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

IF 0.4 Q4 MEDICAL ETHICS
Linacre Quarterly Pub Date : 2023-08-01 Epub Date: 2022-11-18 DOI:10.1177/00243639221116218
Steven Dezort
{"title":"Infecundity and the Principle of Double Effect in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith's 2018 <i>Responsum</i> on Hysterectomy.","authors":"Steven Dezort","doi":"10.1177/00243639221116218","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In a <i>responsum</i> 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 <i>responsa</i> 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 <i>responsa</i> 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<i>sponsum</i> is evaluated in terms of the PDE as concerning infecundity, such hysterectomy is found to meet all four conditions and is therefore permissible.</p>","PeriodicalId":44238,"journal":{"name":"Linacre Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10566496/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Linacre Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00243639221116218","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/11/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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 responsum is evaluated in terms of the PDE as concerning infecundity, such hysterectomy is found to meet all four conditions and is therefore permissible.

信仰教义公理会2018年关于子宫切除术的回应中的感染和双重效应原则。
在2018年的一份回复中,信仰公理会(CDF)判断,当子宫无法使任何妊娠足月时,子宫切除术是允许的,这引发了一个问题,即为什么这种子宫切除术不构成1975年和1993年之前的回复所禁止的直接绝育。本文概述了这些神学观点,包括支持和反对,涉及CDF 2018年的决定与其1993年的回应和双重效应原则(PDE)的一致性。它认为,如果子宫切除术被视为与不孕、无法活产有关,则可以应用双重效应原理(PDE)来解释CDF的判断。在涉及绝育的子宫切除术的情况下,对妇女的生命保护(良好效果)与绝育(不良效果)进行评估。在涉及不孕的子宫切除术病例中,与切除子宫(不良影响)相比,评估无流产的性交(良好效果)。本文认为,当CDF在其2018年的回复中描述的子宫切除术根据PDE评估为不孕时,发现这种子宫切除术符合所有四个条件,因此是允许的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Linacre Quarterly
Linacre Quarterly MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
40.00%
发文量
57
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信