When is it morally OK for a woman to get a hysterectomy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Moneyball
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
They want a zip code… we don’t have zip codes in Canada. Thanks for trying though.
 
Scroll down, there’s an option for choosing Canada. Ontario is an option.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
If it gives her ANY problem at ALL outside of pregnancy due to being damaged…pain, extra cramping, anything, then it should be fine to remove it. But if it’s posing no problem at all, then being thin isn’t considered damaged or diseased, I guess.
 
Ah! Wonderful, God bless you!

The closest physician is in Toronto though, that’s a 2 and a half hour drive one way from our house… that’s assuming traffic is clear in a metropolitan area. Still a great resource though, thank you!
 
If the uterus is really that thin, then the tissues may be too hard/risky to sew back together properly with this caesarean, and in that case it could be considered damaged in the sense that it needs removed, and that would be licit. Or if there are adhesions or anything else going on, then it would also be licit. You just cannot do it as a preventative measure.
 
Right, this is why I wanted to talk about it now so that we can ask all the right questions when we meet the specialist.
 
Basically any reason at all Outside of pregnancy would be ok. If it’s likely to cause her problems outside of pregnancy in the specialists opinion, then it’s the same as having any other damaged organ that’s likely to cause problems. You are allowed to get treatment for a damaged organ.
 
During Julie’s (my wife) previous C-section, the doctor took tissue from another part of her body to patch things up a bit. So I have no idea if that will even be an option for her next C-section.
 
Moneyball said:
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.
Click to expand...
Every woman I know who has had more than one C-section is told the same thing. That their uterus is paper thin, that it looks like a pane of glass, etc. Find a doc who is experienced in multiple C sections.

If your wife has a medical problem (bleeding, tumors, etc.) that require the uterus removed, that is permitted. If the uterus is removed to prevent future pregnancies, that is sterilization.

Prayers, and do talk to the NCB Center!
 
This is an instance when the Church and I don’t see eye to eye.

If it were me, I’d follow my own well formed conscience, exercise my God-given free-will, and make the best decision.

Because, as it is, the answer 100% of the time: “Sorry, dude. Sucks to be you.”

The Church’s obsession over sex is as unhealthy as the secular world’s obsession over sex.
 
MasterHaster said:
Is what the National Catholic Bioethics Center says an opinion or something more?
Click to expand...
They are experts in bioethics and Catholic morality. When forming your conscience you should give what they say more weight than, say, a random person on CAF.

Also, they will be familiar with both Vatican documents and will be able to help you understand what they mean. Also they will be able to help you form your conscience on this matter with solid teaching and information.

Many times when multiple c sections happen the uterus has to come out, regardless. Not to prevent pregnancy but because it’s damaged, bleeding, etc.
 
on_the_hill said:
The Church’s obsession over sex
Click to expand...
The Church does have an obsession over sex. The Church has the same moral framework for all moral decision making.

Because people ask an endless number of “what about this…” questions and because mankind keeps coming up with new technology (for example IVF), the Church has to apply its moral principles to new situations.

Responding to questions regarding the morality of an act isn’t an “obsession with sex”, it’s being a shepherd.
 
Last edited:
I don’t think your wife needs to assent to a graft From elsewhere to keep it, even if it’s an option. You don’t need to go through any extra measures to salvage a damaged organ That you can live without, just because the organ is a uterus. So if a graft from elsewhere is necessary to patch it up, you don’t need to do it unless you are wanting to keep it in order to have more children.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Every woman I know who has had more than one C-section is told the same thing. That their uterus is paper thin, that it looks like a pane of glass, etc. Find a doc who is experienced in multiple C sections.

If your wife has a medical problem (bleeding, tumors, etc.) that require the uterus removed, that is permitted. If the uterus is removed to prevent future pregnancies, that is sterilization.

Prayers, and do talk to the NCB Center!
Click to expand...
Interesting you say that. Although our OBGYN was quite old, it had only been a couple years he was fully trained to perform C-sections.
 
Interesting, my dad was born by C-section more than 80 years ago. They are taught to pretty much every med student here.
 
Gingersnaps4 said:
I don’t think your wife needs to assent to a graft From elsewhere to keep it, even if it’s an option. You don’t need to go through any extra measures to salvage a damaged organ That you can live without, just because the organ is a uterus. So if a graft from elsewhere is necessary to patch it up, you don’t need to do it unless you are wanting to keep it in order to have more children.
Click to expand...
Now this I’m not so sure about because if the thin uterus can be adequately attended to without causing sterilization I suspect the Church would say that that is the morally preferred method.
 
Well I believe our doctor was a family physician his whole life until he decided to become a part time OBGYN later in life. He said he was trained in Europe. His secretary told us that he prefers not to take higher risk patients like my wife, so going to see a specialist is definitely our best option now.

Our greatest cause for anxiety is that we live 20 mins away from a small hospital that isn’t really equipped to deal with emergencies like a uterine rupture. I’ve read medical statistics that if a child is not delivered with 17 minutes of a rupture that the infant mortality rate goes up to 60%, and if the baby survives, brain damage is a serious risk.
 
That doesn’t seem right to me. If it took a graft to salvage a damaged appendix, etc, then there would be no second thought. This is placing the uterus in a special category when it isn’t in one from a health perspective, even to the church. That’s one of the questions I’d be asking the bioethics place if I were you…if you must assent to extra measures to save it.
 
I think the uterus is somewhat placed in a different category because if it is removed then it causes sterility. Now if taking a graft is overall more risky than performing a hysterectomy then I can see the argument being made there.

You know, it just crossed my mind that my wife’s mother got a hysterectomy later in her life unrelated to pregnancy… I was told it had something to do with her low blood pressure causing hemorrhages. My wife, like her mother, also has very low blood pressure. I wonder if her thin uterus along with a potentially hereditary condition may be a sufficient cause for a hysterectomy? Or would the Church prefer my wife be put on blood pressure meds in order to deal with that threat without sterilizing her?

Yeah, you’re right, I’ll need need to ask a lot of questions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top