Bad reactions to
prescription drugs kill more Americans annually than die on the
nation's highways.
It is a well known fact that almost every
drug we take to fix something in our bodies also breaks something
else. Listen to the litany of side effects in television ads or read
the many contraindications that come with your next prescription.
Further, many, many drugs are not natural biochemicals but are
synthetic and thus unnatural. Thus, the taking of most
pharmaceuticals has intrinsically evil components, both being
unnatural/synthetic and inhibiting MANY normal biological functions.
This is overcome, morally, by Aquinas' doctrine of
double-effect, which is OT in this consideration, which was merely
to provide an example of medications that break what isn't broken.
But let's pursue double effect anyway. If the Church allows
a woman to take birth control to overcome her complexion problems,
even though it has contraceptive efficacy at the same time, because
the reason for the action (clearing up one's complexion) is
proportional to the seriousness of the indirect bad effect
(contraception), then what does this have to say about the parvity
of matter issue and the concept of proportionality in determining
ABC to be gravely evil?
At any rate, breaking what ain't
broken through medication may be an indirect effect but, once
contraindications and side effects are known, it can hardly be
claimed that it is unforeseen although obviously it can be claimed
to be unintended, except in the cases of interfering with normal
biological and circadian rhythms associated with the sleep -wake
cycle, or appetite suppressors, or steroid catabolism.
See
http://www.steroidlaw.com/article_full.asp?id=8 where the following
was excerpted:
The concept of "natural" is quite complex,
and becomes even more perplexing when abutted against the concept of
"bodybuilding." The many health supplements sold by health food
stores raise other interesting issues, further complicating the
evaluation of what is "natural." Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is sold
as a natural food supplement. But is it "natural" to ingest Vitamin
C not by the ingestion of various fruits and foods, but by
swallowing it whole in processed tablet form? Further, how can
anyone argue that it's "natural" to take two, four or even more
grams of Vitamin C daily - so-called "megadoses" - when nobody could
possibly consume such quantities by eating food? Another example is
creatine monohydrate, a substance that has recently been widely
marketed as a supplement for building muscle. Red meat contains
small quantities of creatine. But is it "natural" to consume five,
ten or (during so-called "loading phases") up to a whopping thirty
grams of creatine daily, when such amounts could only be consumed
through artificially manufactured products? And yet, these wildly
"un-natural" quantities are routinely consumed by many so-called
"natural" athletes. These "natural" athletes have convinced
themselves that such extreme dietary supplement practices are
perfectly natural, but for years have drawn a bright line to
distinguish the difference between natural and non-natural athletes:
the use of supplemental androgens. All supplemental androgens,
including anabolic steroids, are derivatives of testosterone, a
naturally-occurring hormone in both men and women. But unlike the
athlete taking Vitamin C capsules or creatine powder to enhance his
performance, one taking supplemental testosterone tablets is no
longer considered "natural" and one taking supplemental testosterone
injections is even less natural. (Ironically, the more hazardous
anabolic steroids are orally ingested.)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
I'm still waiting for an example of a medication that a
healthy person takes to break something that isn't broken, with the
exception of contraceptives, of course.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Actually eating and drinking when one is not hungry or
thirsty is a sin. They both fall under the sin of glutony. One of
the seven deadly sins.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
It seems like openness to life and unitive goals for a
relationship are good values. There are lots of good values. What
makes meeting this or that value discovered in natural law very
serious or not so serious. Even if one shares these values, what
reasons are given by the Church to make attaining some values more
important than others? For example, it seems like the natural law
would reveal that eating is for nourishment and drinking is to stay
hydrated. Why isn't it evil to eat when one is not really hungry or
in need of food? Why isn't it perverted and sinful to drink when one
isn't thirsty? Why are murder and masturbation both grave matters?
Why is birth control a mortal sin and not a venial sin? Seriously.
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Replying to:
Questions were asked below about these topics, and, presumably,
why the Church condemns them.
In the case of homosexual sex,
it's obvious that this cannot ever meet the criteria for openness to
life, not in any act, nor in the relationship as a whole. Same goes
for masturbation, which doesn't even satisfy any unitive aspect, but
is entirely self-focused.
Note that the Catechism of the
Catholic Church recognizes that masturbation needs to be considered
in the context of one's development, and psychological state.
Other questions?
Comments? | |
