Abortion - DOUBLE EFFECT questions

[CopticChristian]

While I believe the ‘abortion is ok if the woman’s life is in danger’ argument is massively overused, I do believe it is justifiable in some situations.

Take the recent example of Savita Halappanavar, and Indian woman visiting Ireland in 2012. She was pregnant and went to the hospital complaining of back pain. The doctors told her she was miscarriaging and that there was nothing to do to save the child. There were complications, and everyone knew her life was at risk and that the child would die no matter what, but no abortion was permitted. She died (pointlessly in my opinion) of septicemia. You can google her name if you want to know more.

This example (and others similar to it) don’t prove in any way every argument made by the pro-choice movement. But it does show a need in extreme cases for abortion, when everyone knows the child will not be able to make it and the mother’s life is in danger.

Peter,

This case has nothing to do with the question of Cancer and abortion.

 

[Gorgias]

Peter12rb:

Take the recent example of Savita Halappanavar, and Indian woman visiting Ireland in 2012. She was pregnant and went to the hospital complaining of back pain. The doctors told her she was miscarriaging and that there was nothing to do to save the child. There were complications, and everyone knew her life was at risk and that the child would die no matter what, but no abortion was permitted. She died (pointlessly in my opinion) of septicemia. You can google her name if you want to know more.

Peter,

This case has nothing to do with the question of Cancer and abortion.

Moreover, it horribly mis-states the situation. Among other things, the analyses I’ve read assert that a woman in her situation would not likely have been in a condition stable enough to survive an abortion; the standard medical procedure would likely have been to monitor her condition and wait for her body to naturally resolve the pregnancy.

As I understand the situation, the hospital is still investigating the events surrounding her death, and have not publicized their findings. “Pointless death” is a premature conclusion, and says more about the person speaking than it does an objective assessment of the case.

 

[CopticChristian]

Moreover, it horribly mis-states the situation. Among other things, the analyses I’ve read assert that a woman in her situation would not likely have been in a condition stable enough to survive an abortion; the standard medical procedure would likely have been to monitor her condition and wait for her body to naturally resolve the pregnancy.

As I understand the situation, the hospital is still investigating the events surrounding her death, and have not publicized their findings. “Pointless death” is a premature conclusion, and says more about the person speaking than it does an objective assessment of the case.

The reality is that absent scrutiny and review of the medical records that no one on this thread has any knowledge and is rendering an opinion that is conjecture, speculation, and irrelevant.

 

[GodHeals]

The reality is that absent scrutiny and review of the medical records that no one on this thread has any knowledge and is rendering an opinion that is conjecture, speculation, and irrelevant.

The only “exception” I can possibly think of is if the mother and child’s lives are in danger from the uterine cancer taking both their lives as the mother may not live long enough to safely develop the child in her womb to ultimately save the child. The child is not guaranteed to live and therefore it seems the only option is to remove the cancer to save the mother, which indirectly ends the life of the child.

I think age of the mother is irrelevant since it doesn’t seem to matter in the morality of the double effect.

Thoughts?

 

[GodHeals]

I’m not sure if that really answers your question. I’m not a medical practioner. I only know a little about gestational trophoblast disease because I had a form of it. Fortunately mine was not cancerous, and there was no baby.

Thank you for sharing. I am glad you were / are cancer free! Thanks be to God!

 

[gerryconnor]

I’ve been following the Savita Halappanaver case with interest and I’m puzzled by the absence of Catholic moralists using the Doctrine of Double Effect to justify expedited delivery (‘abortion’) to justify removal of a fetus to save a mother’s life.

Church documents such as the 1974 Declaration on Procured Abortion (See goo.gl/146H0.) and the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Healthcare Services (See goo.gl/qtKsq.) seem to place a complete ban on direct abortion prior to fetal viability, but I suspect that they have missed an opportunity to use the Doctrine of Double Effect in some cases.

According to Double Effect an act can be justified if (1) it is morally good or morally neutral, (2) the good effect is intended, not the bad effect, (3) the good effect is not brought about by means of the bad effect and (4) the good consequences outweigh the bad consequences.

The first condition can be satisfied in cases such as Savita Halappanavar’s because the removal of a fetus from the womb is not bad ‘in itself’. (Caesarean Sections are routine procedures.) The second condition can be satisfied if doctors direct their intention towards the good effect (saving the mother) and away from the bad effect (killing the fetus). The third condition can be satisfied because the mother’s survival (good effect) is not brought about by the death of the fetus (bad effect) but by the removal of the fetus from the womb which happens before fetal death. The fourth condition can be satisfied because saving one life is better than saving none. It seems that we can easily tick all the boxes of the Doctrine of Double Effect.

What have I missed?

 

[gerryconnor]

Peter,

This case has nothing to do with the question of Cancer and abortion.

Peter, I agree that the Savita Halappanavar case is not about cancer and abortion but it is relevant to the subject of this thread ‘Abortion - DOUBLE EFFECT’. It seems to me that Catholic moralists could use the Doctrine of Double Effect to justify expedited delivery (‘abortion’) in cases like Savita’s. See my post above that ends with the question, ‘What have I missed?’ I’d be interested to know your viewpoint.

 

[gerryconnor]

The reality is that absent scrutiny and review of the medical records that no one on this thread has any knowledge and is rendering an opinion that is conjecture, speculation, and irrelevant.

I agree that there is conjecture and speculation about the Savita Halappanavar case, but that doesn’t stop us asking the question, “Is abortion justified using Double Effect in third trimester pregnancies in order to save a mother’s life?”

The only “exception” I can possibly think of is if the mother and child’s lives are in danger from the uterine cancer taking both their lives as the mother may not live long enough to safely develop the child in her womb to ultimately save the child. The child is not guaranteed to live and therefore it seems the only option is to remove the cancer to save the mother, which indirectly ends the life of the child.

I think age of the mother is irrelevant since it doesn’t seem to matter in the morality of the double effect.

Thoughts?

I agree that the Doctrine of Double Effect could be used to justify an abortion where cancer poses an immediate threat to the life of both fetus and mother. The argument would follow a similar path to the one I’ve outlined above in the post ending, “What have I missed?” What do you think?

 

[GodHeals]

Originally Posted by Gorgias View Post
Besides which, a ‘self-defense’ approach places you in the untenable position of needing to explain how an innocent baby can be considered – from a moral point of view – as an unjust aggressor.

In the same way an insane person attacking you with a knife is an unjust agressor while being innocent.

I missed your logic here. Are you saying that a potentially insane person is just as innocent and just as an infant? Thanks for helping me to understand your point of view!

 

[Reverie]

The first condition can be satisfied in cases such as Savita Halappanavar’s because the removal of a fetus from the womb is not bad ‘in itself’. (Caesarean Sections are routine procedures.) The second condition can be satisfied if doctors direct their intention towards the good effect (saving the mother) and away from the bad effect (killing the fetus). The third condition can be satisfied because the mother’s survival (good effect) is not brought about by the death of the fetus (bad effect) but by the removal of the fetus from the womb which happens before fetal death. The fourth condition can be satisfied because saving one life is better than saving none. It seems that we can easily tick all the boxes of the Doctrine of Double Effect.

What have I missed?

I think you have missed that removal of the uterus with the baby would be double effect. Just removing the baby would not have cured sepsis. Just removing the baby would be directly attacking the baby as if it were the problem. That is not double effect.

 

[gerryconnor]

I missed your logic here. Are you saying that a potentially insane person is just as innocent and just as an infant? Thanks for helping me to understand your point of view!

GodHeals, you haven’t dealt with aux1’s point. Someone suffering a psychotic delusion who attacks you with a knife with the intent to kill is not morally responsible for their action. Provided a person suffering a severe psychotic episode has not brought the episode on themselves through their own actions, such as drug use, then they are entirely innocent. Don’t you agree? If not, why not?

 

[Reverie]

GodHeals, you haven’t dealt with aux1’s point. Someone suffering a psychotic delusion who attacks you with a knife with the intent to kill is not morally responsible for their action. Provided a person suffering a severe psychotic episode has not brought the episode on themselves through their own actions, such as drug use, then they are entirely innocent. Don’t you agree? If not, why not?

I agree with you GodHeals and I would add that we cant cure the insane man by killing him.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…that doesn’t stop us asking the question, “Is abortion justified using Double Effect in third trimester pregnancies in order to save a mother’s life?”

I agree that the Doctrine of Double Effect could be used to justify an abortion where cancer poses an immediate threat to the life of both fetus and mother. The argument would follow a similar path to the one I’ve outlined above in the post ending, “What have I missed?” What do you think?

One thing very important ethical point that you’ve missed is that by the third trimester, the pregnancy can be “terminated” by** live birth** rather than abortion. The stories I shared in an earlier post included babies 2 pounds and less being delivered live.

The other point you miss is that a third trimester abortion poses risks for the mother. Delievering a live baby is safer for the mother too. Abortion, even legal abortion, is not without health risks.While expressing concern about the life of the mother, pro-aborts seem to forget or ignore the fact that** women sometimes die from legal abortions!** Here’s a story you probably missed (because the mainstream media mostly ignored it): A 29 yo kindergarten teacher from New York went in for a late term abortion at 33 weeks pregnant** and died**. The child had some type of abnormality that prompted her to abort, yet it wasn’t only the child who died during the abortion but also the mother.
jillstanek.com/2013/02/breaking-carharts-victims-identified/

See that beautiful woman’s face below? She died from abortion in the US in February, 2013. May she and her child rest in peace.
jillstanek.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/a470b078-5ece-4f99-8bca-4830b5722440.png

 

[CopticChristian]

The only “exception” I can possibly think of is if the mother and child’s lives are in danger from the uterine cancer taking both their lives as the mother may not live long enough to safely develop the child in her womb to ultimately save the child. The child is not guaranteed to live and therefore it seems the only option is to remove the cancer to save the mother, which indirectly ends the life of the child.

I think age of the mother is irrelevant since it doesn’t seem to matter in the morality of the double effect.

Thoughts?

GH,

The notion of linking Uterine Cancer and pregnancy precludes that Uterine Cancer has a natural history over time.

This suggests that someone with Uterine Cancer became pregnant. Would someone with Uterine Cancer is without knowledge of that Cancer and in all likelyhood would be at an early stage.

Emergency from Uterine Cancer are not the norm.

Linking pregnancy to something without understanding the natural history of that something else precludes a rational discussion.

 

[Gorgias]

GodHeals, you haven’t dealt with aux1’s point. Someone suffering a psychotic delusion who attacks you with a knife with the intent to kill is not morally responsible for their action. Provided a person suffering a severe psychotic episode has not brought the episode on themselves through their own actions, such as drug use, then they are entirely innocent. Don’t you agree? If not, why not?

Gerry,

aux1’s example touches upon the ‘innocent’ side of the question, but completely fails to hold for the ‘aggressor’ side. With respect to the ‘innocent’ part, a person not in command of his faculties would be considered ‘not culpable’, certainly. So would a fetus in the womb. However, although he would not be culpable for his actions, the man with the knife certainly would be an ‘aggressor’! He would be wielding a weapon with the intent to use it to cause harm to someone. A fetus, on the other hand, would not even come close to the definition of an ‘aggressor’! Therefore, aux1’s example fails to adequately describe the situation.

Blessings,

G.

 

[gerryconnor]

I think you have missed that removal of the uterus with the baby would be double effect. Just removing the baby would not have cured sepsis. Just removing the baby would be directly attacking the baby as if it were the problem. That is not double effect.

There are a number of ways to tackle that suggestion. One is to argue that it is an indirect abortion because the intent is not to attack the fetus, merely to remove a source of infection which happens to include the fetus and the placenta. Fetal death then becomes an unintended side effect. (BTW, I’m not defending the Doctrine of Double Effect, merely using it.)

 

[gerryconnor]

Gerry,

aux1’s example touches upon the ‘innocent’ side of the question, but completely fails to hold for the ‘aggressor’ side. With respect to the ‘innocent’ part, a person not in command of his faculties would be considered ‘not culpable’, certainly. So would a fetus in the womb. However, although he would not be culpable for his actions, the man with the knife certainly would be an ‘aggressor’! He would be wielding a weapon with the intent to use it to cause harm to someone. A fetus, on the other hand, would not even come close to the definition of an ‘aggressor’! Therefore, aux1’s example fails to adequately describe the situation.

Blessings,

G.

If the fetus is the source of an infection, then it is the source of aggression; i.e. a threat to the life of a mother. That would seem to make the situations equivalent and would make the use of Double Effect appropriate for both situations. The fetus does not intend any ill but it represents an equally dangerous threat as the insane, but entirely innocent attacker.

 

[Reverie]

I can’t think of any disease or anything where the unborn baby would be a source of infection in the mother besides a missed miscarriage. Do you know of any?

 

[gerryconnor]

One thing very important ethical point that you’ve missed is that by the third trimester, the pregnancy can be “terminated” by** live birth** rather than abortion. The stories I shared in an earlier post included babies 2 pounds and less being delivered live.

The other point you miss is that a third trimester abortion poses risks for the mother. Delievering a live baby is safer for the mother too. Abortion, even legal abortion, is not without health risks.While expressing concern about the life of the mother, pro-aborts seem to forget or ignore the fact that** women sometimes die from legal abortions!** Here’s a story you probably missed (because the mainstream media mostly ignored it): A 29 yo kindergarten teacher from New York went in for a late term abortion at 33 weeks pregnant** and died**. The child had some type of abnormality that prompted her to abort, yet it wasn’t only the child who died during the abortion but also the mother.
jillstanek.com/2013/02/breaking-carharts-victims-identified/

See that beautiful woman’s face below? She died from abortion in the US in February, 2013. May she and her child rest in peace.

Sorry, but I don’t understand the moral significance in your observation that “the pregnancy can be “terminated” by live birth rather than abortion.” Can you explain? In situations similar to that of Savita Halappanavar, the fetus could be removed alive from the womb using a Cesarean Section. The child would die quickly following removal, but probably not immediately. (I’m not concerned about the terminology - “abortion”, “live birth”, “expedited delivery” etc. - only the situation where a mother’s life is in danger during the third trimester and removal of the fetus offers hope for the mother’s survival.)

I don’t think your point about the risks of abortion is relevant. There are risks attached to many medical procedures and it is the job of medical professionals to balance those risks and make decisions. In the Halappanavar case the question is one of balancing the risks of an expedited delivery against the risk of continuing the pregnancy. I don’t deny that both courses involve risks and that there is no certainty either way. Sometimes we face tough decisions, but often one course of action provides more hope than another.

 

[gerryconnor]

I can’t think of any disease or anything where the unborn baby would be a source of infection in the mother besides a missed miscarriage. Do you know of any?

Some stillbirths and natural abortions are the result of fetal infection. A Google search identified congenital toxoplasmosis as one cause of fetal infection.