Abortion: direct versus indirect

[Ron_Conte]

Direct abortion is any intentionally-chosen act that is, by its very nature, independent of intention or circumstances, inherently ordered (directed toward) the death of the prenatal. Direct abortion is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Indirect abortion is sometimes moral. Like all acts, to be moral, indirect abortion must have three good fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances. All that is intended must be good, so there can be no intention to kill the prenatal, nor any other bad intention. The act cannot be inherently directed at the death of the prenatal, but only at the health of the mother. The good consequences must outweigh the bad consequences.

The case of an abortion at a Phoenix hospital is very troubling. It shows that many Catholics, even members of an ethics committee and a nun who is a hospital administrator, do not understand basic Catholic moral teaching.

“doctors there terminated the pregnancy of a young mother. The medical staff said she was near death with from pulmonary hypertension, a condition that limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function. The condition is made worse by hormones produced by the uterus during pregnancy. The surgery was done last November with the approval of the hospital’s ethics committee including Sister Margaret McBride.”
usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-12-16-Catholic_hospital15_ST_N.htm?csp=34news

This abortion was direct, because the procedure was inherently directed toward the death of the prenatal. The intended end of saving the mother’s life is in the subject, the person who acts. The end called moral object is in the act itself; in this case, the end was the death of the innocent prenatal, making the act direct abortion.

The circumstance that both mother and prenatal will die if a direct abortion is not done can never justify that direct abortion. No intention or circumstance can justify an intrinsically evil act.

 

[FightingFat]

Agreed. What’s to blame? Our old friend, poor catechesis perhaps?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Note that the Phoenix case continues. Bishop Olmsted takes his job seriously and insists the hospital recognize it.
[

Phoenix bishop warns St. Joseph’s Hospital on health-care](http://www.azcentral.com/community/...101215phoenix-bishop-st-josephs-hospital.html)

The Catholic bishop of Phoenix will strip St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center of its Catholic status on Friday if the hospital’s parent company, Catholic Healthcare West, does not meet his demands to guarantee compliance with church teachings.

Three demands were contained in a Nov. 22 letter Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted sent to Lloyd Dean, president of Catholic Healthcare West. The bishop wants the hospital to give him more oversight of its practices to ensure it complies with Catholic health-care rules, provide education on those rules to medical staff and acknowledge that the bishop is correct in a dispute over a procedure the diocese says was an abortion….

 

[egm85]

Direct abortion is any intentionally-chosen act that is, by its very nature, independent of intention or circumstances, inherently ordered (directed toward) the death of the prenatal. Direct abortion is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Indirect abortion is sometimes moral. Like all acts, to be moral, indirect abortion must have three good fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances. All that is intended must be good, so there can be no intention to kill the prenatal, nor any other bad intention. The act cannot be inherently directed at the death of the prenatal, but only at the health of the mother. The good consequences must outweigh the bad consequences.

The case of an abortion at a Phoenix hospital is very troubling. It shows that many Catholics, even members of an ethics committee and a nun who is a hospital administrator, do not understand basic Catholic moral teaching.

“doctors there terminated the pregnancy of a young mother. The medical staff said she was near death with from pulmonary hypertension, a condition that limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function. The condition is made worse by hormones produced by the uterus during pregnancy. The surgery was done last November with the approval of the hospital’s ethics committee including Sister Margaret McBride.”
usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-12-16-Catholic_hospital15_ST_N.htm?csp=34news

This abortion was direct, because the procedure was inherently directed toward the death of the prenatal. The intended end of saving the mother’s life is in the subject, the person who acts. The end called moral object is in the act itself; in this case, the end was the death of the innocent prenatal, making the act direct abortion.

The circumstance that both mother and prenatal will die if a direct abortion is not done can never justify that direct abortion. No intention or circumstance can justify an intrinsically evil act.

Ok, Ron. You’re the ER attending at St. Joseph’s. A pregnant woman comes in with severe pulmonary hypertension. You know from your medical training what that entails and how to treat it and you also know this (pulled from wikipedia)

Levels of mortality are very high in pregnant women with severe pulmonary hypertension.[17] Pregnancy is sometimes described as contraindicated in these women.[18][19][20]

Just like you need to remove the uterus if it is cancerous (even if it contains a fetus), you need to remove the cause (or exacerbation) of the disease here. You need to remove the thing that is pumping out the high levels of coagulative hormones (thus decreasing the odds of mortality for the pt). Removing the whole uterus might’ve been a more “catholic” thing to do in this case.

But I digress. You are now the ER attending. The woman has been presented to you. A medical student is in the fetal position in the corner, rocking and mumbling “I don’t know what to do”. So, Mr. Conte. What do you do for this woman?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Ok, Ron. You’re the ER attending at St. Joseph’s. A pregnant woman comes in with severe pulmonary hypertension. You know from your medical training what that entails and how to treat it and you also know this (pulled from wikipedia)

Just like you need to remove the uterus if it is cancerous (even if it contains a fetus), you need to remove the cause (or exacerbation) of the disease here. You need to remove the thing that is pumping out the high levels of coagulative hormones (thus decreasing the odds of mortality for the pt). Removing the whole uterus might’ve been a more “catholic” thing to do in this case.

But I digress. You are now the ER attending. The woman has been presented to you. A medical student is in the fetal position in the corner, rocking and mumbling “I don’t know what to do”. So, Mr. Conte. What do you do for this woman?

Under no circumstances is it moral for anyone to perform, procure, or authorize a direct abortion. I would not perform or authorize an abortion for her, despite the risk of death from her pulmonary hypertension (or other illness/disease). A hospital is capable of many different interventions to treat life-threatening illnesses, whether pulmonary hypertension or some other disorder. She should receive every moral type of care that is applicable to her disorder. The prenatal is an innocent human person, not a thing.

It is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Faith that direct abortion is always a grave sin. Whoever rejects this teaching is guilty of the sin of heresy. Whoever commits abortion, regardless of intention or circumstances, is guilty of grave sin – and this includes the use of abortifacient contraception while sexually active.

Catholics who reject the teaching of the Church that direct abortion is always gravely immoral are automatically excommunicated for the sin of heresy. Catholics who teach that direct abortion is not always gravely immoral are guilty of the grave sin of teaching heresy.

 

[Ron_Conte]

What is most disturbing about the Phoenix hospital abortion is that the hospital ethics committee and administrators are still saying that the abortion was moral, in contradiction to the local Bishop and the USCCB committee on doctrine.

“ERD Directive no. 45 states: ‘Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo.’ Direct abortion is never morally permissible. One may never directly kill an innocent human being, no matter what the reason.”
usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf

Some Catholic moral theologians are now taking the position that the hospital was morally right, and that the teaching of the local Bishop and the USCCB and the Ethical and Religious Directives are wrong. It is suprising that someone can rise to a position teaching Catholic ethics at a university, and yet openly reject basic Catholic teaching on grave matters of morality.

 

[egm85]

A hospital is capable of many different interventions to treat life-threatening illnesses, whether pulmonary hypertension or some other disorder

It is suprising that someone can rise to a position teaching Catholic ethics at a university, and yet openly reject basic Catholic teaching on grave matters of morality.

These stood out to me. To address the first: Yes, a hospital is capable of a lot of things, but sometimes the standard of care is one option. Hospital staff are not magicians; there is no such thing as infinite possibilities to treating disease. I’d be interested to see you come up with a treatment plan for a pregnant woman with pulmonary hypertension.

The second point: Actually it’s not surprising. Lots of people rise to high positions and then use that authority for change.

But anyway.

If it were indirect (as in, removing the uterus), would it have changed the story for you? I’m against abortion, but in this one particular case… she would have died along with the baby. Is it moral as a physician to allow a woman to die?

I agree that they should not have performed a ‘direct’ abortion, but I don’t see how it would be morally unethical to remove the uterus. The uterus is the source of the problem, not the fetus. It’s just tragic and unfortunate circumstances that a fetus resided inside.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

The case of an abortion at a Phoenix hospital is very troubling. It shows that many Catholics, even members of an ethics committee and a nun who is a hospital administrator, do not understand basic Catholic moral teaching.

Do not understand, or simply do not care about moral theology and doctrine? My guess is the latter.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If it were indirect (as in, removing the uterus), would it have changed the story for you? I’m against abortion, but in this one particular case… she would have died along with the baby. Is it moral as a physician to allow a woman to die?

I agree that they should not have performed a ‘direct’ abortion, but I don’t see how it would be morally unethical to remove the uterus. The uterus is the source of the problem, not the fetus. It’s just tragic and unfortunate circumstances that a fetus resided inside.

The uterus is not causing the medical disorder of the woman in question. She has pulmonary hypertension, which is not caused by the uterus. Neither is the prenatal child himself or herself a medical disorder to be ‘cured’ by removal. The removal of a prenatal from the uterus, or the removal of the prenatal and the uterus together, is not moral because this action directly kills the prenatal. The uterus is not cancerous, such that it should be removed, making the concommittant removal of the non-viable prenatal indirect.

The action taken in the case of the Phoenix Catholic hospital was inherently ordered toward the death of the prenatal. It was a direct abortion because the intentionally-chosen act, by its very nature, was ordered toward the death of the prenatal. The intended end of saving the mother’s life is not justified by the chosen means: terminating the pregnancy (i.e. abortion). The persons responsible for this act of murder intended to commit an act that would kill the innocent prenatal. Their purpose (intended end) of saving the mother’s life does not justify their intentional choice of an intrinsically evil act.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Do not understand, or simply do not care about moral theology and doctrine? My guess is the latter.

Yes, I think you are right. They do not care. They are capable of understanding, but they are not willing to understand.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

But I digress. You are now the ER attending. The woman has been presented to you. A medical student is in the fetal position in the corner, rocking and mumbling “I don’t know what to do”. So, Mr. Conte. What do you do for this woman?

I think I would start by assuming that someone who presents themselves at a Catholic hospital is not a monster who would be willing to kill their own baby. Then go from there.

 

[egm85]

The uterus is not causing the medical disorder of the woman in question. She has pulmonary hypertension, which is not caused by the uterus.

True. In this case, a uterus did not cause her pulmonary HTN (that we know of). If obstruction is her problem, the clot could have originated there, but unlikely. The problem is, the hormones her uterus is pumping out exacerbates her problem. This isn’t exacerbation in a minor irritating way. This is exacerbation in the she-will-die way. The uterus, therefore, is a problem.

Yes, directly removing the fetus also decreases the hormones, but if you remove the uterus, it will also decrease the hormones. It is a necessary evil. The hormones need to be decreased. Just as a woman with uterine cancer needs to have her uterus removed–pregnant or no–this woman also needed treatment.

Like I said, I am pro-life. But with this case, this *particular *case, I feel that removing the uterus would have been the best option.

Additionally, to the other poster, please refrain from calling people monsters. Judge not, lest ye be judged. You may disagree with people’s decisions, but it’s not very Catholic to spew hatred.

 

[brumano]

Ok, Ron. You’re the ER attending at St. Joseph’s. A pregnant woman comes in with severe pulmonary hypertension. You know from your medical training what that entails and how to treat it and you also know this (pulled from wikipedia)

Just like you need to remove the uterus if it is cancerous (even if it contains a fetus), you need to remove the cause (or exacerbation) of the disease here. You need to remove the thing that is pumping out the high levels of coagulative hormones (thus decreasing the odds of mortality for the pt). Removing the whole uterus might’ve been a more “catholic” thing to do in this case.

But I digress. You are now the ER attending. The woman has been presented to you. A medical student is in the fetal position in the corner, rocking and mumbling “I don’t know what to do”. So, Mr. Conte. What do you do for this woman?

You don’t treat her pulmonary hypertension by performing an abortion on her immediately that’s for sure. But I know you know that this was not the scenario, the woman was already in hosp. for continous care of the pulmonary htn. or something else.
The ethical and moral question in the above case boils down to what degree of medical certainty it can be established that the pregnancy directly threatens the life of the mother, there are as usual many unknowns, and many unanswered and unanswerable questions involved. Will the mother almost certainly die from carrying the baby to term? Can the hormonal effects which are feared to bring about critical pulmonary htn be treated alternatively? I agree with the Bishop’s and the op’s stand on this case, it’s a Catholic Hospital.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Yes, I think you are right. They do not care. They are capable of understanding, but they are not willing to understand.

How do you reason with someone who says “I’m interested in real people and their real problems, not your dogmas!”

 

[Ron_Conte]

The ethical and moral question in the above case boils down to what degree of medical certainty it can be established that the pregnancy directly threatens the life of the mother, .

No, it does not.

The local Bishop and the USCCB committee on doctrine are not merely giving personal opinions, they are exercising the Magisterium. This type of case is direct abortion, even if the pregnancy is exacerbating a medical problem to the extent that the mother will die. This is settled doctrine. Whoever disagrees is disagreeing with the Magisterium.

A Catholic cannot substitute his own moral judgment, or worse, his own system for determining which acts are moral, for the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on matters of morality.

 

[mcrow]

If I were you (meaning the posters in this thread), I would just totally avoid anything with the name Ron Conte attached to it.

If you do a quick internet search and read his website you’ll find plenty of stuff that should make you think twice about the validity of his “Theology”.

 

[j35u5fr34k]

If I were you (meaning the posters in this thread), I would just totally avoid anything with the name Ron Conte attached to it.

If you do a quick internet search and read his website you’ll find plenty of stuff that should make you think twice about the validity of his “Theology”.

Can you site specifics?

 

[brumano]

No, it does not.

The local Bishop and the USCCB committee on doctrine are not merely giving personal opinions, they are exercising the Magisterium. This type of case is direct abortion, even if the pregnancy is exacerbating a medical problem to the extent that the mother will die. This is settled doctrine. Whoever disagrees is disagreeing with the Magisterium.

A Catholic cannot substitute his own moral judgment, or worse, his own system for determining which acts are moral, for the definitive teaching of the Magisterium on matters of morality.

We disagree on what the true moral teaching of the church is in a case where the life of a mother is clearly and directly endangered, if it is known that the delivery would certainly cause the death of the mother the mother is to be saved, but as is usally the case there are estimable risks and the mother is to be given the choice as to whether to risk her life for the child. The church obviously must regard the life of the mother as sacred as well as the baby’s. Musn’t She?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Direct abortion is any intentionally-chosen act that is, by its very nature, independent of intention or circumstances, inherently ordered (directed toward) the death of the prenatal. Direct abortion is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

Indirect abortion is sometimes moral. Like all acts, to be moral, indirect abortion must have three good fonts of morality: intention, moral object, circumstances. All that is intended must be good, so there can be no intention to kill the prenatal, nor any other bad intention. The act cannot be inherently directed at the death of the prenatal, but only at the health of the mother. The good consequences must outweigh the bad consequences.

The case of an abortion at a Phoenix hospital is very troubling. It shows that many Catholics, even members of an ethics committee and a nun who is a hospital administrator, do not understand basic Catholic moral teaching.

“doctors there terminated the pregnancy of a young mother. The medical staff said she was near death with from pulmonary hypertension, a condition that limits the ability of the heart and lungs to function. The condition is made worse by hormones produced by the uterus during pregnancy. The surgery was done last November with the approval of the hospital’s ethics committee including Sister Margaret McBride.”
usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-12-16-Catholic_hospital15_ST_N.htm?csp=34news

This abortion was direct, because the procedure was inherently directed toward the death of the prenatal. The intended end of saving the mother’s life is in the subject, the person who acts. The end called moral object is in the act itself; in this case, the end was the death of the innocent prenatal, making the act direct abortion.

The circumstance that both mother and prenatal will die if a direct abortion is not done can never justify that direct abortion. No intention or circumstance can justify an intrinsically evil act.

Ron, I know this makes sense to you, but I’m still confused, specifically by your second-to-last paragraph. Would you rephrase it, please? I’m very confused by this whole case and it seems that the bishop is being attacked from all sides for his decision.

I am avidly pro-life, but I wonder in this case. I thought that if the death of the child was an unintended side-effect of the procedure to save the mother’s life, that the Church does not consider it an abortion. Does it all come down to how the procedure is justified? Should the mother have been allowed to die? If she did, her unborn child would have died, also.

I’m on the phone with a friend and she said that it depends on intent.

I am so confused right now.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If I were you (meaning the posters in this thread), I would just totally avoid anything with the name Ron Conte attached to it.

If you do a quick internet search and read his website you’ll find plenty of stuff that should make you think twice about the validity of his “Theology”.

(Note: Sarcasm filter is disabled.)

Thank you for your kind warning. I’ll be sure to remember that I don’t need to read any of Ron’s posts as they automatically present points that are invalid.

You’ve sure saved me some time.

(Note: Sarcasm filtler is enabled.)

You know, Ron is a human being and has the right to his opinion. Your post is uncharitable and well, frankly, uh, snarky. Just because you don’t agree with him does not mean that you should post a “warning” about him.

Not nice at all. Shame on you.