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

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I don't disagree with where you end up. But from the Catholic Church's perspective, as I understand it (and I'm not Catholic), there is a difference.

In the ectopic pregnancy, the understanding is that the intent is not to terminate the pregnancy; termination of the pregnancy is an unavoidable side effect, but it's not the reason for the procedure. The intent is to save the mother's life.

Like I say, I think this line of reasoning can lead to tragic results. But the principle of double effect itself can be a useful tool and has been a useful tool for centuries. The rub comes in specific applications.

Surgery for ectopic pregnancy is done to save the life of the mother ONLY when done for Ruptured ectopic pregnancy. This is a huge distinction because patients with ectopic pregnancy frequently come in with complaints such as bleeding and abdominal pain prior to having life threatening complications from the ectopic pregnancy. Would you have to wait until you had a life threatening complication before the surgery is okay? When the ectopic is identified, surgery or methotrexate therapy is done immediately to terminate the pregnancy because the pregnancy is not viable and has a high likelihood of killing the mother if not addressed. This is actually the most common presentation of ectopic pregnancy, which is quite similar to the situation in the OP.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Surgery for ectopic pregnancy is done to save the life of the mother ONLY when done for Ruptured ectopic pregnancy. This is a huge distinction because patients with ectopic pregnancy frequently come in with complaints such as bleeding and abdominal pain prior to having life threatening complications from the ectopic pregnancy. Would you have to wait until you had a life threatening complication before the surgery is okay? When the ectopic is identified, surgery or methotrexate therapy is done immediately to terminate the pregnancy because the pregnancy is not viable and has a high likelihood of killing the mother if not addressed. This is actually the most common presentation of ectopic pregnancy, which is quite similar to the situation in the OP.

You're like... 12 steps past where my understanding of ectopic pregnancy ends But I found this Catholics United for the Faith

There is no treatment available that can guarantee the life of both. The Church has moral principles that can be applied in ruling out some options, but she has not officially instructed the faithful as to which treatments are morally licit and which are illicit. Most reputable moral theologians, as discussed below, accept full or partial salpingectomy (removal of the fallopian tube), as a morally acceptable medical intervention in the case of a tubal pregnancy.

--------
· In the case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.[2]

· Operations, treatments and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child.[3]

This distinction is derived from a moral principle called “double effect.” When a choice will likely bring about both an intended desirable effect and also an unintended, undesirable effect, the principle of double effect can be applied to evaluate the morality of the choice. The chosen act is morally licit when (a) the action itself is good, (b) the intended effect is good, and (c) the unintended, evil effect is not greater in proportion to the good effect. For example, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not” (Catechism, no. 2263, citing St. Thomas Aquinas).

You can read the whole thing for a full explanation. But in short:

The majority of Catholic moralists, while rejecting MTX or a salpingostomy, regard a salpingectomy as different in kind and thus licit according to the principle of double effect.

[Munchkin03]

It's shit like this that makes me know I probably won't miss Christianity.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

It's shit like this that makes me know I probably won't miss Christianity.

I don't think this has anything to do with Christianity.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

You're like... 12 steps past where my understanding of ectopic pregnancy ends But I found this Catholics United for the Faith



You can read the whole thing for a full explanation. But in short:

Thanks for the explanation, it doesn't really answer my question, but basically that is the problem when you let people trained in areas other than medicine make decisions involving very complicated medical problems. These justifications are very simplistic and self-serving. Medically, the distinctions are meaningless.

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Thanks for the explanation, it doesn't really answer my question, but basically that is the problem when you let people trained in areas other than medicine make decisions involving very complicated medical problems. These justifications are very simplistic and self-serving. Medically, the distinctions are meaningless.

But medicine does have morals and ethics, correct? Upon what are those based? are they just arbitrary or is there reasons behind them? Catholic social teachings are no different.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Beryana

But medicine does have morals and ethics, correct? Upon what are those based? are they just arbitrary or is there reasons behind them? Catholic social teachings are no different.

Medical ethics are based on an understanding of the medical issues. The problem with slapping a basic religious tenet onto a complex medical issue is that it becomes arbitrary as I have easily pointed out. In the end, people terminate their ectopic pregnancies and just fall in under the "all ectopics are the same" mentality that protects them from being excommunicated. In actuality, they are no different than the women in the case we are discussing from the beginning. I understand that the church has to evolve over time, but using Thomas Aquinas to determine how to categorize medical therapies that didn't exist during his time is strange. How about we have some current church leaders put in some thought on the matter?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Medical ethics are based on an understanding of the medical issues. The problem with slapping a basic religious tenet onto a complex medical issue is that it becomes arbitrary as I have easily pointed out. In the end, people terminate their ectopic pregnancies and just fall in under the "all ectopics are the same" mentality that protects them from being excommunicated. In actuality, they are no different than the women in the case we are discussing from the beginning. I understand that the church has to evolve over time, but using Thomas Aquinas to determine how to categorize medical therapies that didn't exist during his time is strange. How about we have some current church leaders put in some thought on the matter?

Well the modern Catholic Church has been known for a while being rather hide bound. And there is a difference I think between a standard tubal pregnancy and this case. But you never answered our question. You said that medical ethics are all about medical decisions? Then explain why my friends can't get their tubes tied for instance.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Well the modern Catholic Church has been known for a while being rather hide bound. And there is a difference I think between a standard tubal pregnancy and this case. But you never answered our question. You said that medical ethics are all about medical decisions? Then explain why my friends can't get their tubes tied for instance.

Bold- There is a difference. It's a different diagnosis. The way they are the same is that both will kill the mother, and both require a termination of the pregnancy to save the life of the mother. By calling it a "salpingectomy", catholics have given themselves a little out, like, oh, I'm not really terminating the pregnancy, I'm just cutting out the fallopian tube. No, you are cutting out the misplaced (ectopic) pregnancy that is growing into the wrong structures and threatening to KILL the mother. Ectopic pregnancies are not always in the fallopian tubes either. They can occur on the ovary, in the peritoneal cavity, in the junction between the fallopian tube and uterus. You don't always have to remove another structure to remove the ectopic, either. It is an abortion.

Underline- I don't understand your question.

[Beryana]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Medical ethics are based on an understanding of the medical issues. The problem with slapping a basic religious tenet onto a complex medical issue is that it becomes arbitrary as I have easily pointed out.

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).

[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 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).

She DISAGREES with the social teaching and is arguing, fairly in my opinion, that pretending that X procedure is just a "whoops fetus died" and not an abortive procedure is little more than a mind game.

Provide some discussion rather than looking down on other people.

Don't assume that some of us are not familiar with the material or the discussions since then.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

Thanks for the explanation, it doesn't really answer my question, but basically that is the problem when you let people trained in areas other than medicine make decisions involving very complicated medical problems. These justifications are very simplistic and self-serving. Medically, the distinctions are meaningless.

Yes medically the distinctions are meaningless. But this is more about what the moral and ethical choice is. What about doctors that refuse to perform abortions for instance?

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

Yes medically the distinctions are meaningless. But this is more about what the moral and ethical choice is. What about doctors that refuse to perform abortions for instance?

Doctors who perform terminations for ectopics and other early pregnancies to save the mother's life do not call them abortions. Most OB-GYNs do NOT perform abortions but do perform these necessary procedures for their patients.