Are life threatening pregnancies extraordinary care?

  • Thread starter Thread starter D.Erasmus.R
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

D.Erasmus.R

Guest
Pregnancy in someways is a woman providing care for her foetus. Ordinary care is care that people are obligated to provide; extraordinary care is care that people aren’t obligated to provide. Extraordinary care can include care that is dangerous to provide. Pregnancy would normally be ordinary care but could be classed as extraordinary care it’s life threatening. If life threatening pregnancies are extraordinary care then is ending them by: labour induction or c-section in cases like eclampsia or PROM, & cutting open the fallopian tube & gently removing the embryo in ectopic pregnancies, justified.
 
If you search on “ectopic” you will find many, many threads.

Direct abortion, that is an act that is done to end the life of a pre-born human, is always evil.

Rupture of membranes, eclampsia, these are medical conditions and in the developed world, medical professionals do their very best to save both patients.
 
The argument is that opening the fallopian tube & gently removing the embryo isn’t a direct foeticide; rather a recognition that the fallopian tube can’t safely sustain the embryo’s life.
Obviously early labour induction or c-section for, eclampsia, PROM, or pulmonary hypertension, after viability with an attempt to save the foetus afterwards isn’t a direct foeticide. The argument is that early labour induction or c-section for those things even before viability, when attempting to save the foetus mightn’t be possible, isn’t a direct foeticide either. That it’s accepting that the mother’s body can’t safely sustain the foetus’s life.
 
Search and you will find pages and pages devoted to this discussion.

You may also want to look at the National Catholic Bioethics Center
 
Extraordinary care means out of the ordinary. There is a standard of ordinary care for a mom who has her water break early or has high blood pressure. Why would these things be considered extraordinary?

Extraordinary is deciding that a comatose patient gets a surgical feeding tube instead of a simple NG tube. Extraordinary is shocking a patient over and over with a defibrillator. Extraordinary is a ventilator. Extraordinary is chemo and radiation.

Nothing extraordinary is a DNR.
 
Depends upon how they’re removed. Does the surgeon slowly, carefully try to remove them without causing injury or do they roughly yank them out?
 
This is the question I first asked. A careful removal (were it possible) implies removal to a place of safety. I’m not aware of any such procedure.
 
I didn’t ask if treatment for a mum with an ectopic pregnancy, eclampsia, or PROM was extraordinary care. I asked if trying to keep the baby in the fallopian tube(to continue the pregnancy), or in the uterus in cases of eclampsia or PROM was having the mum provide the baby extraordinary care.
Resuscitating a viable, premature baby is ordinary care.
 
TheLittleLady said:
Extraordinary is deciding that a comatose patient gets a surgical feeding tube instead of a simple NG tube. Extraordinary is shocking a patient over and over with a defibrillator. Extraordinary is a ventilator. Extraordinary is chemo and radiation.
Click to expand...
I thought Pope John Paul II said that a surgical feeding tube was ordinary care (as in the Terri Schiavo case).

Also, if a ventilator were used to sustain life for a period of time, until the patient could breathe on their own, wouldn’t that be “ordinary” care as well (as in CV patients who need it until they recuperate from the virus)?
 
Care can be either to save a life & restore them to health, or to keep a dying person comfortable. Using a ventilator/surgical feeding tube save the life of someone’s whose death is inevitable would be extraordinary care. Using a ventilator to keep a dying person comfortable could be ordinary care, however many would find being on a ventilator until death to be discomfortable so keeping them on would be extraordinary care.

A uterus(or fallopian tube) is a bit like a ventilator/feeding tube; the child within the uterus(or fallopian tube) is a bit like someone on a ventilator/feeding tube. Keeping the child in the uterus during a healthy pregnancy is ordinary care. However, if the pregnancy is life threatening then is removal of the child from the fallopian tube in salpingostomy or from the uterus by labour induction or c-section like taking someone of a ventilator/feeding tube because keeping them on would endanger another’s life?
Putting a viable, premature baby on life support is normally extraordinary care.
 
The generally accepted catholic position is that the acceptable procedure to deal with the threat posed by ectopic pregnancy is to cut out a section of tube (about to rupture) containing the child.

Whether inducing labour or executing a c-section (prematurely) can be described as “ceasing extraordinary care” is not a question I’ve come across before. But the essence of “extraordinary care” as the term is usually used has nothing to do with the impact of the care on another person.
 
D.Erasmus.R said:
Care can be either to save a life & restore them to health, or to keep a dying person comfortable. Using a ventilator/surgical feeding tube save the life of someone’s whose death is inevitable would be extraordinary care.
Click to expand...
I was referring to cases, such as Terri Schiavo, where the inability to ingest food or drink is the only reason they can’t otherwise survive — if this is supplied, even for a lifetime, they could have a normal life span. Seen this way, it is no more “extraordinary care” than taking insulin or blood pressure medicine.
D.Erasmus.R said:
Using a ventilator to keep a dying person comfortable could be ordinary care, however many would find being on a ventilator until death to be discomfortable so keeping them on would be extraordinary care.
Click to expand...
I was not referring to keeping someone on a ventilator for life. I was referring to keeping them ventilated until they are restored to the point where they can once again breathe on their own.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
I thought Pope John Paul II said that a surgical feeding tube was ordinary care (as in the Terri Schiavo case).
Click to expand...
The Church teaching is not that one is required to do the extraordinary step of a surgical tube, however, once you take that step you cannot withdraw nutrition until the body simply can no longer process, when the forcing of nutrition causes the person go get worse.

St JPII showed us in his own death, when he consented to an NG tube and nothing more, that we can die a good death without extraordinary means.

Vent is again something that each person needs to discuss with their family. My family knows I want no extraordinary means, and having watched loved ones on a vent, that is not something I would choose for myself.

Others may choose all of the extraordinary means.
 
Last edited:
“Keeping” an ectopic pregnancy is neither ordinary nor extraordinary care: it is no care at all and both the mother and the child will die.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top