- Mar 3, 2006
- 33,142
- 11,356
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Just popping back in briefly to post this article. Another good source I just found that explains how to implement and how not to implement Directive 36 taking into account both medical experts and moral theology. It supports the ovulation testing method as do the Bishops: link
From the article (the whole article is worth a read, I am only citing the part from the conclusion on the ethical way to implement the USCCB directive that was approved by the body of Bishops in general assembly in 2001:
Ovulation testing
The pregnancy-only testing method therefore results in the administering of what will nearly always be unnecessary and harmful drugs to women who have already gone through a terrible ordeal. It also sends out a message that the possible lives of unborn children are to be accorded no significant weight in calculating how best one should act in tragic circumstances.
In contrast to this, the ovulation-testing method tests for pre-existing pregnancy, and also attempts to ascertain whether the raped woman is at or approaching the time of ovulation in order to work out whether any new conception is likely to result from the recent assault.(12) In this method, “emergency contraception”(13) is offered only if the pregnancy test is negative and empirical and personal data indicate that the woman is not at or near the time of ovulation. The simple testing gives medical staff the information to know whether they can safely intervene to prevent the release of a woman’s ovum, or prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. In this way, any child conceived is exposed to very little risk indeed and a woman treated can be reassured that she was not pregnant.
It is this empirically and ethically sound approach that truly respects women and children, and it is this approach that I believe is in keeping with the intention of Directive 36.
[12] Details of a widely adopted protocol on ovulation testing are outlined in St Francis Medical Centre, “Interim Protocol, Sexual Assault: Contraceptive Treatment Component”, Peoria, IL, (October 1995).
[13] It has been suggested that a single, moderate dose of estrogen may be sufficient to delay ovulation while at the same time being very unlikely to bring about any harm to a pregnancy if ovulation had already occurred, though this requires further investigation. If such were the case, estrogen treatment would be the ethically preferable option. See Tonti-Filippini N. & Walsh M., “Postcoital Intervention”, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 4: 275-289 (2004).
Also the Vatican has a conference in May and the Vatican through the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Health Workers will soon be issuing the Charter for Health Care Workers at some point in 2011. So we can see if they address this issue.
From the article (the whole article is worth a read, I am only citing the part from the conclusion on the ethical way to implement the USCCB directive that was approved by the body of Bishops in general assembly in 2001:
Ovulation testing
The pregnancy-only testing method therefore results in the administering of what will nearly always be unnecessary and harmful drugs to women who have already gone through a terrible ordeal. It also sends out a message that the possible lives of unborn children are to be accorded no significant weight in calculating how best one should act in tragic circumstances.
In contrast to this, the ovulation-testing method tests for pre-existing pregnancy, and also attempts to ascertain whether the raped woman is at or approaching the time of ovulation in order to work out whether any new conception is likely to result from the recent assault.(12) In this method, “emergency contraception”(13) is offered only if the pregnancy test is negative and empirical and personal data indicate that the woman is not at or near the time of ovulation. The simple testing gives medical staff the information to know whether they can safely intervene to prevent the release of a woman’s ovum, or prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. In this way, any child conceived is exposed to very little risk indeed and a woman treated can be reassured that she was not pregnant.
It is this empirically and ethically sound approach that truly respects women and children, and it is this approach that I believe is in keeping with the intention of Directive 36.
[12] Details of a widely adopted protocol on ovulation testing are outlined in St Francis Medical Centre, “Interim Protocol, Sexual Assault: Contraceptive Treatment Component”, Peoria, IL, (October 1995).
[13] It has been suggested that a single, moderate dose of estrogen may be sufficient to delay ovulation while at the same time being very unlikely to bring about any harm to a pregnancy if ovulation had already occurred, though this requires further investigation. If such were the case, estrogen treatment would be the ethically preferable option. See Tonti-Filippini N. & Walsh M., “Postcoital Intervention”, National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 4: 275-289 (2004).
Also the Vatican has a conference in May and the Vatican through the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Health Workers will soon be issuing the Charter for Health Care Workers at some point in 2011. So we can see if they address this issue.
Upvote
0
