What to say to a teen patient who's sexually active?

[PRmerger]

I’m a Catholic health care professional in a pediatric clinic and received a phone call from a teenaged girl. After answering her questions regarding her urinary tract infection, she asked, “BTW, can I still have sex?” I told her that a urinary tract infection was not a sexually transmitted disease and that she couldn’t transfer it to her partner.

I think I dropped the ball morally on this one. Why didn’t I try to evangelize a bit to improve her moral and spiritual health? Yet, I also feel that this was not the right forum to proselytize to a teenaged girl about the sacredness of sex. Nor was it even the right time, in the middle of a busy pediatrics office, to talk about the medical/physical risks of unmarried sex over the phone. Perhaps the next time she comes in I can take the time to discuss sexual and moral health in a non-religious context

Any suggestions how I could have handled this phone call better?

 

[Catholig]

PRmerger,

I wouldn’t get to upset at yourself if I were you, because I often times need a running start, and several tries before I can tell someone what I believe morally or how something they said offends me. So as long as you have a chance to rectify the situation and inform others in the future I wouldn’t worry about it. How long until she visits the clinic again? If its not too long the chances are that she won’t have the chance to sin before you can talk to her.

Catholig

 

[jmcrae]

Ask her to come in for a short visit to discuss the health issues around sex.

This will give you the opportunity to talk about abstinence and celibacy as options for her. (You would be amazed at how many girls think it is their duty to “put out,” who aren’t really all that interested in sex. This girl may or may not fall into that category, but you may be the first person ever to tell her that she has the option to say “No” to sex before marriage, and she may even thank you for it.)

 

[urbana]

Given the circumstances, introducing her to Theology of the Body probably wouldn’t have been appropriate. Also, it is difficult to come up with something on the spot.

However, one statement you could possibly have made would be:

“A urinary tract infection is not a sexually transmitted disease, so sex while you have this infection would not be any more or less risky than it usually is.”

Said statement is truthful, and answers the question asked, but at the same time highlights that premarital sex has risks. Yet, it is not overt proselytizing, and the statement easily falls within the purview of advocating healthy behaviors, so it shouldn’t get you in trouble with your boss, regardless of whether they have an “enlightened” view of sexuality.

 

[JimG]

This will give you the opportunity to talk about abstinence and celibacy as options for her. (You would be amazed at how many girls think it is their duty to “put out,” who aren’t really all that interested in sex. This girl may or may not fall into that category, but you may be the first person ever to tell her that she has the option to say “No” to sex before marriage, and she may even thank you for it.)

The option to say no. What a great idea!

To those of us from an older generation, it may sound self-evident, but I think that you are absolutely right about this. In the current culture, many girls think it’s just expected of them; there is no other option.

 

[baltobetsy]

How about, “Yes, this should be cleared up by the time you get married.”

Betsy

 

[nucatholic]

Well, I would say as a non-religious person that I would take offense to someone who told me that I was making a wrong moral decision when I am primarily asking for your medical expertise. Theres no problem in recommending the safest options, such as not having sex until you have a steady relationship with someone and you have both been tested and all that. However, its not clear that it is morally wrong to have responsible sex before marriage if you are not a religious person. So why even go there in a professional setting?>

 

[PRmerger]

Well, I would say as a non-religious person that I would take offense to someone who told me that I was making a wrong moral decision when I am primarily asking for your medical expertise.

Any health care provider who addresses only medical/physical needs in isolation of the patient’s emotional/spiritual/mental issues is doing a great disservice to the patient. There can be no doubt as to the mind/body/soul connection.

 

[hasikelee]

Any health care provider who addresses only medical/physical needs in isolation of the patient’s emotional/spiritual/mental issues is doing a great disservice to the patient. There can be no doubt as to the mind/body/soul connection.

I agree!

Also, perhaps a bit more information is needed for the patient’s benefit? Someone I know who is on ABC, smokes and is sexually active suffers very much from UTIs.

Perhaps finding out if certain medications she is taking or certain behaviors she is doing would have been an additional service to her.

Just because sexual intercourse itself does not cause a UTI does not mean this girl is not engaging in behavior that is causing it and still related to her activities.

 

[JimG]

In today’s culture, pre-marital sexual activity is one of the more dangerous activies that one can engage in, putting both physical and emotional health at risk. Where are the warning labels when we need them?

 

[Joan_M]

Well, I would say as a non-religious person that I would take offense to someone who told me that I was making a wrong moral decision when I am primarily asking for your medical expertise. Theres no problem in recommending the safest options, such as not having sex until you have a steady relationship with someone and you have both been tested and all that. However, its not clear that it is morally wrong to have responsible sex before marriage if you are not a religious person. So why even go there in a professional setting?>

No one should be expected to leave their faith at home when they go to work. Even suggesting, using your example above, that the patient could have sex if she is in a “steady relationship” with someone would be totally immoral.

It is morally wrong for anyone to have sex (“responsible” or otherwise) outside of marriage. It is irrelevant whether they are “religious” or not. That’s like suggesting that committing murder would not be sinful if you are not religious.

It constantly amazes me that people think that sin is not sin if they do not believe in it!! The Natural Law is discernible to us all, if we do not blind ourselves to it.

 

[batteddy]

Yes, I know its wrong to lie…

Yet, I imagine that in the “good old days” a Catholic would have said it was sexually transmitted just to scare her straight. Heck, a good stern nun might even have said something like, “No, you can’t have sex while you have it…and even when it goes away, if you have sex any time in the next ten years the reaction might kill you!”

I mean…it must be sexually transmittable a little bit.

 

[Pug]

Any suggestions how I could have handled this phone call better?

You could consider taking the opportunity to discuss that having sex may be causing the UTI, or that some other behavior could be causing it. It is unlikely that anyone else will ever bother telling her. Here is a quote from familydoctor.org

Having sex may also cause urinary tract infections in women because bacteria can be pushed into the urethra. Using a diaphragm can lead to infections because diaphragms push against the urethra and make it harder to completely empty the bladder. The urine that stays in the bladder is more likely to grow bacteria and cause infections.

 

[JimG]

Yes, I know its wrong to lie…

Yet, I imagine that in the “good old days” a Catholic would have said it was sexually transmitted just to scare her straight. Heck, a good stern nun might even have said something like, “No, you can’t have sex while you have it…and even when it goes away, if you have sex any time in the next ten years the reaction might kill you!”

I mean…it must be sexually transmittable a little bit.

In the good old days, if any teenager had asked if it was still OK to have sex, any adult would have answered, “not until you’re married.”

 

[nucatholic]

Sorry, I find it laughable that you would lie as a professional to suit your own sense of morality. Not only would that contradict your own values but it would contradict the ethical obligation as a health care professional to present truthful and accurate information.

As to religion in the workplace, I do not believe that you should leave your values at the door. However, how would you feel if someone believed that it was psychologically healthy to have sex before marriage and told your son/daughter/other family member that they should have sex? It would be a double standard to not allow this and you yourself promote your own sense of morality in a professional setting.

The section below is in response to Joan M.

People have different values and that is a fact. It is not an objective fact that your ideas about sex and sin are correct. You can cite Natural Law (which is just another idea of Aristotle’s), the Bible, Church tradition and it still wouldn’t convince me because I’ve been there before and I can see how their arguments fail under scrutiny. You seem pretty sure of yourself despite your lack of evidence and argumentation. Lets take for example Judaism. Judaism tells us that eating pork is wrong. I am a waiter (which I really am) and someone comes in and orders a bacon cheese burger. Then I proceed to explain to them that Yeweh forbids the eating of pork and that they should reconsider. Is that an appropriate thing to do at my workplace?

 

[RyanL]

…However, its not clear that it is morally wrong to have responsible sex before marriage if you are not a religious person…

A little G.K. Chesterton for ya’:

Tolerance is the virtue of a man with no convictions.

When learned men begin to use their reason, then I generally discover that they haven’t got any.

There are those who hate Christianity and call their hatred an all-embracing love for all religions.

These are the days when the Christian is expected to praise every creed except his own.

Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable.

You cannot reason a man out of a position he didn’t reason himself into.

It isn’t that they can’t see the solution. It is that they can’t see the problem.

The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.

Moral decisions are always terribly complex for those who are unprincipled.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[psteichen]

Sorry, I find it laughable that you would lie as a professional to suit your own sense of morality. Not only would that contradict your own values but it would contradict the ethical obligation as a health care professional to present truthful and accurate information.

As to religion in the workplace, I do not believe that you should leave your values at the door. However, how would you feel if someone believed that it was psychologically healthy to have sex before marriage and told your son/daughter/other family member that they should have sex? It would be a double standard to not allow this and you yourself promote your own sense of morality in a professional setting.

The section below is in response to Joan M.

People have different values and that is a fact. It is not an objective fact that your ideas about sex and sin are correct. You can cite Natural Law (which is just another idea of Aristotle’s), the Bible, Church tradition and it still wouldn’t convince me because I’ve been there before and I can see how their arguments fail under scrutiny. You seem pretty sure of yourself despite your lack of evidence and argumentation. Lets take for example Judaism. Judaism tells us that eating pork is wrong. I am a waiter (which I really am) and someone comes in and orders a bacon cheese burger. Then I proceed to explain to them that Yeweh forbids the eating of pork and that they should reconsider. Is that an appropriate thing to do at my workplace?

nucatholic:

No one here has suggested lying (except in jest).

The rest of your post seems to imply that there is no such thing as objective right and wrong. And you specifically stated that Church tradition and the bible don’t impress you. Does your user-name (new)catholic imply that you are newly Catholic? It seems more likely to me you are making up your own New Catholic religion. Have you been listening to those folks over at the NCR?

 

[nucatholic]

Haha, yes I know it is deceiving but my moniker was created while I was indeed a new Catholic. I was very orthodox in my beliefs but I have since become a secular humanist after much debate and contemplation. I do in fact believe that there is an objective morality but I do not believe that god is necessary for an objective morality. The Natural Law theory isn’t taken seriously by anyone but Catholics in the realm of ethics because it just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The Bible has so many problems that I won’t even open that bag and the Tradition of the Church would have to come to terms with the problems in the Bible and Church history. Thus, it is simply not clear in any sense of the word that a Christian is right or even has good reason to believe in their own idea of morality and thus it is irresponsible to push these beliefs in a professional setting.

 

[PRmerger]

Lets take for example Judaism. Judaism tells us that eating pork is wrong. I am a waiter (which I really am) and someone comes in and orders a bacon cheese burger. Then I proceed to explain to them that Yeweh forbids the eating of pork and that they should reconsider. Is that an appropriate thing to do at my workplace?

It might be if they sought your advice as a culinary expert. They might ask you, “What do you think about the bacon cheeseburger?” You could respond first that you think it’s not a very healthy choice, that there are lots of other delicious items on the menu, and recommend an alternative.

If they came back and became regulars, you might then broach the subject regarding your religious objections to eating pork.

There would be nothing wrong with that–indeed, your intention would be admirable.

If your boss was cognizant of your religious views and asked you to serve bacon, he would be the intolerant one, would he not?

 

[PRmerger]

. I was very orthodox in my beliefs but I have since become a secular humanist after much debate and contemplation

Nucatholic, in my experience I’ve noticed that those who turn away from Catholicism to secular humanism do so not mainly because of theological disputes, but because Catholicism asks the believer to change his life. Would this be the case for you? If you remained Catholic you would have had to forego some pleasures (perhaps premarital sex?), and rather than changing your life, you decided to change your theology?

I’m not being accusatory or confrontational–merely curious.