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

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Hope I wasn't misquoting or miscontruing you. I was referring to this:Like I said, I think we come down in the same spot on this one; it's just the lawyer in me want's precision in arguments and accurate understanding of other's positions.

Originally Posted by MysticCat
But what you said is "we're not really terminating a pregnancy." That's the part that I think is a mischaracterization. There's a difference between "we're doing this to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" and "we're not really terminating a pregnancy."

Okay....now I understand what you're trying to say! I was completely on a different page than you!
How is "we're going to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" when performing an abortion for an ectopic pregnancy and different than "we're going to save the mother's life/our goal is not to terminate a pregnancy" when performing an abortion for a patient dying from right heart failure? That's where I get lost in all this.

[DrPhil]

This thread might be the first time I read one of dekeguy's posts. Get those quotes together.

[Drolefille]

If I bought another burrito I would be eating it.

(not really, I'd be ill)

[AGDee]

Here is the problem, as I see it:

Do Nothing: Mother and fetus die
Do Something: fetus dies

In doing nothing, you are aborting the baby and killing the mother. Is action the only way to abort? No. In this case, inaction would also result in an abortion, albeit, a spontaneous one. It is a passive abortion.
In doing something, you are only aborting the baby. This is an active abortion.

Is it better to have a passive abortion and lose another life or have an active abortion? Either way, there is an abortion.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Here is the problem, as I see it:

Do Nothing: Mother and fetus die
Do Something: fetus dies

In doing nothing, you are aborting the baby and killing the mother. Is action the only way to abort? No. In this case, inaction would also result in an abortion, albeit, a spontaneous one. It is a passive abortion.
In doing something, you are only aborting the baby. This is an active abortion.

Is it better to have a passive abortion and lose another life or have an active abortion? Either way, there is an abortion.

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.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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?

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Here is the problem, as I see it:

Do Nothing: Mother and fetus die
Do Something: fetus dies

In doing nothing, you are aborting the baby and killing the mother. Is action the only way to abort? No. In this case, inaction would also result in an abortion, albeit, a spontaneous one. It is a passive abortion.
In doing something, you are only aborting the baby. This is an active abortion.

Is it better to have a passive abortion and lose another life or have an active abortion? Either way, there is an abortion.

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

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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.

Yeah basically that.

Originally Posted by AGDee

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?

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.

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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

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.

[AGDee]

In this situation, yes, that was my understanding.

[AGDee]

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by AGDee

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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Psi U MC Vito

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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

[Psi U MC Vito]

Tubals?