The principle of double effect cannot be used in this instance since every marital sexual act must be open to life. The use of a condom, even when used to attempt to prevent a disease, stills impairs the marital act and is morally and intrinsically wrong.
This argument of lesser/greater evil cannot be applied in this case. I'm not sure what sort of consolation one could give married couples in this situation, except perhaps to suffer the consequences of engaging in the marital act with the fullness of love, or abstain - in effect, to accept and do the will of God.
So, every fetus does not have the right to life, even if a diseased uterus would result in the loss of life of the mother?
The purpose of the use of the condom here is to prevent exposure to death, just as the purpose of removing a diseased uterus is to save the woman's life. The loss of the fetus, and contraception, are secondary effects.
I'm not sure what sort of consolation one could give married couples in this situation, except perhaps to suffer the consequences of engaging in the marital act with the fullness of love, or abstain - in effect, to accept and do the will of God.
So, in essence, the woman, whose husband insists on exposing her to the same sentence of death he is under, is just out of luck. Grin and bear it.
Is it the will of God that this woman die, if that can be prevented, especially if she has other children?
I don't follow your logic as easily as you write it.
Please explain further.