Abortion and saving a woman's life

[SecretGarden]

Does anyone know where inside the Catechism or other Catholic documents where it explains what happens when a second trimester pregnant woman develops a life threatening disease and doctors want to remove the child to save her life? If she is under 24 weeks pregnant, it would be considered abortion after preterm labour. I know the Catholic church is very specific when it comes to saving the unborn but it is also very gray and compassionate the mother’s life is also at risk. I’m looking for specific websites to which I can refer to.

Thanks for all your help.
SG

 

[Cristiano]

Abortion is abortion and it is intrinsically evil. No abortion is permitted even to spare the life of the mother.

A surgery that could put the life of the fetus at risk in order to save the life of the mother is not automatically considered intrinsically evil.

For a reference you could do a Google search for documents associated with the JohnPaul II institute. I am sure that that it is the easiest way to find more details.

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Is there a specific person you have in mind?

Try

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=404

 

[Corki]

Well, here’s the Catechism cite

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

However, this isn’t really the type of question that can be answered by a Catechism paragraph. It is a comples moral theological issue.

BTW, there is no Catholic “rule” about 24 weeks. The date of earliest viability is getting lower and lower all the time. You can’t morally deliver a baby that is so pre-term he/she has no chance but you don’t have to wait until the odds are ideal either.

 

[Barbkw]

The National Catholic Bioethics Center

(NCBC), established in 1972, conducts research, consultation, publishing and education to promote human dignity in health care and the life sciences, and derives its message directly from the teachings of the Catholic Church. The results of this research are available though this website and our various educational and publishing activities, workshops and seminars.

ncbcenter.org/

CATHOLIC EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER

CERC is working to make freely available and easily
accessible well written Catholic perspectives on
everything from social justice issues to history and
religion, from sexuality to literature and politics, from
the environment to parenting and the latest trends
in education.

Providing comment and perspective on Catholic
issues has also been the goal of our popular email
newsletter, the CERC Weekly Update. The update
is a free service, listing all the new articles posted
to the CERC site during the past week and pointing
readers to important editorials of interest from
around the world.

catholiceducation.org/directory/Current_Issues/index.html

 

[Dymphna82]

So it’s okay for me to die then? Okay, I’ll just never have sex again. That way I never risk conception and dying from labor complications.

 

[Barbkw]

californiaprolife.org/resources/abortion_information/technology_assists_women_with_high_risk_pregnanc/

High-risk pregnancies are most commonly associated with, but not limited to:

**Pregnancy-induced hypertension **[high blood pressure], which complicates "about 5 to 7 percent of pregnancies in otherwise normal women … The major maternal hazard is that of eclampsia or gran mal seizures, resulting from profound cerebral effects of the disease."2
With regard to high blood pressure during pregnancy, Scott and Worley write in their chapter on “Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy” that, "With proper management PIH [pregnancy-induced hypertension] can often be ameliorated and eclampsia [seizures] largely, if not entirely, prevented."7 These conditions generally only occur in the third trimester of pregnancy. As current medical knowledge and technology improve, **rarely must a pregnancy be ended to save the mother’s life. **

Diabetes, which affects an estimated 2 to 5 percent of all pregnancies in the U.S.3
Of diabetes, Benson writes that "…maternal death is rare with modern treatment…"8 William Spellacy writes that, "Today, by using [the information that is available], women with diabetes mellitus can expect normal pregnancy outcomes."9

Epilepsy, which complicates approximately 0. 15 percent of pregnancies.4
Danforth’s Obstetrics and Gynecology states, regarding epilepsy, that, "Status epilepticus in pregnancy … is fortunately uncommon, occurring in less than 1 percent of epileptic pregnancies. It is not an indication for pregnancy termination…"10 Benson writes in Handbook of Obstetrics and Gynecology that “therapeutic abortion is not medically indicated for epilepsy, because this disorder may or may not constitute a problem during pregnancy.” 11

Cancer, whose occurrence in pregnancy, according to a report in the Archives of Internal Medicine, is “between 0.07 and 0.1 percent.” The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine study by Saunders and Baum states that breast cancer is the "second commonest malignancy seen during pregnancy (cervical being commonest) - occurring in between 10 and 39 per 100,000 pregnancies."6

Regarding treatment of cancer during pregnancy, "Significant advances have been made with current chemotherapeutic agents in increasing longevity and improving survival. Cures and long-term remissions are obtained in diseases that previously were untreatable."12

The Archives of Internal Medicine report goes on to say that, while there is increased risk of spontaneous abortion and major birth defects when chemotherapy is used during the first trimester, "such a risk is not apparent beyond the first trimester."13

Cancer of the uterus during pregnancy poses the greatest threat to the life of the mother; removal of the uterus is usually recommended. In these cases the baby dies as an indirect result of procedures performed to save the mother’s life.

Breast cancer presents special difficulties, but early diagnosis is again the key according to Drs. William Creasman and Philip Di Saia, oncologists writing in a 1993 publication, Clinical Gynecologic Oncology. "The best evidence indicates that pregnancy does not augment the rate of growth or distant spread of breast cancer and that abortion for women with breast cancer does not improve the prognosis…Therapeutic abortion has not been found to increase survival, and the presence of a fetus does not compromise proper therapy in early stages."14 They go on to note that other reports agree that termination of pregnancy has no effect on patient survival.15 A study in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine reports that "it appears that subsequent pregnancies after treatment for breast cancer may actually improve the patient’s chance of long-term survival."16

 

[Lancer]

So it’s okay for me to die then? Okay, I’ll just never have sex again. That way I never risk conception and dying from labor complications.

Well…that is certainly one way to look at it…but maybe not based on facts.

Do you have any idea what the medical statistics are for the type scenario you envision…want to avoid?..where it truly is an…“either or situation”…that is, the mother or child must die…both can’t live? I have heard that it is…a near “zero” [0 %] chance of that “either-or” scenario happening. Medical science, procedures and medicines/protocols have advanced way beyond that scenario.

I am curious if you know otherwise…or have some data or statistics that contradict my understanding?

Pax Christi

 

[ConstantineTG]

Does anyone know where inside the Catechism or other Catholic documents where it explains what happens when a second trimester pregnant woman develops a life threatening disease and doctors want to remove the child to save her life? If she is under 24 weeks pregnant, it would be considered abortion after preterm labour. I know the Catholic church is very specific when it comes to saving the unborn but it is also very gray and compassionate the mother’s life is also at risk. I’m looking for specific websites to which I can refer to.

Thanks for all your help.
SG

Under no circumstance can the child be removed. Any direct attack on the child is a direct attack on a human life, and thus is murder.

I’ve seen this question thrown around so much, but can someone please do share what disease is it exactly that necessitates the removal of a child from the mother’s womb. The problem is we are preoccupied with hypothetical scenarios to justify an evil when the scenario doesn’t even exist.

 

[Dymphna82]

Yeah, but with the chances of dying any other way, God’s church isn’t going to tell me to go drop dead.

 

[RyanBlack]

Another permissible scenario would be the removal of a cancerous uterus. The intent is not the killing of the unborn child, but the removal of a diseased organ.

 

[JM3]

So it’s okay for me to die then? Okay, I’ll just never have sex again. That way I never risk conception and dying from labor complications.

Justin Martyr - The First Apology - Chapter 29

But whether we marry, it is only that we may bring up children; or whether we decline marriage, we live continently.

 

[Cristiano]

Yeah, but with the chances of dying any other way, God’s church isn’t going to tell me to go drop dead.

Our goal is not to stay alive and well but to live and to die righteously. We might have a difficult time accepting it but that it is the way we are supposed to be.

 

[OchsFam]

Yeah, but with the chances of dying any other way, God’s church isn’t going to tell me to go drop dead.

Let’s say someone breaks into your house and wants to kill your one week old baby. They are willing to kill you and let the baby live, they really just want to kill someone for some reason. How many women out there would choose to let their children be murdered in place of themselves? What would you think about the woman of a headline like “woman lets baby die to save her own life?”

Choosing abortion to save your life is the same thing, just rolling the clock back a few months. In fact, it is worse because there is an option of giving birth at 24 weeks and the child survives.

The only reasonable explanation to why people think abortion is acceptable when there is a viable birthing solution is that they have no idea what abortion is. Any sane person would not choose an abortion over birth for any reason if they knew what it was, even if it was to save their own life. Maybe if people were forced to see it.

That will never happen though. Too many Catholics support abortion through the false doctrine of “choice” or worse yet, directly supporting it. We can get things changed as Catholics, but in practice Catholics aren’t much different than the majority which is just sad. All we can do is pray and hope those poor souls who support abortion, especially Catholics, repent before their judgement. I pity anyone who has to go before Our Maker with supporting abortion on their rap sheet.

God Bless.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Precisely. Its not the child that is attacked in such situation. Although the removal of the tube has the unfortunate consequence of the death of the child, the target of the operation is the tube itself and not the child.

 

[SecretGarden]

Thanks for all of your comments.

What happens such as in the case with Michelle Duggar? She had precIampsia and delivered a 25 week old Jose if the child she is carrying is younger than that? The age of viability is only 24 weeks. Miracles happen for those who are born at younger than that but they are considered miracles for a reason. Earlier the child is born, the less chances it has of surviving. My question is: when does the mother’s survival become the priority? I know the church teaches somewhere that abortion is wrong but if the decision between the mother’s life and the child’s in most circumstances, the mother’s life has priority. The child’s death becomes a cause but not an aim. For example with precIampsia, the only way to save Michelle was to deliver Jose at 25 weeks. Jose was barely above the age of viability.

Does anyone know where inside the countless documents and church authors this information can be found?

 

[Dymphna82]

Let’s say someone breaks into your house and wants to kill your one week old baby. They are willing to kill you and let the baby live, they really just want to kill someone for some reason. How many women out there would choose to let their children be murdered in place of themselves? What would you think about the woman of a headline like “woman lets baby die to save her own life?”

Choosing abortion to save your life is the same thing, just rolling the clock back a few months. In fact, it is worse because there is an option of giving birth at 24 weeks and the child survives.

The only reasonable explanation to why people think abortion is acceptable when there is a viable birthing solution is that they have no idea what abortion is. Any sane person would not choose an abortion over birth for any reason if they knew what it was, even if it was to save their own life. Maybe if people were forced to see it.

That will never happen though. Too many Catholics support abortion through the false doctrine of “choice” or worse yet, directly supporting it. We can get things changed as Catholics, but in practice Catholics aren’t much different than the majority which is just sad. All we can do is pray and hope those poor souls who support abortion, especially Catholics, repent before their judgement. I pity anyone who has to go before Our Maker with supporting abortion on their rap sheet.

God Bless.

So you and your sibling are climbing a mountain. Your sibling slips and you hold onto them. You have the choice between both of you falling or only one of you. Do you choose to die?

And how many of you are women?

I stand by what I said. I think women shouldn’t bother getting married and having children if the Church doesn’t care about their well being and only cares about spitting out more kids. Sex isn’t that great and a good book can be better company.

 

[Barbkw]

Thanks for all of your comments.

What happens such as in the case with Michelle Duggar? She had precIampsia and delivered a 25 week old Jose if the child she is carrying is younger than that? The age of viability is only 24 weeks. Does anyone know where inside the countless documents and church authors this information can be found?

aafp.org/afp/2004/1215/p2317.html

Diagnosis and Management of Preeclampsia

LANA K. WAGNER, M.D., First Choice Community Healthcare, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Am Fam Physician. 2004 Dec 15;70(12):2317-2324.

Preeclampsia is a pregnancy-specific multisystem disorder of unknown etiology. The disorder affects approximately 5 to 7 percent of pregnancies and is a significant cause of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality.

Preeclampsia is defined by the new onset of elevated blood pressure and proteinuria after 20 weeks of gestation.

It is considered severe if blood pressure and proteinuria are increased substantially or symptoms of end-organ damage (including fetal growth restriction) occur.

There is no single reliable, cost-effective screening test for preeclampsia, and there are no well-established measures for primary prevention.

Management before the onset of labor includes close monitoring of maternal and fetal status. Management during delivery includes seizure prophylaxis with magnesium sulfate and, if necessary, medical management of hypertension.

Delivery remains the ultimate treatment. Access to prenatal care, early detection of the disorder, careful monitoring, and appropriate management are crucial elements in the prevention of preeclampsia-related deaths.

 

[Barbkw]

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=482&storyid1277=80&ncs1277=3

NCBC Statement on Early Induction of Labor

Thursday, March 11, 2004 1:56:00 PM

March 11, 2004. BOSTON, MA— The National Catholic Bioethics Center wishes to assist individuals and institutions working with the ethical issue of early induction of labor. The following is the NCBC position regarding the application of Catholic moral teaching and tradition to the issue.

The application of Catholic moral teaching and tradition to this issue is directed toward two specific ends:

(1) complete avoidance of direct abortion, and

(2) preservation of the lives of both mother and child to the extent possible under the circumstances. Based upon these ends, the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services provides directives which set the parameters for the treatment of mother and unborn child in cases of high-risk pregnancies:

1. 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.

1. For a proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.

The principle of the double effect is at work in each of these two directives. Actions that might result in the death of a child are morally permitted only if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) treatment is directly therapeutic in response to a serious pathology of the mother or child;

(2) the good effect of curing the disease is intended and the bad effect foreseen but unintended;

(3) the death of the child is not the means by which the good effect is achieved; and

(4) the good of curing the disease is proportionate to the risk of the bad effect.

Fulfillment of all four conditions precludes any act that directly hastens the death of a child.

Early induction of labor for chorioamnionitis, preeclampsia, and H.E.L.L.P. syndrome, for example, can be morally licit under the conditions just described because it directly cures a pathology by evacuating the infected membranes in the case of chorioamnionitis, or the diseased placenta in the other cases, and cannot be safely postponed.

However, early induction of an anencephalic child when there is no serious pathology of the mother which is being directly treated is not morally licit, emotional distress notwithstanding.

Early induction of labor before term (37 weeks) to relieve emotional distress hastens the death of the child as a means of achieving this presumed good effect and unjustifiably deprives the child of the good of gestation.

Moreover, this distress is amenable to psychological support such as is offered in perinatal hospice. Lastly, induction of labor before term performed simply for the reason that the child has a lethal anomaly is direct abortion.

 

[PrayHarder]

Another permissible scenario would be the removal of a cancerous uterus. The intent is not the killing of the unborn child, but the removal of a diseased organ.

This is called the principle of double effect. To simplify, it is the idea that while trying to do something good or neutral, and something bad happens, the act is still justified. In this case, while trying to save someone’s life (good), the baby is killed in the process (bad). This is different than an abortion because the intent was not to kill the baby and every reasonable precaution is taken to save the baby’s life. Thomas Aquinas is the one who originally pondered this tricky theological concept so I’ll leave a more thorough explanation to him.