M
Moneyball
Guest
Hi all, after getting her third C-section, my wife was told by her doctor that she should try to avoid getting pregnant again since her damaged uterus was not healing properly after each surgeries. Apparently her uterus was paper thin when they performed the C-section on her. He told us that that diagnosis is typically given to approximately 1 out 1000 women. The doctor said the risk of a uterine rupture is relatively high given her condition.
Well, fast forward 13 months later and she’s now pregnant for our 4th child… surprise! She will probably be referred to a high risk pregnancy specialist soon, but the moral dilemma I have is figuring out whether or not it would be morally permissible for her to take the specialists’ recommendation that she gets a hysterectomy immediately after the C-section (if he/she does so).
I understand that sterilization is forbidden, but I’m also aware of the principle of double effect and I was wondering if it applied in such a scenario. If the doctor says that failing to remove the damaged uterus could become life threatening if another pregnancy were to occur, would it be morally licit to opt for the hysterectomy? If the intent of the surgery is to remove the damaged organ in order to eliminate the relatively high threat of a hemorrhage caused by any future pregnancies, does the principle of double effect apply here?
Any information is greatly appreciated. Thank you and please keep my wife Julie in your prayers.
Eric
Well, fast forward 13 months later and she’s now pregnant for our 4th child… surprise! She will probably be referred to a high risk pregnancy specialist soon, but the moral dilemma I have is figuring out whether or not it would be morally permissible for her to take the specialists’ recommendation that she gets a hysterectomy immediately after the C-section (if he/she does so).
I understand that sterilization is forbidden, but I’m also aware of the principle of double effect and I was wondering if it applied in such a scenario. If the doctor says that failing to remove the damaged uterus could become life threatening if another pregnancy were to occur, would it be morally licit to opt for the hysterectomy? If the intent of the surgery is to remove the damaged organ in order to eliminate the relatively high threat of a hemorrhage caused by any future pregnancies, does the principle of double effect apply here?
Any information is greatly appreciated. Thank you and please keep my wife Julie in your prayers.
Eric
Last edited: