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

[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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

re the question, my guess is:

Many doctors won't sterilize younger women or women who haven't had kids even though they have decided that they do not ever want children or only want the number of children they have currently. They justify this based on the fact that the women might 'change their minds' although you rarely see a doctor question a woman who chooses to get pregnant similarly even though both choices are long term commitments.

My answer to that is that those doctors are, in short, doing it wrong.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

The bolded is, as I understand it, a mischaracterization of the Catholic perspective. There's no "we're not really terminating the pregnancy" going on; everyone knows full well that will happen. But they are not engaging in the procedure for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy; they're doing for the purpose of saving a life, even though termination of the pregnancy will be an unavoidable consequence.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

re the question, my guess is:

Many doctors won't sterilize younger women or women who haven't had kids even though they have decided that they do not ever want children or only want the number of children they have currently. They justify this based on the fact that the women might 'change their minds' although you rarely see a doctor question a woman who chooses to get pregnant similarly even though both choices are long term commitments.

My answer to that is that those doctors are, in short, doing it wrong.

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.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

The bolded is, as I understand it, a mischaracterization of the Catholic perspective. There's no "we're not really terminating the pregnancy" going on; everyone knows full well that will happen. But they are not engaging in the procedure for the purpose of terminating the pregnancy; they're doing for the purpose of saving a life, even though termination of the pregnancy will be an unavoidable consequence.

But the saving her life part IS the abortion.

[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 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!

[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.