Initial Reactions to the Recent CDF Responsum on Hysterectomy

Austriaco, Nicanor Pier Giorgio; Smith, Janet E.; Bedford, Elliott Louis; Stephens, Travis; McCarthy, C. Ryan

doi:10.5840/ncbq201818468

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Joshua Schulz and William Hamant (2020) have criticized the judgement of the CDF and have considered a double effect analysis similar to that offered by Austriaco (2018). Rather than identifying the good effect as the woman’s long-term health, however, Schulz and Hamant (2020) instead identify “ mental or spiritual health” as the good effect and sterilization as the bad effect produced by the hysterectomy in the 2018 case (p. 191).…”

Section: The Controversy Of the 2018 Responsummentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other commentators have taken different perspectives on the 2018 case but have nevertheless attempted to apply the PDE to explain the responsum . Nicanor Austriaco (2018) endorsed the judgement of the CDF and has attempted to apply the PDE to explain the responsum : “Here, the sterilization is a foreseen but unintended consequence of a surgical act whose object is to remove a defective organ whose continued presence in the woman’s body places her health and long-term well-being at risk” (p. 652). He further comments that the PDE cannot be used to justify tubal ligation because that would constitute intentional sterilization (p. 652).…”

Section: The Controversy Of the 2018 Responsummentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They also generally agree that this same case of hysterectomy meets the conditions of the PDE (Ethicists of the National Catholic Bioethics Center 2018; Bedford, Stephens, McCarthy 2018; Catron 2019; Diem 2019; Schulz and Hamant 2020). By contrast, commentators have questioned the applicability of the PDE to the 2018 case, arguing either that an application of the PDE to this case would entail effects similar to those in the 1993 responsa (Austriaco 2018), or that the PDE is not applicable to the case at all (Diem 2019, Schulz and Hamant 2020). This paper, however, will argue that the PDE is indeed applicable to the 2018 case but that commentators have misidentified the relevant effects to be evaluated because they have misconstrued the case as concerning sterility when it actually concerns infecundity .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Infecundity and the Principle of Double Effect in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2018 Responsum on Hysterectomy

Dezort

2022

Linacre Q

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a responsum from 2018, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) judged hysterectomy as permissible when a uterus is unable to bring any pregnancy to term, raising the question of why such hysterectomy does not constitute direct sterilization forbidden by previous responsa from 1975 and 1993. This paper outlines these theological views, both supportive and against, concerning the consistency of the CDF’s 2018 decision with both its 1993 responsa and the Principle of Double Effect (PDE). It argues that the Principle of Double Effect (PDE) can be applied to explain the CDF’s judgement, provided that the hysterectomy is regarded as concerning infecundity, the inability to have a live birth. In cases of hysterectomy concerning sterilization, the preservation of the woman’s life (the good effect) is evaluated against her sterilization (the bad effect). In cases of hysterectomy concerning infecundity, sexual intercourse without miscarriages (the good effect) is evaluated against the removal of the uterus (the bad effect). This paper argues that, when the hysterectomy described by the CDF in its 2018 re sponsum is evaluated in terms of the PDE as concerning infecundity, such hysterectomy is found to meet all four conditions and is therefore permissible.

show abstract

Section: The Controversy Of the 2018 Responsummentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Controversy Of the 2018 Responsummentioning

confidence: 99%