Was this a sin? Please let me know! :(

[Texas_Roofer]

Thanks fix

That is a great analogy. When you were about to receive the code did you take an oath to spread this information? Did you take and implied, written, or verbal oath to restrict this information? Now if you receive a call and the caller claims he is the police acting in an emergency rescue and do you as a bank officer have the code? In fact you sense the call may not be genuine. Assume you can think of no way to verify this call in a reasonable time window. Do you break your oath and risk sin via lie, and if not and a genuine victim dies have sinned by participation in their untimely death?

I tell you over and over both answers are the same. As you do not wish to do either (release code or refuse emergency request) you are an unwilling participant regardless of your choice and action. However before you think I am too light on sin I actually see the reverse as equally true. Example if a man is driving to kill/steal and the car breaks down. This man is just as guilty. The car problem may even be divine intervention but the man through no fault of is own did all he could reasonably do to consummate his sin.

In the OP post I see no reason to believe the doctor who probably took a verbal, written, and implied oath has shown a willing intent to participate in promoting birth control pills, regardless of the physical actions. Similarly if I were the doctor I would never do an abortion because my oath did not cover killing anyone, nor medical practices which result in negative consequences as over prescribing drugs. See any ethic or moral which is not upheld both ways was never an ethic or moral to begin with.

BTW - if the doctor advises a different patient to use birth control pills for contraception, he falls in the later writings regardless of the patient’s actions, that is of course my opinion.

 

[Catherine_W]

Texas Roofer,

You said you would not perform an abortion, but will prescribe birth control pills that have an abortive function. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

 

[fix]

When you were about to receive the code did you take an oath to spread this information?

No, but if I were the manager there is an expectation I will not betray the trust I owe to my superior.

Did you take and implied, written, or verbal oath to restrict this information?

Maybe, maybe not. In either event it is understood I may not aid a criminal.

Now if you receive a call and the caller claims he is the police acting in an emergency rescue and do you as a bank officer have the code? In fact you sense the call may not be genuine. Assume you can think of no way to verify this call in a reasonable time window. Do you break your oath and risk sin via lie, and if not and a genuine victim dies have sinned by participation in their untimely death?

Necessity dispenses from the law. If I judge one’s life or soul is in immediate jeopardy I am not bound by the civil law unless it also would violate the natural or divine law.

I tell you over and over both answers are the same. As you do not wish to do either (release code or refuse emergency request) you are an unwilling participant regardless of your choice and action. However before you think I am too light on sin I actually see the reverse as equally true.

But you only point out that the degree of culpability is minimized or negated. The example of duress does not apply to a physician who is not in an emergency situation.

In the OP post I see no reason to believe the doctor who probably took a verbal, written, and implied oath has shown a willing intent to participate in promoting birth control pills, regardless of the physical actions.

The oath can only bind if it is consistent with the moral law. One cannot be bound to do evil.

 

[jmcrae]

Texas;

There is nothing in the Hippocratic Oath that says a doctor must participate when a woman wants to render herself infertile. Indeed, quite the contrary, since the Oath states, in part, “I shall do no harm.”

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Texas Roofer,

You said you would not perform an abortion, but will prescribe birth control pills that have an abortive function. That doesn’t make any sense to me.

Catherine you bring up different issue here in the earlier post the term “birth control” was typically used. The entire thread has been predicated on the birth control acting as a contraceptive*. Note the comment in post #18 " Now in this thread the birth control pills are not proven to be killing, or for that manner harming anybody" It seems this statement is now challenged ? In that same post it is made clear of the distinction between contributing directly to a unwarrantied death (fetus removal) and the role in “birth control/ contraceptive” Morals do not actually change. Just as I would not kill the innocent with mechanical abortion (scalpel) I would not kill with chemical abortion (drug). This is a repeat of Post #18. We have to be careful here not to mix issues we have 1) participation in contraception, 2) medical personal’s responsibility, 3) Transfer, spread, or culpability of sin

contraception* -Intentional prevention of conception or impregnation through the use of various devices, agents, drugs, sexual practices, or surgical procedures.- education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/contraception

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Thank you everyone for you replies. I will talk to my priest before this Sunday. I realized that I was wrong in not standing up for what I believe.

But just to be clear, I have talked to this Doctor before about how I believe the use of birth control is wrong and how if I were to become a doctor I would never prescribe it. So he is aware of my belief on the issue, but maybe he forgot. I should have used that opportunity to show how serious I am about my belief that birth control is wrong. I wish I could redo that moment. But all I can do is be repentant and if the occasion rises again I will not make the same mistake.

Catherine:

My suspicion is that the doctor handed the prescription to the nearest available student between him and the patient. One way to avoid this is to make sure that you’re never in between the Doctor and any patient it looks as if he might be prescribing Artificial Contraception to. That way, he won’t hand you the prescription, because you won’t be among those students who are available.

It might be too late, and someone may have said this, but I tink you might want to go to confession and say what you said in you first post describing exactly what happened in the room. At the same time, you might want to remind the Doctor that your problem with Artificial Contraception arrises from the fact that you are a faithful Catholic and that you try to follow the teachings of the church, including those on Contraception. And, that because of those teachings, you’re not allowed to hand the prescription of participate in any way with filling the prescription for Artificial Contraception.

If you do both of these, you shoudn’t face this situation again.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Catherine_W]

Thank you Michael, and everyone for your responses, I never imagined my little question would bring about such a big discussion.

 

[mosher]

Thanks mosher
I think we should not continue because I under stand your post and simply do not agree with it. Rather than pick it apart and offend you, what is the use?

Why would I be offended this is a good discussion and one of great import. It is allowing for a great understanding of how ethics is properly done.

See if the UPS Driver does not know the drug is in the box the driver is not committing sin. See it is not the chemical, nor the physical delivery of the drug which creates a sin condition. The intent is critical; no one has yet shown intent on the doctor’s behalf.

You are correct that we have not yet discussed intent. The reason for this is that intent (unlike knowledge and matter which may or may not effect the objective nature of the act) generally only controls the subjective culpability and not the intrinsic nature of the act. The goodness or evilness of an act in itself comes from the nature of the actual act. So, if we go step by step of the individual act of the doctor we can easily see how this works.

THE ACT

1. Writting a prescription (morally neutral)
2. Writting a prescription for ABC (morally neutral)
3. Writting a prescription for ABC for the purpose of contraception (morally evil)

The act we are talking about is the third which vitrually contains 1 and 2. Once an act is morally evil it can never be good or neutral and to think otherwise would be to assent to the error of proportionalism. The reason why 3 is objectively evil is because it is formal participation in the sin of another. Whether the patient ever uses the ABC or not does not factor into issue because when treating on acts it is not necessary that an act move from being willed to being acted out physically. Once an act is willed morally an act has occured. This situation describes perfectly in a textbook type manner formal participation.

Just as one could say the doctor intentionally delivered the prescription (paper or drug) the UPS driver intentionally delivered the package. The doctor had more knowledge than the UPS driver in regard to the drug, but the doctor had no control over whether the drug would ever be consumed. The significance of the doctor having no control of the consumption of pills is significant and should not be so easily dismissed. Similarly the student is actually under less duress than the doctor, it is the doctor who is held to professional standards not the student.

The major difference here is the issue of knowledge. In this case the Doctor knows what he is prescribing. However, the UPS man is only delivering a package which is morally neutral. However, even if the UPS man knew that it was ABC that he was delivering it would still be morally neutral because the use of ABC is morally neutral unless it is for the purpose of contraception.

As I stated earlier the aspect of the prescribed ABC being used for contraception by the patient does not factor into the treatment of this case and we can discuss why at length in another post.

You are correct that the doctor is also under duress and for the same reason as the student (principle of agency) and as I said depending on the location this would mitigate his culpability but we cannot say that the student has less duress because she has one more level of pressure than the doctor and that this the doctor himself. Duress as it relates to the principle of agency compounds as a person is further down the “chain of command” we see this reflected in the way canon law treats the freedom of the Holy Father which states by nature of his office he is completely free from duress.

As I said earlier and elsewhere it is essential in the judgment of the moral quality of an act that we first look at the act and determine its objective nature. Then from there we can look at the subjective aspects to determine the culpability of the actor.

 

[Kristopher]

Dear Catherine W., et. al.:

Hello, how are you? I will repeat what a number of people already have written: talk with your priest; however, this might already have been done by the time that you read this. I have no time to read through all the posts here for this thread.

I would say, additionally, check with the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) on the matter both under birth control, under sin, and under–what is it: the Third Commandment–concerning authorities.

On the one hand, you have to live your life; feed your face; advance in your career, and remain obedient to the laws of where you live, at a variety of levels.

Your Dr., whom you shadowed, you say, already you gave your view on the matter, but what was his as a Catholic? In California, a Catholic Charity was brought to court and forced to comply with an act involving anti-discrminatory laws, with respect to women’s rights: an employer is legislated to provide through insurance plans, if there are insurance plans, birth control to those females employed by the employer; it makes no difference that it is a Catholic charity.

We know: there is no one that can coerce, or cause a person to sin against ones own faith; though, the legislation is contrary to this ethical guideline. You already wrote that you did not stand up for your beliefs, and this you recognize as wrong; but what, if you did learn anything from a priest, did he say, if you may share his view?

You might learn through your diocese, first yourself, then afterwards you might find an appropriate approach with your doctor to discuss with him training for patients of his, to receive Natural Family Planning: determine the financial benefits, the ethical benefits, and determine to what extent, if any, this might satisfy laws at a variety of levels that legislate people to comply with the provision of birth control to female patients, employees, and others in general.

You mentioned, too, the feelings, or thoughts that you experienced: the excitement at being able to assist this doctor–you might examine those thoughts, those feelings; they might have been somewhat rooted in a sin of another variety, such as the prestige people have for belonging to such a professional career, or educational institution, or something else; it would seem something along such a line might be the cause of your unwillingness at the time to make a stand on the other hand, it may be that you just were in mixed emotions on the matter, and in some degree of shock about the lack of importance your view was to your doctor.

I can see nothing wrong with you having addressed the doctor immediately at the time, had it been your choice, and in front of the patient and though, there are more tactful manners of dealing with the situation; it is nonetheless a situation that could have been handled in any number of ways, and been alright–what I mean is this: you had the correct problem identified and therefore, you could say, for instance, have slapped him across the face, said, never again insult me, or your patient again in the manner, ever, in my presence, then walked out the door. It may seem harsh, but it would have been for all intents and purposes, better than having done nothing at all.

Some people, I understand, do far worse to not even know what the correct problem is then go about the correcting the problem in the most professional, most ethical, most perfect manner possible, but the damage again is far worse, because they correct problem is not being addressed, but you may already know this; maybe the reminder is healthy to again hear.

Anyways, it can be a humiliating experience to feel spineless at the lack of courage we possess, when we are able to bring about even in the smallest sense, some change to a situation that does in fact, require change and certainly, would warrant a stand if for nothing else than your own personal boundaries. Again, myself not being too much of an authority on biomedical ethics, talk with your priest, but consult too those resources available to you to better form your own conscience on the matter.

Please, since you have a clear concern on this matter: get in touch with Gregg Cunningham at The Center for Bioethical Reform. He has legal experience. Additionally, they know women, and therefore in a clinical environment, patients directly involved with birth control, etc. The website does contain the reality of an abortus depicted visually; though briefly, if you search for the hyperlink quickly at abortionno.org

Enjoy your day!

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Thank Mosher (reference Post #88)

I am not sure the best method to proceed but maybe differentiating between your condition #2, #3 and intent. Maybe elaborating on that is a good starting point.

 

[mosher]

Thank Mosher (reference Post #88)

I am not sure the best method to proceed but maybe differentiating between your condition #2, #3 and intent. Maybe elaborating on that is a good starting point.

Instead of using intent and intention as the terms can get confusing I would rather talk about purpose or end. What is really the focal point of the discussion at this point (understanding the difference between #2 and #3 in post #88) is the issue surrounding the four causes. In particular we are speaking about the final cause or to put it another way we are speaking about the end to which the act is directed (commonly said to be the purpose for the act).

The act under discussion is writing a prescription for ABC for the purpose of contraception. This is what I referred to as #3 in post 88. Virtually in this act there are two other acts inside of it which are the two morally neutral acts of writing a prescription and writing a prescription for ABC.

#1 is obvious in that just the act of writing a prescription can be good or bad depending on the prescription or the purpose of that prescription (and a couple other factors). So, without any more information it cannot be morally judged.

#2 is also generally obvious because writing a prescription for ABC is not in all cases an evil act. There are morally licit uses for ABC when used for other therapeutic purposes. So, without knowing the end there is not enough information to make a moral judgment.

#3 is the case at hand. Here we have a doctor prescribing ABC for the stated purpose of contraception. Here we now have and end and we can make a moral judgment. So, now we have all four causes filled:

Efficient Cause: The Patient*
Formal Cause: The Doctor*
Material Cause: The Prescription
Final Cause: Contraception

*These two could be flipped depending on the circumstance here I am treating this in the most positive light for the doctor meaning that the patient is a spontaneous requester for the ABC. If the doctor had been the primary suggester then he would be the efficient cause and the patient the formal cause in assenting to his suggestion.

We know that contraception is immoral in all cases. We also know as a basic principle of morals that in the judgment of an act if the end (purpose for which the act is intended) is evil then the entire act is evil.

The reason why #2 is morally neutral is because we still lack an end so there is not enough information to judge the act.

An example that is easier to see this in would be the two different cases where a man shoots another man. If that is all the information we have then we cannot make a judgment because shooting a firearm is morally neutral and shooting another is morally neutral (as there is not enough information). If however, we know that the final cause of the shooting was self defense then it is not immoral. However, if it was for some type of malice then it is evil.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Ref # 91
Thanks

Have you considered?

Efficient Cause: The Patient ( generated)
Formal Cause: The Patient ( performed)
Material Cause: The use of a drug
Final Cause: Prevention of conception

Notice the UPS driver, Doctor, Student, and many others are grouped in the category which already had the Doctor, student, and many others.

 

[mosher]

Ref # 91
Thanks

Have you considered?

Efficient Cause: The Patient ( generated)
Formal Cause: The Patient ( performed)
Material Cause: The use of a drug
Final Cause: Prevention of conception

Notice the UPS driver, Doctor, Student, and many others are grouped in the category which already had the Doctor, student, and many others.

Yes, but this would be a separate act. The act under consideration is the procurement of the ABC.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Originally Posted by Texas Roofer
Ref # 91
Thanks

Have you considered?

Efficient Cause: The Patient ( generated)
Formal Cause: The Patient ( performed)
Material Cause: The use of a drug
Final Cause: Prevention of conception

Notice the UPS driver, Doctor, Student, and many others are grouped in the category which already had the Doctor, student, and many others.

Yes, but this would be a separate act. The act under consideration is the procurement of the ABC.

Why, what separated the doctor?

 

[mosher]

Why, what separated the doctor?

The reason why the doctor cannot be removed as the Efficient or the Formal cause in this scenario is because that was the way the act happened (in the first place). In the second place the ordinary means for receiving a prescription is from a licensed medical professional deputed to act as such. Without such a person (unless there was some smuggling or black market situation) then generally ABC cannot be obtained. Thus the participation of a doctor is necessary and as such this constitutes formal participation in the act (moral or immoral). If we was prescribing cough medicine it would still be formal participation in the act. Now, we know that the use of ABC for the intended use of contraception is immoral. Thus we now know that the act is immoral and thus all participants in the act have now acted in an immoral way but their culpability is mitigated depending on their level of participation, knowledge, freedom of will and the gravity of the matter.

In the act described it is easy to see that it is clearly immoral. However, what is more difficult to see is the level of culpability of each participant. The very possibility that the participants do not know that it is immoral will cause the act of be venial or if there was some serious compulsion or some other valid mitigating factor. However, what we do know is that in this case the level of participation is higher for the doctor and the patient than for the OP who only handed the prescription from one agent to the next.

 

[Kristopher]

…, we know that the use of ABC for the intended use of contraception is immoral. …

Dear Mosher, et. al.:

You sound much more familiar with logical structures than myself, and I enjoyed reading your analysis of causes, and the classification of them.

Maybe you have participated in this thread, and followed the posts from the beginning, whereas myself, I came in late on the matter; nonetheless, I recognize the assumption that I quoted above that a variety of birth control methods are immoral–I do not think that birth control in this particular case is known to be immoral, because I have neither read it stated as such, nor have I seen it inferred–it has been assumed. The patient’s case does not appear to have been familiar to the one questioning her morality in this act, but might have been known only to the Dr. as a matter of privacy.

I admit the scenario in my mind, about to be given, might be rare, just the same–we are assuming birth control in the form provided is immoral; additionally, we are assuming the Dr. is immoral. The scenario in mind, since the Dr. is Catholic, since known legislation to myself must allow respect for the beliefs of an employee, by an employer, and since the case of the patient must be protected by a variety of privacy laws; were we to assume that in fact, birth control in this particular case was moral, and the doctor acted morally: it would mean all participants acted morally.

We do not know the patient is married, or unmarried, but we know that birth control was prescribed–another issue of ethics: being chaste both in and out of marriage–this might mean a variety of scenarioes: the patient either is sexually active, or simply interested in regulating her menses, for some reason essential to her mental health, as a consequence of undue, or intolerable effects of stress–this regulation must be done; additionally, the patient might be both sexually active, and a victim of an abortion, or some other surgical procedure, which if the patient at sometime during sexual intercourse is fertile–the pregnancy would certainly, or more than likely, conceive an ectopic pregnancy and therefore, a threat not only to her life, but also to the life of her child and therefore, birth control in this particular patient’s case is moral.

Most sincerely,

Kristopher

 

[mosher]

I admit the scenario in my mind, about to be given, might be rare, just the same–we are assuming birth control in the form provided is immoral; additionally, we are assuming the Dr. is immoral. The scenario in mind, since the Dr. is Catholic, since known legislation to myself must allow respect for the beliefs of an employee, by an employer, and since the case of the patient must be protected by a variety of privacy laws; were we to assume that in fact, birth control in this particular case was moral, and the doctor acted morally: it would mean all participants acted morally.

You are correct to note that there are many assumptions being made. But let us clarify some points.

1. ABC for any use other than grave health uses is immoral. The use can still be immoral if the person is married and engages in sexual relations with her husband even if it is being used for another medical need.
2. The Doctor being Catholic is irrelevant since the judgment about ABC stems from the Natural Moral Law and not Church Law.
3. Civil legislation does not effect the moral quality of an act.

In answer to the question you have we must consider what is causing the act to be immoral. The cause is the intention to contracept. So, if the intention was not use ABC for some other grave medical need then the intention would not be to contracept and thus the act would be at least morally neutral. The participation level of the Doctor would be the same but instead of it being a negative his formal participation would be either a morally neutral or even a morally positive participation.