Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[LittleSoldier]

Just came upon an interesting article which seems to confirm my sense that interpretation of the circumstances on when it is morally licit to remove a living fetus from the womb, varies among Catholic hospitals.

In that case the USCCB needs to get on the ball and make sure Catholic hospitals in the U.S. are following Church teaching. All Catholic hospitals.

One note of caution: the article states that abortion is sometimes permissible by the Church; this is theologically incorrect but medically correct. Medically, anything - even a natural process- - that results in delivery of a pre-viable fetus, is called an abortion.

That’s a problem I ran into a long time ago. You’re right: medically it is an abortion while the Church does not call it an abortion, but how do you describe what it is? The Church doesn’t give us a word to use. It’s very difficult to debate the topic of abortion and explain Church teaching when you know that medically it is an abortion, but that it isn’t an abortion in certain cases. It is an abortion but it isn’t an abortion.

I remember being slammed once because I used the word “abortion” while explaining that in some cases the Church doesn’t consider it to be an abortion. I was told that to use the word “abortion” was inappropriate and weakened the Church’s stance on abortion. What was I supposed to do?

 

[etspiri2sanctus]

You understand this wasn’t an abortion according to theological experts which are Catholic right? Basically you are cow-towing to one mans opinion on this matter, a man who can be wrong, in this case is wrong, and that doesn’t seem to bother you?

And for the record I am pro life.

I would say that anyone thinking the hospital personnel were theological experts, (or am I misunderstanding you?), is as confused as they are.

 

[bookgirl32]

Just came upon an interesting article which seems to confirm my sense that interpretation of the circumstances on when it is morally licit to remove a living fetus from the womb, varies among Catholic hospitals.

One note of caution: the article states that abortion is sometimes permissible by the Church; this is theologically incorrect but medically correct. Medically, anything - even a natural process- - that results in delivery of a pre-viable fetus, is called an abortion.

Okay. But the Church holds the authority (and in this case, it’s the Bishop) to morally define abortion. That’s what this article seems to be disregarding. It seems to pit physicians against the Church. As Catholics, we are bound to hold the authority of the Church over that of the medical community.

You keep saying “remove a living fetus from the womb”. I could be wrong here, but when a woman procures an elective abortion for non-medical reasons, the standard procedures taken would not “remove a living fetus” from the womb. The procedures directly kill the fetus before the removal of the fetus.

I understand that the word abortion can have different meanings medically. This does not alter the clear teaching of the Church as to whether direct harm can come to the fetus, either before or after birth. In one case, before birth, the Church calls it abortion, and in the other case, after birth, the Church calls it murder. It is the direct harm inflicted on the body of the patient with intent to take it’s life (and by intent I don’t mean the ultimate goal of the doctor’s conscience, however well-intended, I mean the direct result of a purposeful procedure, which in this case would be the killing of the fetus) that is intrinsically immoral and never licit.

You seem to be concerned with the medical personnel’s responsibility to medical ethics and how this responsibility co-exists with that of their responsibility to Catholic ethics. I think that Bishop Olmsted made it clear that the two are different and can be opposing (although in a perfect world they wouldn’t be) and that it is the Catholic hospital’s responsibility to adhere first to the Catholic ethics. If there is confusion on the part of the medical personnel, there is an available final authority to which they can and should turn in this case. They didn’t do this. Other people’s opinions, no matter how well-meaning, do not change the Catholic Church’s authoritative interpretation of natural and divine law. Is it possible that they made a mistake in good faith? Yes. In this case the hospital did not take the opportunity to assert that this is what happened and retain it’s Catholic status, which it was given ample time to do. It stood by it’s decision as morally appropriate regardless of what the Bishop stated.

 

[seekerz]

Earlier in this thread I described a situation which occurred in a hospital. The physician smothered a baby with a pillow. He believed the baby to be brain-dead and absolutely could not understand why the parents, who were not informed of this “pseudo-medical” procedure of smothering (which obviously cuts off the oxygen supply) were upset. This case is somewhat different from the Arizona case as the baby had been born alive.

What I found most interesting about the case described above is that the physician was not used to dealing with very ill neonatal babies and determining brain-death is not the same as it is with older children and adults. He acted too soon. There was a possibility that the baby was not brain-dead at all. We’ll never know.

If a physician (or anyone else) does anything with the intent to kill an unborn baby, they are aborting the baby and actively taking the life of the baby. In your hypothetical case I would say that it depends on how you are cutting off the blood supply of the baby. If it’s done in order to kill the baby, it is an abortion.

Exactly the point. Many discussions I have seen on this issue seem to focus on the fact that a D&C was done and therefore it is a direct abortion. However, I have seen such procedures justified with the argument that if it is done with intent of removing the diseased placenta, then the death (even by dismemberment) of the baby is an unfortunate side effect but not the end in itself therefore morally licit. I do believe that is stretching the principle of double effect, but theological dissections of such a situation are exceedingly hard to come by, despite the fact that medical situations where it might be applied are pretty common.

 

[seekerz]

Okay. But the Church holds the authority (and in this case, it’s the Bishop) to morally define abortion. That’s what this article seems to be disregarding. It seems to pit physicians against the Church. As Catholics, we are bound to hold the authority of the Church over that of the medical community.

You keep saying “remove a living fetus from the womb”. I could be wrong here, but when a woman procures an elective abortion for non-medical reasons, the standard procedures taken would not “remove a living fetus” from the womb. The procedures directly kill the fetus before the removal of the fetus.

I understand that the word abortion can have different meanings medically. This does not alter the clear teaching of the Church as to whether direct harm can come to the fetus, either before or after birth. In one case, before birth, the Church calls it abortion, and in the other case, after birth, the Church calls it murder. It is the direct harm inflicted on the body of the patient with intent to take it’s life (and by intent I don’t mean the ultimate goal of the doctor’s conscience, however well-intended, I mean the direct result of a purposeful procedure, which in this case would be the killing of the fetus) that is intrinsically immoral and never licit.

You seem to be concerned with the medical personnel’s responsibility to medical ethics and how this responsibility co-exists with that of their responsibility to Catholic ethics. I think that Bishop Olmsted made it clear that the two are different and can be opposing (although in a perfect world they wouldn’t be) and that it is the Catholic hospital’s responsibility to adhere first to the Catholic ethics. If there is confusion on the part of the medical personnel, there is an available final authority to which they can and should turn in this case. They didn’t do this. Other people’s opinions, no matter how well-meaning, do not change the Catholic Church’s authoritative interpretation of natural and divine law. Is it possible that they made a mistake in good faith? Yes. In this case the hospital did not take the opportunity to assert that this is what happened and retain it’s Catholic status, which it was given ample time to do. It stood by it’s decision as morally appropriate regardless of what the Bishop stated.

The hospital’s history of adherence or non-adherence to Catholic principles have been pretty well established it would seem. I’m looking at the broader case of whether all Catholics institutions interpret the rules the same way. The findings of the article I cited suggest not. Some transfer bleeding patients with live fetuses so that they don’t bleed to death - but not all do. The question is, what do these latter hospitals do - how do they apply the rules?

You can see from this CHAUSA article (scroll down to page 4), that the choice of procedure when the baby is still alive but mother’s life is threatened is seemingly left to the individual doctors with the underlying principle being that the death of the fetus must not be directly intended. It (big “if”) the intent is correct then, it is difficult to see how a non-medical person can determine that an abortion was in fact performed in a particular situation, unless certain procedures are always seen as direct actions regardless of intent.

Regarding removal of a baby from the womb (more accurately, from the mother’s body, since it can be attached to other organs), it is a term that I use deliberately because sometimes that is all that is done and a living baby is delivered who cannot survive. There doesn’t necessarily have to be any act done to end its life prior to delivery. Of course, in a procured elective abortion, the intent is to end the baby’s life (before, during or after the procedure).

 

[buffalo]

The Bishop said he had issues for the entire 7 years he has been Bishop. He had a meeting with the hospital board and concluded they were not willing to be Catholic.

 

[seekerz]

In that case the USCCB needs to get on the ball and make sure Catholic hospitals in the U.S. are following Church teaching.

It’s not the following, it’s the interpretation. For example, I have seen the principle of double effect used to both condemn and justify the use of methotrexate in treating ectopic pregnancies. Ultimately, it all seems to hinge on what constitutes a “direct act” and whether the placenta is or is not considered a diseased organ separate from the baby.

 

[1holycatholic]

In that case the USCCB needs to get on the ball and make sure Catholic hospitals in the U.S. are following Church teaching. All Catholic hospitals.

The USCCB has no authority in this matter. It’s up to the bishop in each diocese.

 

[seekerz]

The USCCB has no authority in this matter. It’s up to the bishop in each diocese.

Therein lies the problem. If the interpretation and application of rules depend not on the same principles but in who’s in authority where, then there is no uniformity - which is an essential feature of the Church, catholic and apostolic.

Broad principles are not enough if people are going to be disciplined for the particular applications of those principles. We need specific practical examples to match a variety of clinical situations (just like doctors have secular guidelines for what to do in such and such type of case), in language that laypeople everywhere can understand and then reasonably be expected to adhere to. The guidelines don’t have to be set in stone - they can be updated to match changing technology and understanding of diseases, but the status quo is simply inadequate.

 

[1holycatholic]

Therein lies the problem. If the interpretation and application of rules depend not on the same principles but in who’s in authority where, then there is no uniformity - which is an essential feature of the Church, catholic and apostolic.

Broad principles are not enough if people are going to be disciplined for the particular applications of those principles. We need specific practical examples to match a variety of clinical situations (just like doctors have secular guidelines for what to do in such and such type of case), in language that laypeople everywhere can understand and then reasonably be expected to adhere to. The guidelines don’t have to be set in stone - they can be updated to match changing technology and understanding of diseases, but the status quo is simply inadequate.

Enforcement is up to each bishop. Murdering an innocent human being by a direct abortion is always wrong and is not a matter of interpretation.

 

[Corki]

Therein lies the problem. If the interpretation and application of rules depend not on the same principles but in who’s in authority where, then there is no uniformity - which is an essential feature of the Church, catholic and apostolic.

Broad principles are not enough if people are going to be disciplined for the particular applications of those principles. We need specific practical examples to match a variety of clinical situations (just like doctors have secular guidelines for what to do in such and such type of case), in language that laypeople everywhere can understand and then reasonably be expected to adhere to. The guidelines don’t have to be set in stone - they can be updated to match changing technology and understanding of diseases, but the status quo is simply inadequate.

It’s not a matter of interpretation – only of timing. The USCCB guidelines for ethical and moral practices at Catholic hospitals are very specific. Each Bishop, however, must act first and foremost as a shepherd. If the hospital is not conforming, the Bishop tries to gain compliance using whatever pastoral tools are available. “Discipline” is only applied as a last resort. In the Arizona case, after 7 years of pastoral discussion, the Bishop finally reached the time for discipline.

 

[seekerz]

Enforcement is up to each bishop. Murdering an innocent human being by a direct abortion is always wrong and is not a matter of interpretation.

Then tell me, a woman goes to an ER bleeding and going into shock with a dying (but not dead fetus in her womb). She is:

a. given a drug to deliver the bleeding placenta and along with it (since one cannot be removed without the other), the dying baby who everyone knows cannot live outside the womb. The bleeding is stopped and her life is saved
b. taken to the operating room and the contents of her womb are removed to get out the bleeding placenta along with (since one cannot be removed without the other) the dying baby who everyone knows cannot live outside the womb. The bleeding is stopped and her life is saved.

Do either or both of those two procedures constitute a direct abortion or do you need more information? If you can’t answer with certainly, then be of good cheer: you are not alone. If you can, please explain the application of Catholic principles here.

 

[seekerz]

It’s not a matter of interpretation – only of timing. The USCCB guidelines for ethical and moral practices at Catholic hospitals are very specific. Each Bishop, however, must act first and foremost as a shepherd. If the hospital is not conforming, the Bishop tries to gain compliance using whatever pastoral tools are available. “Discipline” is only applied as a last resort. In the Arizona case, after 7 years of pastoral discussion, the Bishop finally reached the time for discipline.

I wasn’t specifically referring to the Arizona case, but to the principles of belief surrounding it and to the findings of an article which suggests significant variation in application of those beliefs in Catholic settings.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Exactly the point. Many discussions I have seen on this issue seem to focus on the fact that a D&C was done and therefore it is a direct abortion. However, I have seen such procedures justified with the argument that if it is done with intent of removing the diseased placenta, then the death (even by dismemberment) of the baby is an unfortunate side effect but not the end in itself therefore morally licit. I do believe that is stretching the principle of double effect, but theological dissections of such a situation are exceedingly hard to come by, despite the fact that medical situations where it might be applied are pretty common.

Wait - that’s not what I said!! I did not say that killing the baby is morally licit. In fact, I know it is not. In another post I added a clarification to the discussion of D&Cs by saying that normal procedure after a spontaneous abortion or a miscarriage is to perform a D&C. In those cases the baby is already dead. I’m not referring to the killing of live babies.

Please don’t twist my words to fit your agenda. I’m very willing to participate in this discussion but it’s very difficult for me to use language because of brain damage and I’m doing my best to be clear. You didn’t understand my post. Please tell me what I stated that made you come to the conclusion you did about it.

 

[bookgirl32]

It’s not the following, it’s the interpretation. For example, I have seen the principle of double effect used to both condemn and justify the use of methotrexate in treating ectopic pregnancies. Ultimately, it all seems to hinge on what constitutes a “direct act” and whether the placenta is or is not considered a diseased organ separate from the baby.

This is interesting and I was already going to ask if you knew what the normal procedures are for eptopic pregnancies and whether or not you know if the church officially sanctions only the removal of the fallopian tube.

 

[bookgirl32]

Therein lies the problem. If the interpretation and application of rules depend not on the same principles but in who’s in authority where, then there is no uniformity - which is an essential feature of the Church, catholic and apostolic.

Broad principles are not enough if people are going to be disciplined for the particular applications of those principles. We need specific practical examples to match a variety of clinical situations (just like doctors have secular guidelines for what to do in such and such type of case), in language that laypeople everywhere can understand and then reasonably be expected to adhere to. The guidelines don’t have to be set in stone - they can be updated to match changing technology and understanding of diseases, but the status quo is simply inadequate.

I agree with you. But I think even the problem you are speaking of lies in the realm of a problem with the Bishops. Of course the hospital carries responsibility but I have a feeling this happens in many more hospitals than this one and the bishops possibly just dont’ have the same reaction as Bishop Olmsted. It’s frustrating.

 

[seekerz]

This is interesting and I was already going to ask if you knew what the normal procedures are for eptopic pregnancies and whether or not you know if the church officially sanctions only the removal of the fallopian tube.

I’d like a link to that “official sanction”. So far all I’ve been able to find is that this is the majority opinion among theologians…

On the other hand, an article by CHAUSA that I linked to in a previous post, seems to imply that the theology around ectopic treatment has changed (including what is now regarded as the ‘diseased’ part) and that procedures which preserve fertility may be licit.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Then tell me, a woman goes to an ER bleeding and going into shock with a dying (but not dead fetus in her womb). She is:

a. given a drug to deliver the bleeding placenta and along with it (since one cannot be removed without the other), the dying baby who everyone knows cannot live outside the womb. The bleeding is stopped and her life is saved
b. taken to the operating room and the contents of her womb are removed to get out the bleeding placenta along with (since one cannot be removed without the other) the dying baby who everyone knows cannot live outside the womb. The bleeding is stopped and her life is saved.

Do either or both of those two procedures constitute a direct abortion or do you need more information? If you can’t answer with certainly, then be of good cheer: you are not alone. If you can, please explain the application of Catholic principles here.

It is my understanding that if removing the placenta leads to the death of the baby it is a direct abortion, even if the baby is dying and if the removal of the placenta is being done in order to kill the baby. The Church teaches that a direct abortion is never acceptable.

As for the D&C that has nothing to do with anything as the baby has already been killed. The D&C is performed only to provide certainty that all parts of the baby (and placenta) have been delivered.

“Be of good cheer?” Oy vey!! Hardly an appropriate expression to be used when discussing the deliberate killing of innocent human beings, created in love by God and in His image.

 

[1holycatholic]

Then tell me, a woman goes to an ER bleeding and going into shock with a dying (but not dead fetus in her womb). She is:

a. given a drug to deliver the bleeding placenta and along with it (since one cannot be removed without the other), the dying baby who everyone knows cannot live outside the womb. The bleeding is stopped and her life is saved
b. taken to the operating room and the contents of her womb are removed to get out the bleeding placenta along with (since one cannot be removed without the other) the dying baby who everyone knows cannot live outside the womb. The bleeding is stopped and her life is saved.

Do either or both of those two procedures constitute a direct abortion or do you need more information? If you can’t answer with certainly, then be of good cheer: you are not alone. If you can, please explain the application of Catholic principles here.

I’m not going to debate every hypothetical case.

Direct abortion is wrong in every case. End of discussion.

 

[bookgirl32]

Then tell me, a woman goes to an ER bleeding and going into shock with a dying (but not dead fetus in her womb). She is:

a. given a drug to deliver the bleeding placenta and along with it (since one cannot be removed without the other), the dying baby who everyone knows cannot live outside the womb. The bleeding is stopped and her life is saved
b. taken to the operating room and the contents of her womb are removed to get out the bleeding placenta along with (since one cannot be removed without the other) the dying baby who everyone knows cannot live outside the womb. The bleeding is stopped and her life is saved.

Do either or both of those two procedures constitute a direct abortion or do you need more information? If you can’t answer with certainly, then be of good cheer: you are not alone. If you can, please explain the application of Catholic principles here.

I asked a similar question over in the moral apologetics board. In this case would live delivery have been licit, regardless of the fact that the baby is not viable. This is part of the answer quoted from that post:

It violates #49 in the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition.

This is what it says:

For a proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.

So I’m thinking this constitutes both an induction or a “c-section” which would be the live surgical removal of baby and placenta, the operation you were referring to.

The poster that answered me over on the other board seemed pretty sure that in the case of Arizona hospital, the only licit action would’ve been to treat the preeclampsia as much as they could have without either, 1) an abortion as defined by “direct killing” and 2) live delivery of the baby whether by indunction or c-section. So if you want to call that “doing nothing” and it results in the deaths of both mother and child, then that’s what you’d call it.

So it looks like, as hard as it may be to accept, the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services is pretty clear about the rules.