for a sick parent, the needs of spouses in sexual matters.

I’m not saying there is always a moral requirement to undertake such treatments. It is complex and depends on treatments involved, chances of success, etc. What is “reasonable care”? (that is a rhetorical question). But to say that there is never a moral requirement to take treatment, in my opinion, is hard to reconcile with one’s responsibilities.

 

[epan]

Yes.

yes.

I disagree. A parent has absolutely no right to refuse life saving treatment for a child. I can also tell you that I am not alone in that. In most jurisdictions, a parent may be criminally prosecuted for such an act, and rightly so. I suspect that the Church would agree.