M
"A Terrible Choice: Her Life Or Her Child's." The Story of What a Mother Did
- Status
meltzerboy
New member
This is a sad and, at the same time, heart-warming and heroic story of a woman’s and her husband’s decision to sacrifice her own life so that her child might be born. I also note that every step of the way this was the family’s choice. In such extreme situations, I believe it is up to the woman and her family to ultimately decide what their course of action should be. And it is also why I disagree with both Orthodox Judaism’s belief that it is required (not merely permissible) for a woman to have an abortion in life-or-death cases such as this, as well as with the Catholic Church, which believes an abortion is not permissible to save the life of the mother.
V
Viki63
Guest
The Catholic Church does not permit abortion, but Elizabeth could have gone ahead with the recommended treatment if she had chosen to, just as women can have an ectopic pregnancy removed to save their lives, even though it results in the death of the fetus. The only thing not permitted is direct killing of the fetus.
I suspect that even if Elizabeth had had more treatment, the cancer would have metastasized. However I admire her for her actions, and am sure that she will be praying for her daughter from heaven.
.
.
L
Lily_Bernans
Guest
Well, the fetus is going to die even if a mother does not have an ectopic pregnancy removed. It cannot possibly grow to an age to be viable outside of the womb when it is in a Fallopian tube. The minute it attaches in the Fallopian tube, it is doomed to die, so that’s why a removal is allowed by the Church.
Mary_Gail_36
New member
I had a question. I know you posted about the Orthodox position of it being medically required, but is there any guidance on what types of scenarios it being medically required?
For example, during my last pregnancy I suffered a placental abruption.
That could be fatal for both mom and baby. Baby was delivered prematurely, he’s 6 years old now. I’m hoping that my type of scenario abortion isn’t “required”.
Also as medical breakthroughs happen, often babies survive and do well when born prematurely, even at younger and younger ages. I saw a 24 week baby while my son was in the NICU.
I guess what I am trying to articulate, there aren’t very clear cut examples where an attempt at saving both mother and child could not be made. Even in this scenario, the mom was very ill anyway. Abortion would not have saved her life. There are advances in chemotherapy that some forms are ok for the developing fetus.
I hope I asked my question clearly.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
While it’s terrible that doctors left this mother having to make such a choice, the choice she made was beautiful. If I read the story correctly doctors wouldn’t treat her cancer while she was pregnant, so the recommended she have an abortion. The cancer treatment may have put her child at risk, but the abortion doctors recommended would have meant certain death for the child.
. The article from the op says “doctors couldn’t wait” (but it doesn’t tell why) so the mother underwent a C-section two months before her due date, and the child lived. There are similarities yet difference between this story and ectopic pregnancies.
. The article from the op says “doctors couldn’t wait” (but it doesn’t tell why) so the mother underwent a C-section two months before her due date, and the child lived. There are similarities yet difference between this story and ectopic pregnancies.
Lily B used the word “fetus”, but at that stage of human development in an ectopic pregnancy in fallopian tubes, I believe the correct term is “embryo”. We were all embryo’s at one time, and we’re all “doomed to die”, sooner or later. The fact that the developing child is “doomed to die” is not the reason the Church permits removal of the fallopian tube. When there’s an immediate risk to the health and life of the mother because of an ectopic pregnancy, the Church permits treatments such as the removal of her fallopian tube. Please be clear that it’s the* tube *that the Church is allowing to be removed. An undesirable side effect of removing the tube is that the child dies, but there is no direct act against the child. A pregnant woman can morally seek treatment for a disease, even if the treatment poses a danger to her developing child. The Church recognizes a distinct moral difference between treatment for a disease and the direct killing of a developing child.
M
Meagan34
Guest
This raises a question I had, regarding ectopic pregnancies. And ectopic pregnancy means a pregnancy outside of the uterus. So in cases where the embryo attaches to the cervix (cervical pregnancy), ovary, or even sometimes other body cavities, what does the Church allow? Only removal of the cervix? There have been some cases of abdominal pregnancies that were carried to term but normally complications rise up before fetal viability, making this a known concern to the mother. Complications mainly arise from where the placenta attaches, if it’s a body organ that cannot sustain the blood supply a placenta requires and cannot be removed along with a larger placenta (from a larger more viable fetus) what can she do? Is she required to carry along through gestation even if her diagnostic says there is no viability in the ectopic (not necessarily tubal) pregnancy? Is removal of the embryo allowed? Not trying to argue, just an honest question. 
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
The Church doesn’t allow direct killing of the developing child, so anything that specifically targets the child for destruction would not be okay. The Church gives us that overall moral guideline, but usually doesn’t state what specific medical procedures are or aren’t allowed and at what week of gestation. Keep in mind as medical advances are made, things like what procedures are even available and what week of gestation a child can survive outside the mother changes. As you mention, not all ectopic pregnancies implant into the fallopian tubes, (although they are the vast majority of ectopic pregnancies are in the fallopian tubes, which pose a risk to the mother because her fallopian tube can rupture early in pregnancy. And btw, ectopic pregnancy can be side effect of tubal ligations–and tubal ligations are procedures the Church does not permit. on other moral grounds.) As you also mention, there are far more unusual cases where the child implants and develops outside of the mother’s uterus to the point of viability–so it’s not entirely correct to say that there is no viability in every cases. Some children and their mothers survive those rare situations. We can’t give medical advice so I want to be careful in answering your question, but the information I found about abdominal ectopic pregnancy stated that abdominal ectopic pregnancies can result in live birth via laparotomy. Delivering a child is permitted, directly killing the child is not.This raises a question I had, regarding ectopic pregnancies. And ectopic pregnancy means a pregnancy outside of the uterus. So in cases where the embryo attaches to the cervix (cervical pregnancy), ovary, or even sometimes other body cavities, what does the Church allow? Only removal of the cervix? There have been some cases of abdominal pregnancies that were carried to term but normally complications rise up before fetal viability, making this a known concern to the mother. Complications mainly arise from where the placenta attaches, if it’s a body organ that cannot sustain the blood supply a placenta requires and cannot be removed along with a larger placenta (from a larger more viable fetus) what can she do? Is she required to carry along through gestation even if her diagnostic says there is no viability in the ectopic (not necessarily tubal) pregnancy? Is removal of the embryo allowed? Not trying to argue, just an honest question.
Back in the story in the op, the child was delivered via C-section two months early because the mother had cancer. In an age when some abortionists induce labor early and then leave the child to die as a form of abortion, taking a child from her mother before full-term may be sometimes morally murky, but there’s moral difference between the intent and between what level of care is offered to a pre-term baby who is delivered early for the sake of the mother’s health. Attempts to save both lives should be made. The closer the child is to term, the easier it is for the child to survive outside the mother. Ectopic and other complicated pregnancies that pose specific difficulties for the health of the mother are best dealt with by skilled physicians who value the life of both mother and child. That doesn’t mean that both mother and child will always survive, but it does mean that both deserve care. In the op, the mother died two months later from cancer, but her child survived. Should a child die during an attempt to save the mother’s life, the child should be allowed to live a dignified life, even if for only a short time. (Since you asked about ectopic pregnancy, I’ll mention that sometimes a developing child involved in an ectopic pregnancy might live just long enough outside her mother to be baptized.) The underlying moral principle to guide us in difficult situations is we must treat humans with dignity, regardless of their stage of development.
M
Meagan34
Guest
Well, what exactly classifies an early delivery according to the Church? A laparotomy isn’t a solution to the situation because the complications are mainly where the placenta will attach. If it attaches to an organ that cannot be removed along with the developing embryo (for example if a case is detected before viability) and poses a significant risk to the mother’s life, would directly removing an intact embryo be considered an “early delivery” ? The placenta grows along with the fetus and usually an organ (i.e a liver, colon segment) can sustain it for a short time, could removing (if that is considered an early delivery) an embryo at a non viable stage be permitted? I’m a little puzzled because according to what is allowed for tubal pregnancies, if the child attaches to another organ and is considered non-viable, that organ must be removed as well? When a laparotomy is done, part of the organ that the fetal placenta attaches to needs to be removed to avoid hemorrhage, what if it attaches to a crucial segment that cannot be removed?
Edit: Just to clarify, by removing I mean a procedure where the entire embryo (at an early stage) is removed while not harming any part of the embryo/fetus itself.
Edit: Just to clarify, by removing I mean a procedure where the entire embryo (at an early stage) is removed while not harming any part of the embryo/fetus itself.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
Meagan,
We’ve veered off the original topic and heading into a medical discussion. I want to be careful not to give medical advice as per this forum’s policy, so I’ll simply suggest you look up what laparotomies are and also why mothers might hemorrhage as the baby develops in tubal ectopic pregnancies. The original post didn’t mention ectopic pregnancy, and the kinds of ectopic pregnancies that you are describing are exceedingly rare . A news story from 2003 said there have only been 14 documented cases of a child developing in “this way” (attached to the mother’s liver). .news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2932608.stm If you read the story, you’ll see they didn’t discover that it was an ectopic pregnancy until one week prior to the child’s delivery when they did a scan and found the mother’s womb empty. The child was 2.8 kg (a little over 6 pounds) at delivery. Both the child and mother survived.
M
Meagan34
Guest
I’m sorry I wasn’t seeking any kind of medical advice. I just know the church’s stance on tubal pregnancies and wondered what other stance they might on other ectopic pregnancies where the situation isn’t tubal. I am perfectly aware of what a laparotomy is, it’s a surgical procedure to gain access into the abdomen. But that’s just the beginning if you are aware of fetal and placental development and the fact that the placenta needs to be attached to an organ in order get blood supply. It IS possible to have a cervical pregnancy which is life threatening to the mother very early on due to bleeding. Usually these are taken care of with a D&C (no need for a laparotomy) but I know the church doesnt allow a direct attack on the child so…?
I was an obstetric/OR nurse before becoming a SAHM so I’m aware of what procedures are used. I’m just curious since the church seems to have a procedure in mind for tubal pregnancies (even though sometimes removing the tube is, in my opinion, unnecessary) then perhaps it has other procedures in mind for other types of causes. But I doubt my question can be answered here after all. Thank you for your attempts. Prayers for the family in the article.
M
marymary1975
Guest
For an ectopic pregnancy the church allows the removal.of the fallopian tube and it falls within.the double.effect principle. You are not directly killing.the.embryo, instead the embryodcoincidently as a result.of the removal of the tube.which is intended to.save the mother’s life.This raises a question I had, regarding ectopic pregnancies. And ectopic pregnancy means a pregnancy outside of the uterus. So in cases where the embryo attaches to the cervix (cervical pregnancy), ovary, or even sometimes other body cavities, what does the Church allow? Only removal of the cervix? There have been some cases of abdominal pregnancies that were carried to term but normally complications rise up before fetal viability, making this a known concern to the mother. Complications mainly arise from where the placenta attaches, if it’s a body organ that cannot sustain the blood supply a placenta requires and cannot be removed along with a larger placenta (from a larger more viable fetus) what can she do? Is she required to carry along through gestation even if her diagnostic says there is no viability in the ectopic (not necessarily tubal) pregnancy? Is removal of the embryo allowed? Not trying to argue, just an honest question.
- Status