Nun excommunicated for allowing abortion to save the life of a mother

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Beryana

And you are attempting to slap an oversimplified understanding of a social teaching on a complex social teaching. If you would like to read up on the social teaching please feel free to read Humane Vitae, Theology of the Body, or even just the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraphs 2270-2275).

Oh, I wouldn't dare, but there is no way to justify allowing a mother of four to die because the nonviable fetus in her uterus that is killing her can't be removed because it's a mortal sin.

I really don't care what the church's teachings on the matter are in reality, I just care that they should not be able to withhold a life saving procedure from a woman who is in their care when she has no choice whether or not she can be in their care. It is all well and good for them to deny care to women when there is another option for them across town, but when that woman is held hostage in their facility by her medical condition, the church is dealing her a death sentence by refusing to allow her medical team and family to treat her how they see fit.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The medical ethics of this is that there are equally effective forms of birth control that are not permanent. The age limitation is actually not based on doctors but on state laws.


But the saving her life part IS the abortion.

If it was all based on state laws, how come doctor shopping works within the same city even? There are doctors out there who impose their values on patients, particularly in a "but you'll want kids later" situation. It's possible that this is at least partially motivated by fear of a lawsuit later, I don't know.

And all other forms of birth control come with their own side effects. Shouldn't an informed adult be allowed to choose? One time cost vs. ongoing costs are important as well. (Argument not really directed at you, just tossing it out there)

I'm not really disagreeing with you on the abortion bit, they just argue that the tube itself could be considered a threat to the mother's health in addition to the pregnancy so they fix problem A which "just so happens" to fix problem B too. It's all working the system.

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Oh, I wouldn't dare, but there is no way to justify allowing a mother of four to die because the nonviable fetus in her uterus that is killing her can't be removed because it's a mortal sin.

I really don't care what the church's teachings on the matter are in reality, I just care that they should not be able to withhold a life saving procedure from a woman who is in their care when she has no choice whether or not she can be in their care. It is all well and good for them to deny care to women when there is another option for them across town, but when that woman is held hostage in their facility by her medical condition, the church is dealing her a death sentence by refusing to allow her medical team and family to treat her how they see fit.

I agree and I think as healthcare stays in the public eye that this will become a bigger issue as time moves on. These specific sort of situations are rare, and this one probably only made the news due to the excommunication. But, it does show that the hospital administrators did the 'right' thing, it was the backlash to that 'right thing' that was the issue.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

If it was all based on state laws, how come doctor shopping works within the same city even? There are doctors out there who impose their values on patients, particularly in a "but you'll want kids later" situation. It's possible that this is at least partially motivated by fear of a lawsuit later, I don't know.

And all other forms of birth control come with their own side effects. Shouldn't an informed adult be allowed to choose? One time cost vs. ongoing costs are important as well. (Argument not really directed at you, just tossing it out there)

Ah...that's a different problem. Medical ethics isn't practiced well by all physicians, and we don't get a book of rules to follow. There are specific laws governing tubal ligations (TLs) in each state regarding the age of the mother, consent forms, timing before labor when consent must be given for TLs to be legal. That being said, many medical procedures definitely have the doctor's own value system imposed on them. Some Catholic OB-GYNs won't even prescribe birth control pills. BUT...if you consult the medical ethics panel, they'll side with what is the standard, not what the individual doctor's personal beliefs might be. Also, TL has side effects as well. It is a surgery with all the risks of anesthesia and invasive procedures. Women with TLs have complaints of worsening pelvic pain and PMS about 3 months after surgery. No one knows why, but it's well documented.

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Oh, I wouldn't dare, but there is no way to justify allowing a mother of four to die because the nonviable fetus in her uterus that is killing her can't be removed because it's a mortal sin.

I really don't care what the church's teachings on the matter are in reality, I just care that they should not be able to withhold a life saving procedure from a woman who is in their care when she has no choice whether or not she can be in their care. It is all well and good for them to deny care to women when there is another option for them across town, but when that woman is held hostage in their facility by her medical condition, the church is dealing her a death sentence by refusing to allow her medical team and family to treat her how they see fit.

And you are saying there was absolutely no way the mother and baby could have both lived? The proper way to handle these issues is to attempt to save BOTH lives. Why is it that the mothers that give up their lives to save those of their unborn babies are looked down upon for their sacrifces? Mothers that have forgone cancer treatments as those treatments would have killed their babies.

The basic premise of the Catholic teaching on abortion is the sanctity of ALL human life and that someone has to fight for those that have no means to fight for themselves. You can view Catholic social teachings however you want - they aren't going to be changing anytime soon. Just because something is legal does not make it morally or ethically right.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Beryana

And you are saying there was absolutely no way the mother and baby could have both lived? The proper way to handle these issues is to attempt to save BOTH lives. Why is it that the mothers that give up their lives to save those of their unborn babies are looked down upon for their sacrifces? Mothers that have forgone cancer treatments as those treatments would have killed their babies.

The basic premise of the Catholic teaching on abortion is the sanctity of ALL human life and that someone has to fight for those that have no means to fight for themselves. You can view Catholic social teachings however you want - they aren't going to be changing anytime soon. Just because something is legal does not make it morally or ethically right.

The mother was dying in the ICU from right heart failure due to increased blood volume from her pregnancy. From what I read in the article, if they couldn't move her, she was probably on a ventilator and pressors and close to deaths door. No, both lives couldn't be saved. Mothers aren't looked down upon for sacrificing themselves for their children, but they shouldn't be forced to sacrifice themselves for their fetus when they have 4 LIVE children to raise!

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The mother was dying in the ICU from right heart failure due to increased blood volume from her pregnancy. From what I read in the article, if they couldn't move her, she was probably on a ventilator and pressors and close to deaths door. No, both lives couldn't be saved. Mothers aren't looked down upon for sacrificing themselves for their children, but they shouldn't be forced to sacrifice themselves for their fetus when they have 4 LIVE children to raise!

If she were on a ventilator, close to death, etc she could not have given informed consent. Maybe it WAS her wish to save the life of her child. Where was her husband in all this? Did he make the decision to kill his child? Is she raising the children all by herself? Anytime a parent dies it is a tragedy - be it car crash or other accident, medical condition, etc. But you are saying the child does not have a right to actual live, that the mother is more important because there are 4 other children. What if this had happened outside the 'legal window' to have an abortion?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Beryana

If she were on a ventilator, close to death, etc she could not have given informed consent. Maybe it WAS her wish to save the life of her child. Where was her husband in all this? Did he make the decision to kill his child? Is she raising the children all by herself? Anytime a parent dies it is a tragedy - be it car crash or other accident, medical condition, etc. But you are saying the child does not have a right to actual live, that the mother is more important because there are 4 other children. What if this had happened outside the 'legal window' to have an abortion?

They would have delivered the child early and put him/her in the NICU. See, I do have an answer for everything.

Are you saying that the father has no say in this? I can assure you that no physician would proceed with an abortion without a consent from the patient or family without going through the proper channels of the ethics committee. For all you know, she could have consented to the abortion before she degraded far enough to need intubation. The whole point is she was critically ill and unable to be moved to another facility. I have over ten years of medical experience (not just radiology since I also did two years of General Surgery), and when patients are too sick to be moved, they are on death's door.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Beryana

Why is it that the mothers that give up their lives to save those of their unborn babies are looked down upon for their sacrifces?

Personally, I look down upon such martyrdom-suicide because I consider the mother's life more important than the baby's life.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Oh, I wouldn't dare, but there is no way to justify allowing a mother of four to die because the nonviable fetus in her uterus that is killing her can't be removed because it's a mortal sin.

I really don't care what the church's teachings on the matter are in reality, I just care that they should not be able to withhold a life saving procedure from a woman who is in their care when she has no choice whether or not she can be in their care. It is all well and good for them to deny care to women when there is another option for them across town, but when that woman is held hostage in their facility by her medical condition, the church is dealing her a death sentence by refusing to allow her medical team and family to treat her how they see fit.

Was the fetus nonviable for any other reason in this case, other than it would die because it killed the mother? My understanding of the original case was that there wasn't anything wrong with fetus or pregnancy. Did I miss something?

I mention this for reasons other than my reading skills, but because that's why the OP case can't really be compared to the ectopic pregnancy stuff in terms of double effect.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Was the fetus nonviable for any other reason in this case, other than it would die because it killed the mother? My understanding of the original case was that there wasn't anything wrong with fetus or pregnancy. Did I miss something?

I mention this for reasons other than my reading skills, but because that's why the OP case can't really be compared to the ectopic pregnancy stuff in terms of double effect.

QFP.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Was the fetus nonviable for any other reason in this case, other than it would die because it killed the mother? My understanding of the original case was that there wasn't anything wrong with fetus or pregnancy. Did I miss something?

Well, the mother was only 11 weeks along - outside of those of us who are pro-abortion, is that generally considered non-viable?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by agzg

Well, the mother was only 11 weeks along - outside of those of us who are pro-abortion, is that generally considered non-viable?

Not a doctor but I doubt it. Isn't pregnancy usually about 40 weeks give or take?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by agzg

Well, the mother was only 11 weeks along - outside of those of us who are pro-abortion, is that generally considered non-viable?

Ohhh, I read it as a comment about the pregnancy not being able to progress normally, rather than nonviable outside the womb right then.

Maybe my post really is about my reading skills.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Was the fetus nonviable for any other reason in this case, other than it would die because it killed the mother? My understanding of the original case was that there wasn't anything wrong with fetus or pregnancy. Did I miss something?

I mention this for reasons other than my reading skills, but because that's why the OP case can't really be compared to the ectopic pregnancy stuff in terms of double effect.

That's where this case would be the same as an ectopic. Ectopic pregnancies have nothing wrong with the fetus. They are just located outside of the uterus. There are actually a lot of cases in the literature where ectopic fetuses are carried to term and survive as normal babies. The only thing "wrong" with these fetuses is that they kill the mothers.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

The only thing "wrong" with these fetuses is that they kill the mothers.

There's nothing funny about this topic, but this statement made me think of "It's Alive."