Quiz: What's Catholic Teaching on Family Planning? (Shocker)

Catholic doctrine on contraception (including hormonal and non-hormonal, long- and short-acting) is:

1. Use of contraceptives by sexually active persons breaks up the unitive and procreative aspects of sex, and is grave matter that may constitute mortal sin.
2. Contraceptives are a band-aid for women's health issues and should not be used for medical purposes in women who are not sexually active.
3. Contraceptive use is technically occasionally licit (i.e. not objectively wrong), but is always imprudent.
4. A and B
5. A and C
6. None of the above

The answer, shockingly, is F. Humana Vitae (HV) explained why contraception is objectively sinful because it destroys the good in licit sexual acts. The only licit sexual acts occur within sacramental marriages, and HV only touched on contraception in marriage. When sex occurs outside marriage, there is already an objective evil. It is not clear (i.e. it is not yet part of Catholic teaching) whether contraception augments the evil in these actions (like fornication, adultery, and extramarital sexual abuse) or can mitigate it. Theologians who wish to think with the mind of the Church have gone both ways on this issue. Many, like Germaine Grisez and Janet Smith, have opined that contraception is always wrong. Others, like Fr. Robert Landry, maintain that it is not always objectively illicit, but is usually or often imprudent. For more, here's Jimmy Akin.

True or false: It is good that children not come of non-marital sexual unions.

True. It's occasionally uncomfortable to admit it, but it's actually good when children are not conceived outside of marriage. Children have a right to grow up in a family, raised by a father and a mother, and many or most children born today are born with this right infringed. You're not a eugenicist if you think it's good that children's rights are preserved. Don't believe me? Try the next question.

True or false: It is good that children not be born of non-marital sexual unions.

Careful here. It's good when children aren't conceived. But once conceived, their rights must be protected as much as possible, including their right to life. Post-fertilization effects and abortion rob a child of something even more basic than the right to be raised by mother and father.

Catholic doctrine on primary sterilization (mutilating of a human body by removal or altering of otherwise-healthy organs for the sole purpose of destroying fertility) is:

1. Sterilization is mutilation of the human body, which is dignified not only by creation in the image of God, but also by the Incarnation.
2. Temporary sterilization is occasionally appropriate even if the principle of double effect does not apply.
3. The Catechism only specifies that sterilizations on innocent persons are against the moral law.
4. A and B
5. A and C
6. None of the above.

The answer is A. No temporary sterilization, no sterilization ever unless there is a medical reason for removal of a "diseased organ." C is interesting. The second half of a sentence in CCC 2297 states "directly intended amputations, mutilations, and sterilizations performed on innocent persons are against the moral law." But to take this and run off sterilizing prisoners would ignore the first half of the sentence: "Except when performed for strictly therapeutic medical reasons...." With all this information, let's go see a patient.

Case Study: A 32-year-old African-American G5P2113 (pregnant five times, with two children born at term and one born preterm, with one abortion or miscarriage, we don't know which; currently pregnant) at 26 weeks presents to obstetrical triage at Hospital A with abdominal pain. This is her third visit this pregnancy. She consistently maintains that she receives care at the resident clinic at Hospital B, but has likely never established prenatal care. She is unmarried and does not have custody of her living children. She has multiple psychiatric admissions for bipolar disorder, she is not currently on medications, she is currently homeless, and the resident seeing her suspects she just came from selling herself. She has been kicked out of several maternity homes for disruptive behavior. During today's interview in triage, she appears disheveled and emotionally labile. It is clear from her responses to questions about her medical and social history that she is either intellectually disabled or out of touch with reality. She insists that she is full term and that it's time to induce her labor, although her triage workup reveals no evidence of labor, or other obstetric or gynecologic pathology. Upon the patient's discharge from triage from Hospital A, the attending supervising the resident states, "she needs a strong postpartum plan," meaning that she should receive a LARC or be sterilized so that she won't get pregnant again. Hospital A and Hospital B are Catholic. What is an acceptable postpartum family planning option for this patient?

1. Natural family planning/fertility awareness
2. Mirena
3. Paragard
4. Nexplanon
5. Essure
6. Postpartum filshie clip tubal ligation
7. Parkland method tubal ligation
8. Depot haldol and social work consult for another group home placement

A: Wrong. There is so much beauty to NFP, but for a woman who doesn't have money for bus ticket and who isn't medicated and out of touch with reality, it is not enough.

B: Wrong. Mirenas can be placed immediately postpartum but rate of expulsion is relatively high. Plus, mirena is a progestin-containing system and has post-fertilization effects.

C: Wrong. Paragard can also be expelled when placed in the postpartum period, and also has post-fertilization effects.

D: Wrong. Can be placed postpartum, but has post-fertilization effects.

E: Wrong. Cannot be placed postpartum, and is a permanent, primary sterilization.

F: Wrong. Even if it can safely be done postpartum and is as close as you can get to a temporary sterilization (you can pop off the clips and re-anastomose the tubes), it's still a primary sterilization and HV condemns even termporary sterilizations.

G: Wrong. That's a permanent primary sterilization.

H: Really? That's the best we can do for her? I am totally dissatisfied with our options. 

This woman is unmarried and her ability to truly consent to sex is in question. Children have a right to be born to a family, raised by a mother and father, and it is better for her not to have children right now. I can't render her sterile because that is objectively wrong. It may not be objectively wrong for me to render her infertile (although it might be imprudent), but all my options for rendering her infertile (aside from condoms, which she can't control) have postfertilization effects.

Conclusion: I want to think with the mind of the Church. I know Catholic teaching, like every appropriate body of law, does not include dicta for every particular situation. But I know Catholic teaching grasps the truth whenever it speaks on issues of faith and morals. And it works, because it's the truth. 

But right now, there is nothing that works for patients like my case study (and I have seen her for three of those four triage visits). Where is the truth here? Do I need to develop something new?

Emergency Contraception

Emergency contraception can be considered licit as a form of self-defense after sexual assault. It deserves a long exposition (which I can't give you while I'm on my month of nights*), but here's quick a rundown.

The Ethical and Religious Directives are more specific here than on ectopic pregnancy. Directive 36 states:

If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has already occurred already, [the female victim] may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction or interference with implantation of a fertilized ovum

What does this mean practically? "Appropriate testing" is often taken to mean the Peoria Protocol.** The Peoria Protocol lays out how to tell with moral certainty that a woman has not ovulated and that the primary effect of EC is anti-ovulatory. It involves serum progesterone (<1.5 is pre-ovulatory, okay to give EC) and urine LH (negative is pre-ovulatory, okay to give EC).***

Unfortunately, even if the Peoria protocol can predict the right timing for emergency contraception, it's not clear we have anything to use.

1. Hormonal IUDs: insertion of a mirena or skyla as EC relies not only on the anti-ovulatory effects of the levonorgestrel, but also on the intrauterine effects, which act after fertilization. Although it may be argued that application of the Peoria Protocol could allow these effects to be avoided, a systemic hormone (to reach the hypothalamus) is more targeted than an IUD, which would also have to be removed if the patient is later sexually active.


2. Paragard: this relies on post-fertilization effects (which is why it works up to five days after the act of intercourse), and cannot be licitly used.


3. Plan B: is levonorgestrel, given in one 1.5mg dose or two 0.75mg doses twelve hours apart. Strangely, we can't seem to figure out whether its main effect is primarily anti-ovulatory or post-fertilization. A 2016 review of plan B, done through a Catholic lens as a summary of lots of work by the same authors, found that plan B almost always works through post-ovulatory mechanisms, even when administered before ovulation.


4. Ella: ulipristal is a selective progesterone receptor modulator. It is given in one 30 mg dose. It antagonizes progesterone at its receptors on the endometrium, which mean it only has post-fertilization effects. This is the same mechanism of action as mifepristone (RU486, which is given in doses of 600mg for elective abortions). Although package inserts deny that it is abortifacient, this indicates that a 30mg dose is not suspected to have post-implantation effects. For a Catholic who understands life to begin at sperm-egg fusion, ulipristal is extremely likely to lead to loss of embryonic life.
   
5. Hormonal pills: these may be licit before ovulation (still need the Peoria protocol), used in a Yuzpe-like regimen, so that there's enough estrogen to actually act as an anti-ovulant. More research needed!
   
6. Meloxicam: this COX-2 inhibitor can, at doses of 30 mg/day taken for five days during the late follicular phase and the day of the LH surge, prevent functional ovulation in 90% of women with no effect on LH, progesterone, estradiol levels, or cycle length. There are concerns that NSAIDs disrupt implantation. Jury's still out, but this seems the most defensible option at this time. It relies on a hospital's ability to identify the follicular phase/LH surgr (a.k.a. you need the Peoria protocol).

---

*I wrote the first draft of this post on a month of nights my intern year. By the time I got back to it to revise it, I was on a month of nights during my second year. Wow.

**A complete moral explanation supporting the Peoria protocol can be found in Slosar JP. Catholic health care and emergency contraception. Healthcare Ethics:2000;8,4. (No link available.)

***Notice I didn't give units. Do not use cutoffs in a blog post to determine management of patients requesting EC. You need a working relationship with your hospital lab and you need to be better acquainted with the Protocol's other reference ranges for progesterone before you can use it.

"Absurd States," Gradualism, and NFP

I'm going to tie two patients together to illustrate a point about the difficulties I'm facing in a post-pill culture. The phrase "absurd state" in the title comes from the phrase used to describe cryopreserved embryos, who need to be maintained in cryopreservation to avoid likely death. It's a state that would never had existed had we not used technology outside of the truth.

I saw a  patient at one in the morning on call a few weekends ago. My diagnosis was round ligament pain, but we spent most of the visit talking about how she was trapped in a cycle of heroin and cocaine use, and she wanted to get clean. She had overdosed twice in the past week, she told me, and she didn't want that for her future. She told me about her plans to get into a suboxone clinic and a maternity home. She impressed me and I told her so.

Exactly twenty-three hours later (I looked at the clock) she was back after being found unresponsive, having overdosed again. She was brought back with narcan and the emergency department sent her to triage to rule out obstetric concerns. In the words of my second-year who was in triage at the time, she was "high as a kite." I was angry at drugs and angry at her for ruining a life that had such potential to turn around. I'd been told that if drug addicts' lips are moving, they're lying. I grew used to that as a fact during my time on the substance abuse service as a third year med student, but it stung to be reminded.

Three overdoses in a week. "She's going to kill herself," I observed softly to my second-year. One of these times, someone's not going to find her, or she's going to make sure she's not findable.

"That poor baby," added my second-year. Both baby and mother were in an absurd state, brought about by drug developments and the breakdown of marriage, families, and mores.

I saw a different patient in clinic a few days later. This one had been addicted to narcotics and benzodiazepines, but had weaned off her narcs by the time I saw her. She complained that she had missed so many prenatal care visits because she'd lost her job and was now living with her two alcoholic parents. I was less impressed with this person from the start, but I sympathized and tried to connect her with social help to get her better situated. Narcotics and benzodiazepines, more than some other drugs, seem to make people childish.

Not a week later, she happened to present to triage in labor, and I saw her with her mother, who looked exactly like mine. I know people can hide alcoholism more than they can hide, say, meth addiction, but I was even less trustful of this patient than before. She was moving her lips when she called her parents alcoholics; was she lying? I saw her postpartum. She was not handling new motherhood well, and I was again unimpressed. I know the postpartum state is uncomfortable (especially when we aren't giving you your xanax), but I felt frustrated by this patient, and I spoke with a little more sternness than I usually do.

"Do you want to be pregnant again?"

"No," she answered. "Unless I meet Mr. Amazing."

I ignored the comment and dug back to the issue. "What are you planning to use to prevent pregnancy?"

"Abstinence," she answered readily.

I had to recover from an instant of shock, because she was completely serious. "Is that what you used before this pregnancy?" I asked, unimpressed in the extreme.

"Yeah," she said, still serious. "It worked really well until one day I just said '**** it.'"

I was pressing my lips together in frustration at this point. "This time," I said, "I want you to think about another way to avoid pregnancy."

"I don't want my tubes tied."

"I don't think you should have your tubes tied," I rejoined. She was under thirty and there was still hope that she'd stop the benzos and go back to a normal life. "But abstinence didn't work last time, so you can't use it again." I gave her a run-down of the available methods of family planning, including NFP. And then came the time in my life I never wanted to come: I advised that someone not use NFP.

"But fertility awareness takes discipline," I said at the end, "and I don't think that's the best choice for you right now." The words were like a knife in my soul, but I went on: "You either need to make big changes in your life so that you can develop that discipline, or you need to use something that will chemically change you so that you can't get pregnant."

Our culture has become dependent on birth control. There are failings in the culture that seem to now need the crutch of birth control to avoid great evils. There are whole swaths of souls in absurd states. Following in the (unfortunately infamous) footsteps of Benedict XVI, I applied the principle of gradualism during that conversation. Was I wrong? I went to confession and the priest was vague; he told me it was grave matter (which I knew), but did not tell me whether I had sinned or not.

It's in these cases where I begin to feel very culture-of-deathish sentiments creeping up in me. Sentiments like "she shouldn't be able to be pregnant any more," or "it would have been better for that child not to have been conceived." But those are lies. A life can be made right and she should keep her fertility. And that life is precious, and should be cared for (by another person, perhaps).

But does gradualism allow us to avoid the objective evil and choose a lesser evil in situations like this? Not because it's good, but as a bridge to what is good? Can I suggest mirena (not as my peers do, as a panacea for all female woes, but) as a rescue until a person's life can grasp the good?

This post doesn't come to a clear conclusion and I'd appreciate comments and suggestions.