Author Topic: CDF approves hysterectomies in non-life-threatening cases  (Read 391 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Geremia

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3078
  • Reputation: +845/-176
  • Gender: Male
    • St. Isidore e-book library
CDF approves hysterectomies in non-life-threatening cases
« on: January 22, 2019, 09:52:24 AM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In a response to a dubia:
    Quote from: CDF
    Question: When the uterus is found to be irreversibly in such a state that it is no longer suitable for procreation and medical experts have reached the certainty that an eventual pregnancy will bring about a spontaneous abortion before the fetus is able to arrive at a viable state, is it licit to remove it (hysterectomy)?
    Response: Yes, because it does not regard sterilization.
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre

    Offline Nadir

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 6005
    • Reputation: +3304/-194
    • Gender: Female
    Re: CDF approves hysterectomies in non-life-threatening cases
    « Reply #1 on: January 22, 2019, 03:25:25 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • In a response to a dubia:
    Quote from: CDF
    Quote
    Question: When the uterus is found to be irreversibly in such a state that it is no longer suitable for procreation and medical experts have reached the certainty that an eventual pregnancy will bring about a spontaneous abortion before the fetus is able to arrive at a viable state, is it licit to remove it (hysterectomy)?
    Response: Yes, because it does not regard 
    A link to the source?
    How can "the uterus found to be irreversibly in such a state that it is no longer suitable for procreation" achieve "an eventual pregnancy and who can predict a spontaneous abortion"?


    Offline songbird

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3483
    • Reputation: +1282/-97
    • Gender: Female
    Re: CDF approves hysterectomies in non-life-threatening cases
    « Reply #2 on: January 22, 2019, 05:36:19 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • Every time a pregnancy occurs, the womb rejuvenates itself.

    In a Science magazine, 2018 a 60 year old womb was transplanted in a 20-30 year old.  After several tries, a pregnancy occurred.  When it was time for delivery a C-section took place.  To the "surprise" of those present, they said the womb looked like a 20 year old womb.

    don't get me wrong, I am all against the hanky-panky of doctors playing God.  but it shows to the world, the miracle of God's design.

    Offline SusanneT

    • Jr. Member
    • **
    • Posts: 263
    • Reputation: +113/-22
    • Gender: Female
    Re: CDF approves hysterectomies in non-life-threatening cases
    « Reply #3 on: January 22, 2019, 05:39:56 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The removal of the womb of a woman who is still menstruating is sterilisation and should not be countenance without without a compelled medical reason.  

    Offline Geremia

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3078
    • Reputation: +845/-176
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    Re: CDF approves hysterectomies in non-life-threatening cases
    « Reply #4 on: January 22, 2019, 06:20:16 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • The removal of the womb of a woman who is still menstruating is sterilisation
    Yes, exactly
    I don't see how CDF's "reasoning" is any different from saying that an impotent male can have a vasectomy simply because he's impotent (and not because the presence of the vas deferens threatens his life).
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre


    Offline Geremia

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3078
    • Reputation: +845/-176
    • Gender: Male
      • St. Isidore e-book library
    Re: CDF approves hysterectomies in non-life-threatening cases
    « Reply #5 on: January 22, 2019, 06:30:48 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • CDF's explanatory note:
    Quote
    The question regards some extreme cases, recently submitted to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, that constitute a different issue from that which was given a negative response on July 31, 1993. The element that renders the present question essentially different is the certainty reached by medical experts that in the case of a pregnancy, it would be spontaneously interrupted before the fetus arrives at a state of viability. Here it is not a question of difficulty, or of risks of greater or lesser importance, but of a couple for which it is not possible to procreate.

    The precise object of sterilization is to impede the functioning of the reproductive organs, and the malice of sterilization consists in the refusal of children: it is an act against the bonum prolis. On the contrary, in the case considered in the question, it is known that the reproductive organs are not capable of protecting a conceived child up to viability, namely, they are not capable of fulfilling their natural procreative function. The objective of the procreative process is to bring a baby into the world, but here the birth of a living fetus is not biologically possible. Therefore, we are not dealing with a defective, or risky, functioning of the reproductive organs, but we are faced here with a situation in which the natural end of bringing a living child into the world is not attainable.

    The medical procedure should not be judged as being against procreation, because we find ourselves within an objective context in which neither procreation, nor as a consequence, an anti-procreative action, are possible. Removing a reproductive organ incapable of bringing a pregnancy to term should not therefore be qualified as direct sterilization, which is and remains intrinsically illicit as an end and as a means.

    The problem of the criteria to evaluate if the pregnancy could, or could not, continue on to the state of viability is a medical question. From the moral point of view, one must ask if the highest degree of certainty that medicine can reach has been reached, and in this sense the response given is valid for the question, as it has been proposed in good faith.

    Furthermore, the response to the question does not state that the decision to undergo a hysterectomy is always the best one, but that only in the above-mentioned conditions is such a decision morally licit, without, therefore, excluding other options (for example, recourse to infertile periods or total abstinence). It is the decision of the spouses, in dialogue with doctors and their spiritual guide, to choose the path to follow, applying the general criteria of the gradualness [eek! Amoris Lætitia!] of medical intervention to their case and to their circumstances.
    What do abortion and "recourse to infertile periods" have to do with whether a hysterectomy is moral?
    (bait-and-switch fallacy?)
    St. Isidore e-book library: https://isidore.co/calibre

     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16