Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[seekerz]

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has released a statement which should clarify some things. They state that they gave counsel to both CHW and the bishop regarding the abortion crisis. They very clearly explain the principle of double effect and how its criteria were not met for the procedure in question.

This case is especially dismaying to me, as I am a member of the Mercy Care Plan under AHCCCS. I have known for quite a while that they acted in conflict with Catholic ethics, as several times I received a notice that I was eligible to receive contraceptive products and counseling from them. I had assumed that this was something foisted upon them by the government in exchange for providing Medicaid health care.

Quoting from the link you provided:

It must be said that The National Catholic Bioethics Center does not know the clinical facts of the case;
rather it was asked to comment on the analysis initially submitted to the bishop by Catholic Healthcare
West. The Center was not given access to the clinicians involved, and it can only be presumed that it
was a very difficult situation in which the physicians had to act with dispatch and undoubtedly with
regret. Consequently, without the clinical facts the Center can only articulate again the moral teachings
of the Church and their proper application rather than speaking directly to the case.

 

[seekerz]

Does a mother grow a placenta when there is no pregnancy? It was my understanding that the mother contributes to conception by providing an egg from her body but that the placenta actually grows from the fertilized egg / yolk sack. Is the genetic material consistent with the genetic code of the baby or the mother?

The outer lining of the uterus becomes part of the placenta, so both mother and baby contribute to it.

Besides, I think the larger point that needs to be understood and which is often neglected, is that what happens in one individual affects the other and what happens in the placenta affects them both. So a diseased or malfunctioning placenta is not a threat only to the mother’s life but also to the baby’s.

I just read an article from the National Bioethics Center which does not even seem to consider the contribution of the placenta toward hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Any medical professional in the field will tell you the dramatic effect commonly seen on all aspects of pre-eclampsia almost immediately after the delivery (not of the baby but specifically, of the placenta).

 

[bookgirl32]

The National Catholic Bioethics Center has released a statement which should clarify some things. They state that they gave counsel to both CHW and the bishop regarding the abortion crisis. They very clearly explain the principle of double effect and how its criteria were not met for the procedure in question.

This case is especially dismaying to me, as I am a member of the Mercy Care Plan under AHCCCS. I have known for quite a while that they acted in conflict with Catholic ethics, as several times I received a notice that I was eligible to receive contraceptive products and counseling from them. I had assumed that this was something foisted upon them by the government in exchange for providing Medicaid health care.

I’m glad they released this statement. My point all along has been along these same lines (quoted from the document):

However, one factor which certainly appears to have contributed to the
difficulties in Phoenix is that the hospital was not in consultation and communication with the bishop
regarding the appropriate interpretation and application of the Ethical and Religious Directives.

and this:

What is quite remarkable is
that such procedures were apparently never subjected to ethical review by ecclesiastical authority.

 

[seekerz]

How could normally functioning, non-diseased placenta be considered a pathology? Of course the mother contributes to the formation of the placenta, the mother contributes to the formation of the whole baby, this doesn’t cause the baby to be a parasite dependent upon the mother and void of rights attributable to an independent human being. That’s the whole abortion issue at it’s core.

Of course they’re difficult decisions, I dont’ have any doubt that the doctor’s in this case were trying to save the mother, and not sitting there saying, “hey, let’s do an abortion and see if we can get away with it.” But the Church still stands as the ultimate moral authority to a Catholic hospital and the Bishop holds that authority through the Magesterium. The Bishop does have the right to say, “This is the right thing to do.” He gave them the chance to agree with him, state that their actions were not in accordance with Church teaching and go on as a Catholic hospital. They refused to do this.

Many complications of pregnancy are due to abnormalities in formation, function or attachment of the placenta, so yes, pathology (even cancer) can reside there.

As far as the baby being a parasite - I do not subscribe to that view. This is a distinct human life subjected to the effect of everything that goes on in the mother carrying him or her.

 

[bookgirl32]

The outer lining of the uterus becomes part of the placenta, so both mother and baby contribute to it.

Besides, I think the larger point that needs to be understood and which is often neglected, is that what happens in one individual affects the other and what happens in the placenta affects them both. So a diseased or malfunctioning placenta is not a threat only to the mother’s life but also to the baby’s.

I just read an article from the National Bioethics Center which does not even seem to consider the contribution of the placenta toward hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Any medical professional in the field will tell you the dramatic effect commonly seen on all aspects of pre-eclampsia almost immediately after the delivery (not of the baby but specifically, of the placenta).

I have to agree with you that it is very complicated. I also have to admit that I do not have all the medical answers, and am as capable of being wrong as anyone else. But my problem all along with the situation is not what happened medically at St. Joseph’s but that there seems to be a clear disregard by them for the authority of the Bishop. Not only in this particular case but in a variety of other situations.

The article did mention the situation involving an infected placenta due to a rupture of membranes. It did say that it would be morally licit to remove the placenta in this situation. It did not deny that there would be a situation in which the placenta could be considered pathological. Which only leads me to believe that there is something in this particular case that went beyond the pathology or non-pathology (I don’t even know if that’s how you’d say it) of the placenta. Because of privacy laws we can never know specifically what that was. We can, however, know the previous inconsistencies on the part of the hospital and it’s reluctance to confer with ecclestiastical authorities.

Of course it could be said that any of these difficult situations need to be looked at on a case by case basis, which is fine. What should be universal to all of them though is the cooperation on the part of the hospital in complying with authoritative Catholic teaching as defined by it’s authority.

 

[bookgirl32]

Many complications of pregnancy are due to abnormalities in formation, function or attachment of the placenta, so yes, pathology (even cancer) can reside there.

As far as the baby being a parasite - I do not subscribe to that view. This is a distinct human life subjected to the effect of everything that goes on in the mother carrying him or her.

I know that it can, but wouldn’t the term “normally functioning placenta” infer that it doesn’t?

 

[seekerz]

I know that it can, but wouldn’t the term “normally functioning placenta” infer that it doesn’t?

Sorry, please give the context of that quote. I’ve read too many articles to be able to place it.

 

[seekerz]

I have to agree with you that it is very complicated. I also have to admit that I do not have all the medical answers, and am as capable of being wrong as anyone else. But my problem all along with the situation is not what happened medically at St. Joseph’s but that there seems to be a clear disregard by them for the authority of the Bishop. Not only in this particular case but in a variety of other situations.

The article did mention the situation involving an infected placenta due to a rupture of membranes. It did say that it would be morally licit to remove the placenta in this situation. It did not deny that there would be a situation in which the placenta could be considered pathological. Which only leads me to believe that there is something in this particular case that went beyond the pathology or non-pathology (I don’t even know if that’s how you’d say it) of the placenta. Because of privacy laws we can never know specifically what that was. We can, however, know the previous inconsistencies on the part of the hospital and it’s reluctance to confer with ecclestiastical authorities.

Of course it could be said that any of these difficult situations need to be looked at on a case by case basis, which is fine. What should be universal to all of them though is the cooperation on the part of the hospital in complying with authoritative Catholic teaching as defined by it’s authority.

I agree with you with regard to this specific hospital as there seemed to be multiple compliance “issues” otherwise.

 

[bookgirl32]

Sorry, please give the context of that quote. I’ve read too many articles to be able to place it.

This was your quote from post #169. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you or you mispoke?

Pathology in the placenta can make them both sick and sickness in either of them can be made worse by normal or abnormal functioning of the placenta.

The italics are mine. If a normally functioning placenta and pregnancy are only worsening an already existing sickness in the mother (as in the case of my blood disorder) an abortion performed only to remove this stress on the mother could definitely not fall under double effect. I know that for sure.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The outer lining of the uterus becomes part of the placenta, so both mother and baby contribute to it.

Besides, I think the larger point that needs to be understood and which is often neglected, is that what happens in one individual affects the other and what happens in the placenta affects them both. So a diseased or malfunctioning placenta is not a threat only to the mother’s life but also to the baby’s.

I just read an article from the National Bioethics Center which does not even seem to consider the contribution of the placenta toward hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Any medical professional in the field will tell you the dramatic effect commonly seen on all aspects of pre-eclampsia almost immediately after the delivery (not of the baby but specifically, of the placenta).

If you’ve already stated this, please accept my apology. This thread is moving very rapidly and I’m also involved in another thread which is moving rapidly.

Are you a physician? If not, what is your background in medicine? The reason I’m asking is that you use a lot of medical terms, but if you’re not a physician there is no way you could fully understand the condition of the mother or baby.

I mean absolutely no disrespect.

 

[Sanveann]

Are you a physician? If not, what is your background in medicine? The reason I’m asking is that you use a lot of medical terms, but if you’re not a physician there is no way you could fully understand the condition of the mother or baby…

The fact is, NONE of us can fully understand their condition, because we weren’t there and we aren’t privy to this woman’s medical records. Even if we had the world’s foremost expert on pulmonary hypertension on this board, he/she wouldn’t be able to do any more than conjecture.

From what the articles on this topic have stated, the mother had already been told, earlier in her pregnancy, that her chance of surviving was 50 percent, and she declined to have an abortion at that point. She was readmitted to the hospital, and doctors at that point felt that her risk of death was nearly 100 percent if she continued to carry the baby. Her organs were in the process of shutting down. She was not able to be transferred. That’s pretty much ALL we know.

My heart goes out to everyone in this situation. I can’t imagine making this choice. I’m currently 12 weeks pregnant, and I’ve had several complications that have made me terrified I would lose this baby. (Thankfully, everything seems OK now.) I would happily die for this child, and for my other children … but would I die for a baby who was incapable of living without me? It’s a very hard question. My heart breaks at the idea of my two very young sons losing not only their sibling but their mother as well.

 

[seekerz]

If you’ve already stated this, please accept my apology. This thread is moving very rapidly and I’m also involved in another thread which is moving rapidly.

Are you a physician? If not, what is your background in medicine? The reason I’m asking is that you use a lot of medical terms, but if you’re not a physician there is no way you could fully understand the condition of the mother or baby.

I mean absolutely no disrespect.

No offense taken. I do have medical knowledge and I am familiar with these conditions which is why I understand that the placenta was likely contributing to the problems this mother experienced and that this assessment can only be made by a medical person familiar with such problems. A theologian cannot know, without relying on the opinion of medical experts, whether a placenta needs to be removed to treat a disease. Which experts he chooses to listen to is what will determine if he sees this as a direct abortion or not. That is why I feel for the nun caught up in this case.

 

[seekerz]

This was your quote from post #169. Maybe I’m misunderstanding you or you mispoke?

The italics are mine. If a normally functioning placenta and pregnancy are only worsening an already existing sickness in the mother (as in the case of my blood disorder) an abortion performed only to remove this stress on the mother could definitely not fall under double effect. I know that for sure.

You are correct to a point. If the mother was the only one under the stress it would be that simple but in the case of shock, every organ, including the uterus would be at risk of losing (if not in the process of losing) its blood supply - so the ‘treatment’ would conceivably also remove a non-viable fetus from an environment not supportive of life, a part of the picture that seems to get lost in the shuffle. Quite apart from that, the question of whether the placenta is normal or diseased in a particular case is one to be settled by the medical experts who examine it.

 

[Rence]

You are responsible for carrying out the orders, not for issuing the orders. And if you are aware that a direct abortion is being performed it is your duty as a Catholic to refuse to participate, even in a secular hospital. Maybe you would be fired. Maybe you would lose your license (although I doubt it). That’s called persecution and as Catholics we should rejoice in such.

A Catholic doesn’t take off her “Catholic” uniform when she leaves Mass. She stands up for her faith even if it’s under great pressure. There was more than one life involved here: there was the life of the mother, the baby, and the eternal life of those and everyone who participated.

Do you have any documentation which shows that a Catholic hospital can be forced to perform procedures which are violations of Church teaching? Steering clear of OB may be a good idea, but what if you work in the state of Oregon? Would you participate in euthanasia? That doesn’t just happen in OB.

The documentation I have available to me is the patient’s bill of rights from the hospitals in which I have worked. They have the right to treatment and they have the right to be involved in their treatment without discrimination against their religious beliefs. Do you have documentation to support the claim that a doctor or nurse in an emergency senario can deny a patient prescribed treatment and just watch them die when I board of medicine approved treatment is available, recommended and considered a standard of care? As explained to me upon hire, the conscience clause does not apply to emergency situations in which harm to a patient would result in a refusal to carry out a physician’s direct order in that emergency situation. We are allowed to seek for a replacement nurse, however, if none is available we are responsible for our patient and carrying out our responsibilities until the patient is cared for by another. Sure you can defy the physician and get fired and lose your license and rejoice and be glad that you no longer are a nurse. I’m okay with that. Just as long as the nurse in question knows that that’s exactly what will happen.

And I don’t work in the state of oregon, so again, I don’t have to put myself in that position either. Nurses don’t perform euthanasia where I come from. Again, not a problem I have to deal with. IMOHO working in an environment to deliberately rock the boat is just plain nonsensical. And again, a benefit to everyone that this hospital lost it’s catholic status…nurses can also choose not to work there, or not work in areas that would put them in compromising positions.

 

[Rence]

No offense taken. I do have medical knowledge and I am familiar with these conditions which is why I understand that the placenta was likely contributing to the problems this mother experienced and that this assessment can only be made by a medical person familiar with such problems. A theologian cannot know, without relying on the opinion of medical experts, whether a placenta needs to be removed to treat a disease. Which experts he chooses to listen to is what will determine if he sees this as a direct abortion or not. That is why I feel for the nun caught up in this case.

I think this whole situation has more to do with the Bishop’s struggles with the facility for the past few years…much more so than this one incident. He has been demanding their compliance and they’ve been blatantly disregarding the guidelines of the Church. All the publicity is being honing in on this one case, but the whole picture paints a different story.

 

[seekerz]

I think this whole situation has more to do with the Bishop’s struggles with the facility for the past few years…much more so than this one incident. He has been demanding their compliance and they’ve been blatantly disregarding the guidelines of the Church. All the publicity is being honing in on this one case, but the whole picture paints a different story.

Yes, the whole story sheds a different light on the compliance of this hospital with Church doctrine, but the specifics are yet to convince me. Principles have to line up with the realities of a situation and when I hear comments (like I just read on a different site) that there was nothing wrong with the pregnancy (baby/placenta) itself it makes me want to tear my hair out because we simply aren’t in a position to judge that. Only her doctors could.

 

[bookgirl32]

Yes, the whole story sheds a different light on the compliance of this hospital with Church doctrine, but the specifics are yet to convince me. Principles have to line up with the realities of a situation and when I hear comments (like I just read on a different site) that there was nothing wrong with the pregnancy (baby/placenta) itself it makes me want to tear my hair out because we simply aren’t in a position to judge that. Only her doctors could.

I agree that the public can’t know the full story and that this was the last straw, so to speak, for the bishop. But I also don’t think that he would claim the things he has with absolutely no basis, not even just to teach a lesson for previous infractions. I’m frustrated with this idea out there (not saying you’re subscribing to it) that Church ethics and authority matter only when it’s convenient for them to matter (i.e. when it’s not a life-threatening situation).

 

[1holycatholic]

I agree that the public can’t know the full story and that this was the last straw, so to speak, for the bishop. But I also don’t think that he would claim the things he has with absolutely no basis, not even just to teach a lesson for previous infractions. I’m frustrated with this idea out there (not saying you’re subscribing to it) that Church ethics and authority matter only when it’s convenient for them to matter (i.e. when it’s not a life-threatening situation).

The public knows enough. The “hospital” dispensed artificial contraceptives and performed direct abortions on multiple occasions. They told the bishop that they had no intention of changing their ways.

 

[bookgirl32]

So, the diagnosis that was going to kill the mother was cardiogenic shock and pulmonary hypertension, correct?

 

[LittleSoldier]

No offense taken. I do have medical knowledge and I am familiar with these conditions which is why I understand that the placenta was likely contributing to the problems this mother experienced and that this assessment can only be made by a medical person familiar with such problems. A theologian cannot know, without relying on the opinion of medical experts, whether a placenta needs to be removed to treat a disease. Which experts he chooses to listen to is what will determine if he sees this as a direct abortion or not. That is why I feel for the nun caught up in this case.

I have medical knowledge, too. I asked if you were a physician. I’m not and don’t pretend to be. I would really like to know your qualifications because it would help me determine if you know what you’re talking about. I’m not trying to pry into your life. I respect your privacy. But from reading your posts I get the impression that you are passing yourself off as an expert in OB. I want to know if I can trust what you say.

Again, I mean no offense. I’m trying my best to understand this case and being pro-life is important to me.