A choice between your survival, and your unborn child's

[BiologyBrain]

One of the tangential but nevertheless very operative factors in medical advice is the **legal **

issue. it is an issue that no one has brought up. It might be on one of the similar threads on this topic, but I have read most of the previous discussions, and don’t recall that being addressed.

The OP is talking about an extremely high-risk pregnancy. High-risk pregnancy, to doctors, means two things: risk to child and/or risk to mother. The failure of a doctor to inform fully as to possible and probable medical consequences will tend to result in a lawsuit of gigantic proportions, which, further, can end his or her practice. Along with that full information, it is expected that the doctor will advise the patient – provide an opinion as to the outcome most likely to ensure the mother’s safety. The patient & the family is not interested in just hearing: “You have a ___% of this happening and a ___% of that happening.” The next expected sentence is always, “Therefore, I advise you to _________.” And the advice is expected to lean toward the most cautious advice.

Good for Gianna Beretta Molla. I know all about her. However, in a way, understand that she did assent to a kind of passive suicide, as she understood the extremely high risk, but made a decision that, should it come to one life over another, she was willing to sacrifice her own. In this country, in the 21st century, I’ll bet that in a non-Catholic hospital, should a mother make an identical decision, the doctor either has a tape recorder handy, an army of lawyers standing there, or is making profuse notes for the file.

Gianna Beretta Molla preferred her unborn child’s life to her own. In this country, in this day, if a doctor believes with his advanced medical experience that a choice between two lives is indicated, he will advise for saving the mother’s. That doesn’t mean that the mother is obliged to accept the advice. But he is legally obliged to communicate likely outcomes, and in our litigious society, he is from a practical viewpoint obliged to suggest the better or best of several options.

Perhaps Catholic doctors, or doctors practicing in Catholic hospitals, feel perfectly safe performing legal high-wire acts, but I’ll tell you that other doctors do not.

The OP wasn’t asking for the legal perspective - OP was asking for the moral perspective.

Also, to my knowledge all doctors require someone to sign a release prior to any type of procedure/surgery/etc indicating that they should not be held liable for the outcome, they explained the risks, benefits, possible outcomes, etc with you and you understand them as such. That’s really all that’s necessary even in a situation such as this. Caring for both mother & child is not a ‘high wire act’, it is normal, responsible, compassionate ob/gyn practice. Even if the doctor doesn’t give exact percentages, they are obligated to give all the possible benefits, risks, outcomes, etc. They also advise one way or another, but the ultimate decision is the patient’s (or family depending on the situation). Once the doctor fufills their obligation of informing the patient, its up to the patient to ask any pertinent questions - such as (in this instance) what will happen to the baby? I will concede that there may be more release statements needed to undergo something risky, but that’s typical for any risky procedure - whether you’re pregnant or not.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The OP wasn’t asking for the legal perspective - OP was asking for the moral perspective.

If you don’t know that the two perspectives are inexorably linked in the way medicine is practiced in our secular country, then you don’t understand why one question cannot be answered on its own. I know what the OP asked. The question cannot be answered in a vacuum.

Doesn’t matter about all the releases that “need to be signed” - yadayada – the facts as the plaintiff’s lawyers will present them – and make no mistake – they will present them this way in court, and there **will **be a lawsuit if death to the mother results-- is that the doctor is expected to indicate the relative safety/danger to the mother’s life, not only the child’s. Further, there will be an implied responsibility to recommend a course of action to prevent death to the mother. Those pieces of paper you mention are only that: pieces of paper. They are operative and important in the case of unforeseen, unpredictable situations that would not have applied as a possible risk to the mother in a particular case where an apparently normal birth would be expected, or high-risk to the child without high risk to the mother would be indicated. A high-risk pregnancy by definition is not in such an “unforeseen” category.

 

[BiologyBrain]

If you don’t know that the two perspectives are inexorably linked in the way medicine is practiced in our secular country, then you don’t understand why one question cannot be answered on its own. I know what the OP asked. The question cannot be answered in a vacuum.

Actually, I disagree w/ your statement that in this country moral & legal perspectives are both included in how doctors treat patients. Theoretically that may be true, but when doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, euthanasia, etc becoming more & more prevalent, there’s some definitive lacking in the moral aspect, even while the legal aspect is technically present.

Doesn’t matter about all the releases that “need to be signed” - yadayada – the facts as the plaintiff’s lawyers will present them – and make no mistake – they will present them this way in court, and there **will **

be a lawsuit if death to the mother results-- is that the doctor is expected to indicate the relative safety/danger to the mother’s life, not only the child’s. Further, there will be an implied responsibility to recommend a course of action to prevent death to the mother. Those pieces of paper you mention are only that: pieces of paper. They are operative and important in the case of unforeseen, unpredictable situations that would not have applied as a possible risk to the mother in a particular case where an apparently normal birth would be expected, or high-risk to the child without high risk to the mother would be indicated. A high-risk pregnancy by definition is not in such an “unforeseen” category.

If the ‘piece of paper’ doesn’t matter, why go through the rigamorole of filling them out? Mother and/or child death is actually an unforeseen consequence even of a high-risk pregnancy as long as the mother has gotten proper pre-natal care. In this day & age high-risk pregnancy can be anything from seriously life-threatening, to somewhat inconvenient sometimes. However, in an instance where a woman is diagnosed w/ a high-risk pregnancy, more attention, pre-natal care, information, etc is given to her to prevent any harm from happening to her or her child. It is considered unforeseen for her to die when properly cared for - regardless of the condition.

 

[Holly3278]

In such a case, it would be advisable for the woman to practice natural family planning instead of trying to conceive. However, if she does conceive, it would be gravely immoral for her to abort the child regardless of the fact that she would have a low chance of survival should she go through with the pregnancy. It is never ok to get a direct abortion, not even when the mother’s life is in danger. Indirect abortion, on the other hand, such as the removal of a fallopian tube that contains a child within it, without directly killing the child, would not be immoral.