I think in this case it would be considered better to have an passive abortion. It would have been lumped in with "He works in mysterious ways." since it would have been the result of natural causes, not a act of man.

See, and I would consider this killing the mother. Is it not an act of man to withhold treatment intentionally when someone can be saved?

Not sure if it was stated, but was it positive that by aborting the fetus that the mother would be saved?

In this situation, yes, that was my understanding.

Philosophical debate since forever. Do nothing 2 people die, pull a lever and you kill one to save the other, could you pull the lever and kill someone even if you know it saves another? What if you had to stab them? What if you just tell someone else to do it?

But the 'passive abortion' isn't an unnatural intrusion causing the death it's the death of the mother which causes the death of the fetus

Yeah basically that.
Actually, no. If my recollection of extraordinary measures and ethics is correct, for example, withholding a feeding tube is NOT wrong, pulling a feeding tube for someone in a coma is considered euthanasia and wrong. Per the Church that is. So letting life happen not wrong, intervening to cause harm, wrong.

I believe it did save her actually. But my understanding is the condition was either caused or exacerbated by the pregnancy and it was the burden of the fetus that caused the problem.

I wasn't sure of that. I lapsed before getting to the point where that concerned me on a moral level.

I'm not 100% certain if I'm right on that, but that's what I recall. There was an argument that withholding the feeding tube was also wrong, but I don't think it was a determination.

That would make sense though. Again part of the "God wills it" line of thought. Not sure I agree with it myself, but I understand it.

Yeah thats how I am with most of this. I get it. I can see where they're coming from and often argue from their side, but I don't really agree.

I left the church out of my question specifically :) I'm thinking more of the ethics. Legally, I would say that if they had done nothing, they could be sued for wrongful death or malpractice, couldn't they? If a person goes to an ER for life saving treatment, they cannot be turned away for lack of ability to pay. Yet, the hospital can refuse treatment for their own (not her) religious reasons? It's definitely an ethical dilemma.

Catholic hospitals have some specific exemptions against having to provide abortions (as well as BC and IVF). I don't know if they'll always get away with it, but that's the current state of affairs. Docs who work there know it's part of the deal.

Makes sense. Otherwise they would be forced to violate their beliefs, which would go against the Constitution.

Yeah it's a weird balance though because they do receive federal money which means they could probably be forced, however they provide like... 1/3 of healthcare so you wouldn't really want them to close.

They can't be forced, they just wouldn't be eligible to receive the federal money. And I don't know if that is the case or not.

Right but it's essentially forced. Federal money includes, iirc reimbursements for medicare among other things. You would seriously struggle to keep a hospital running without it.

I'm quoting the 1/3 off of a site, but either way I know in the cities around here there are 2-3 hospitals and usually one is Catholic.