Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[LittleSoldier]

I dont think the argument is based on consequentialism at all. The facts are that the baby was already in the process of dying. an organ shared by mother and baby was the cause of the problem. Removing it would cause the mother to live and the child to die. Do you really think Jesus would rather you moral your way out of helping someone when its right than do the most good you possibly can? This is not a case about the right to life, its not. You can choose to see it in that light if you want, like the bishop but its not. The details are cut and dry. The nihilistic idea that letting both of them die being the just, moral thing to do, is wrong.

Do you really think that Jesus would allow the gates of hell to prevail against the church that He established? Oh wait, you’re not Catholic. So maybe you do think that Jesus would allow that.

Jesus gave the Church the right to bind and loose on earth that which is bound and loosed in heaven. As far as I know He wasn’t joking or fooling around when He gave His Church this power. That doesn’t surprise me as the Church is the Body of Christ.

Ergo, Church teaching on this matter is correct. The child should not have been aborted and those involved, if Catholic, were automatically excommunicated.

This is definitely a case of the right to life.

 

[LittleSoldier]

And I’d like to say too, as the mother of a child in Heaven who only lived seven weeks in the womb, that the commments of “the baby is going to die anyway” really bother me. Without meaning to I think people are insinuating that the life the child has already lived is without value or consequence. We can’t know what that short life has accomplished already, or what it’s presence as an intercessor in Heaven for it’s family will accomplish on Earth after it’s death.

That bothers me, too. I lost two children before birth, both at eight weeks. Their lives were precious. You’re right about us not knowing what our children’s lives accomplished during their short time on earth. Thank you for that - after so many years I still grieve for what was lost without thinking clearly of what was gained.

 

[brumano]

Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery
PHOENIX – The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a major hospital of its affiliation with the church Tuesday because of a surgery that ended a woman’s pregnancy to save her life.

Bishop Thomas Olmsted called the 2009 procedure an abortion and said St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center - recognized internationally for its neurology and neurosurgery practices - violated ethical and religious directives of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops.
…

The Bishop is definetely in the right in taking the actions he has taken. I strongly suspect that this case was medically proffered by the hospital which is probably in fact a secular hospital which was remaining under the appearance of being Catholic for most likely quite a few years already.

 

[bookgirl32]

That bothers me, too. I lost two children before birth, both at eight weeks. Their lives were precious. You’re right about us not knowing what our children’s lives accomplished during their short time on earth. Thank you for that - after so many years I still grieve for what was lost without thinking clearly of what was gained.

I’ve come to a peace about the fact that my child is where he is supposed to be now. And if that meant that I would grieve because I never got to hold him and that my husband and son’s lives along with mine would be altered because of it, then yes, that’s okay. His life had, and has, a purpose. So do your children’s lives. I go back and forth between missing him, and then thanking God that he had the short life he had b/c of where he is now. I helped get my child to Heaven, and so did you, we should be so grateful we had that opportunity!!!

 

[nhylan]

Since I dont’ see staying alive at all costs my ultimate goal in life, it isn’t a problem in theory. Of course the though of death scares me, but we all die. I would hope that faced with a similar situation I could with God’s grace stand up to that fear and continue to do the right thing, regardless of my emotions.

I’m assuming you mean why would I choose to be open to life if it means my life is threatened? Every mother’s life is threatened in one way or another by any pregnancy. It has always been that way, it used to be one of the most life threatening things for women, period (and still is, really). You lay down your life for your child the minute you become pregnant. The chances may be higher that one may have more of a problem than another, yes, but the chances you’re going to die in a plane crash are also there, and a vacation is much less fulfilling than a child.

I’m not referring to your life, I’m referring to the life of the child, concieving that child would knowingly (in all probability, put that child in harms way.) I’m sorry you and others are so close to this argument. I’m not going to press it any longer because it doesn’t get us anywhere besides heated.

I will say this though, you do not get to say whether I am pro-life or not. That is NOT your decision to make. I’m sorry you’ve had the experiences you’ve had and how they have shaped you but you don’t get to determine that.

 

[bookgirl32]

I’m not referring to your life, I’m referring to the life of the child, concieving that child would knowingly (in all probability, put that child in harms way.) I’m sorry you and others are so close to this argument. I’m not going to press it any longer because it doesn’t get us anywhere besides heated.

I will say this though, you do not get to say whether I am pro-life or not. That is NOT your decision to make. I’m sorry you’ve had the experiences you’ve had and how they have shaped you but you don’t get to determine that.

I never said you were or you weren’t. You’re referring to another poster.

And conceiving any child, in any way, puts them in harms way. Life is hard, and they will die eventually. Just because you might know specifically one of the things that puts a potential child in harms way prior to their conception does not make life unworthy of living.

 

[Elizabeth502]

We now have a nun (whom I assume was a practicing Catholic) who has been excommunicated. So now she can no longer receive Communion.

If you’re speaking of Sr. Margaret McBride, she was restored quite awhile ago.

 

[bookgirl32]

Again, the organ was not shared by the mother and the baby. The organ is only the mother’s. That it was supporting the baby and was stressed by the support of that baby does not make IT a healthy organ in and of it’s own right.

Correction:
The organ they were speaking of was the placenta. I origanally thought they were referring to the heart of the mother. Still, in my opinion, they placenta only became hypoxic after the effects of the “pathological maternal environment” (their words) caused it to be so.

 

[manualman]

nhylan, upon searching for details your criticism of my analogy may be correct. It may well be true that if not for the abortion, BOTH mother and child would die.

So let’s revise my scenario. A terrorist kidnaps 4 preschoolers and a politician. The terrorist locks the pol in a solid room with the kids and a handgun. He tells him via loudspeaker "you shoot and kill ONE of those kids in the next 5 minutes or else I’ll kill them ALL.

What’s moral and what’s not?

 

[buffalo]

Voris weighs in.

Bravo, Bishop

When a bishop does a great thing, he needs to be recognized and supported.
rdefrancesco@diocesephoenix.org

 

[mdgspencer]

I hadnt heard this before, that all the docto’s agreed that the baby would die no matter what was done. Could you provide a link saying that the doctors all agreed the baby would have inevitably died no matter what?

Your logic is flawed. First of all you are neglecting the fact that all the doctors agreed that the baby was going to die, no matter what. It could have been when the mother died or it could have been when the incredibly hard decision to save SOMEONES life was made. The baby was the cause of the further exacerbation of the mother’s health problems. You can frame this anyway you like but ultimately the choice to save someone was made. It doesn’t mean the mother is worth more than the baby, it just means the something is better than nothing. Is it a hard choice? absolutely but it was the right choice and if the price for making the right choice is having your affiliation with the Roman Catholic diocese removed then that’s a choice they were clearly willing to make. You haven’t heard a single comment from anyone involved saying they wish they hadn’t done it. NOT ONE. I’m afraid RC teachings on life and abortion were woefully inadequate for this case.

 

[PJM]

=1holycatholic;7386460]Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery
PHOENIX – The Roman Catholic Diocese of Phoenix stripped a major hospital of its affiliation with the church Tuesday because of a surgery that ended a woman’s pregnancy to save her life.

Bishop Thomas Olmsted called the 2009 procedure an abortion and said St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center - recognized internationally for its neurology and neurosurgery practices - violated ethical and religious directives of the national Conference of Catholic Bishops.
…

The incident was FULLY investigated, and the Bishop entered into “talks” with the hospital
administration who would NOT commitl to the moral standards of a “Catholc Hospital.” So let’s put the balme where it belongs. Abortions are MURDER. The Fifth Commandment
is Thou Shall NOT Kill

 

[hxcCatholic413]

nhylan, upon searching for details your criticism of my analogy may be correct. It may well be true that if not for the abortion, BOTH mother and child would die.

So let’s revise my scenario. A terrorist kidnaps 4 preschoolers and a politician. The terrorist locks the pol in a solid room with the kids and a handgun. He tells him via loudspeaker "you shoot and kill ONE of those kids in the next 5 minutes or else I’ll kill them ALL.

What’s moral and what’s not?

I can’t imagine ever being involved in that scenario

 

[LittleSoldier]

I’m not referring to your life, I’m referring to the life of the child, concieving that child would knowingly (in all probability, put that child in harms way.) I’m sorry you and others are so close to this argument. I’m not going to press it any longer because it doesn’t get us anywhere besides heated.

I will say this though, you do not get to say whether I am pro-life or not. That is NOT your decision to make. I’m sorry you’ve had the experiences you’ve had and how they have shaped you but you don’t get to determine that.

I believe you were referring to me in your second paragraph. I stand by my statement. My experiences have absolutely nothing to do with your being pro-life or not. It’s your attitudes and/or actions that determine it. And your attitude is not that of a pro-lifer.

If you’re unhappy with not being called a pro-lifer I suggest you examine your attitudes. As for arguments, I believe that the problem of abortion can be discussed in a mature and charitable way, as long as all parties involved participate in such manner.

 

[LittleSoldier]

If you’re speaking of Sr. Margaret McBride, she was restored quite awhile ago.

Yes, that is the person I’m referring to. Does “restored” mean that she has been reconciled with the Church? If so, I’m very happy for her. I only knew that she had been excommunicated because I read the bishop’s statement.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Correction:
The organ they were speaking of was the placenta. I origanally thought they were referring to the heart of the mother. Still, in my opinion, they placenta only became hypoxic after the effects of the “pathological maternal environment” (their words) caused it to be so.

Would you mind posting a link about this hypoxic placenta? I didn’t see that mentioned in the original article.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, that is the person I’m referring to. Does “restored” mean that she has been reconciled with the Church? If so, I’m very happy for her. I only knew that she had been excommunicated because I read the bishop’s statement.

Yes, it’s confusing. He (the bishop) has said in the past that she “had” been excommunicated. Later I read in a couple of Catholic sources (I do forget where) that she had reconciled with the Church. Last night on an EWTN radio program with Doug Keck, Bishop Olmstead, when asked by Keck, was speaking about the process of restoring an excommunicant and “what she would need to do,” as well as “what a religious would need to do.” But he was clear that a parish priest could restore her, so he would not necessarily know personally if she’s gone to confession about this because his intervention in this case is not required. But I had read that months ago.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Would you mind posting a link about this hypoxic placenta? I didn’t see that mentioned in the original article.

I realize you didn’t address me, but perhaps this is what is being referred to. From the published report:

What exacerbated the woman’s pulmonary hypertension and was causing heart failure and cardiogenic shock was not the fetus, but the placenta, an organ shared by the mother and the child in her womb.

The placenta was producing the physiological changes that imperiled the mother’s and child’s lives. Although in one respect the placenta was functioning ‘normally,’ it was also functioning pathologically in two ways. First, once the placenta initiated its normal function at week ten, a crisis was created. Second, once the patient entered cardiogenic shock, the placenta also became hypoxic [unable to get enough oxygen]. In these two ways, then, the placenta not only initiated a threat to the mother’s life; it also became the immediate/presenting cause of the inevitably fatal threat to the fetus.

In acting to remove the placenta, the hospital knew that this intervention would inevitably also cause the death of the child – just as the child’s death is inevitable when a mother’s fallopian tube is removed in an ectopic pregnancy or when a pregnant woman’s cancerous uterus is removed – both classic examples of licit medical procedures in moral theology and church teaching.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I realize you didn’t address me, but perhaps this is what is being referred to. From the published report:

Does anyone know if the Vatican has issued a statement? From the published report it seems clear that, if by removing an organ that would cause death to the mother if allowed to remain, the death of the child would be a tragic consequence and not a direct abortion.

I don’t think we have all the facts. I know that it’s considered an abortion if an unborn child is intentionally killed but I don’t know if this case falls into that category.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I realize you didn’t address me, but perhaps this is what is being referred to. From the published report:

Oh thank you, I missed that!

I wonder if this theologian is basically saying that the placenta was “diseased” because it was suffering from the same problems (lack of oxygen) as the rest of the mother?