I am not trying to put words in your mouth, I was simply agreeing with you that it depends on how you are cutting off the blood supply to the baby. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear enough.
My apologies - it took me by surprise and seemed unlike something you would post (in the short time I have known you).
usccb.org/bishops/directives.shtml
I’m a trifle confused by some parts of your post so let me take it point by point.
How does that sanction only surgical removal or bar the use of methotrexate? The drug acts both on the placenta (whose point of attachment to the tube is now considered the pathology as I understand it) and on the baby. If the intent is to remove the placental attachment and the effects on the baby are viewed as forseeable but unfortunate side effects, does it not meet the definition of indirect abortion?
It is confusing because unless you specify what procedure or procedures you are talking about, direct or indirect have no clear meaning. Are you visualizing someone targeting and physically crushing a baby to death? Are you aware that a totally illicit abortion can be performed without even touching the baby and with delivery of a living baby?
I guess the question that would need to be answered in this case is that of the “ownership” of the placenta. Is it an organ belonging to the baby or the mother? Whose body is responsible for “forming” the placenta? Whose body did it come from? If belonging only to the baby then removal and/or harm to the placenta would be considered direct harm to the baby. If the attachment to the tube or the placenta itself is considered the pathology but it is the baby’s pathology and not the mother’s, it would be an incurable pathology to the baby considering it cannot live without the placenta nor can it live outside of the mother’s body. So the removal of the placenta under the guise of being a treatment of a pathology would amount to that of euthanasia, “the baby will die anyway we’ll just speed it along.” That it is of physical advantage to the mother is a secondary, not direct, result of the operation, thereby making it the opposite of “double effect”. When you’re “treating” a placenta are you treating the mother’s body or the baby’s?
Of course it happens in other hospitals, nationwide. There are legal ramifications to holding another person hostage to another’s religious beliefs in a true life-and-death emergency and watching them die, rather than administering physician prescribed (and very much legal) treatments as ordered. An elective procedure can be denied, and a patient can be transferred to another facility. This violates no one’s rights. However, in a true emergency which results in death if the prescribed treatment is not given, it is called negligence and malpractice and this will cost the hospital and all staff involved dearly. Imagine going into an emergency room bleeding out and being denied a blood transfusion because the staff caring for you are jehovah’s witnesses. Not going to happen. Just like blood transfusions, this treatment was legal. Imagine if the same patient in question is Jewish, in the same senario. Although the Jewish are opposed to abortion, they allow it in cirumstances where the woman’s life being in danger. It’s not against their religion. If one thinks the family will just lie down and take it and watch their wife/sister/mother/aunt/friend die because of someone else’s religious beliefs while the treatment is prescribed by the doctor, and is a legal treatment, they’re mistaken. Being a level one trauma center requires caring for patients as they come in to be treated for their condition. If one cannot handle that kind of situation, just like any other instution that doesn’t fit the profile of a “level” one, then their status has to be lowered and the patients simply diverted. A few of the articles written on the St. Joe’s case said that the patient was too sick to transfer out. They had a choice: treat the patient or send her out. They made their choice. No one wants to end up in a hospital that does not want to treat them. Being in a crisis in a hospital is a scary place to be. You have to trust those caring for you. When one goes to a hosptial, one expects to be treated with the standards of care for their situation. You can bet this happens in other hospitals, Catholic or secular. The problem with St. Joe’s is that they were doing other things too, such as providing sterilizations and contraceptives, which don’t usually happen in other Catholic facilities. Those are not life-and-death situations, but elective, and can be diverted to other facilities without ramifications, unlike the life-and-death situations.
Please provide documentation that a privately owned institution with no federal or state funding can be “forced” to do anything. There are regulations on what they can’t do, as in refuse treatment to someone coming into an ER, but they are still under control of what that treatment is. I’ll even remind you of President Bush’s provider “conscience” rule that is still in effect (though Obama would love to rescind it) that protects the right of individual providers to refuse to perform an act when employed by an institution that does receive federal funding. Yes the Catholic hospital is within their rights to refuse to perform an abortion, even one that may “save a mother’s lfie”.
This is where it gets really interesting…both the baby and the mother contribute to formation and functioning of the placenta. 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. I say all of this just to make the point that these are difficult decisions and medical personnel who wish to abide by Catholic principles may truly have difficulty with deciding what the right thing to do is.
That’s why I brought up “intent” before. If the intent is to kill the baby it is a direct abortion. It appears that in the Arizona case there was intent to kill the baby. This is not acceptable.
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.
I’m sure the decision is very difficult, especially if the physicians involved are not Catholic but are practicing at a Catholic hospital.
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?
With all due respect, your posts would be much easier to read and understand if you used paragraphs.
If this hospital was a recipient of medicare and medicaid, which they are, they are government funded. I don’t know of any Catholic hospital that does not take medicare and/or medicaid.
I’m sorry. That’s just awful.
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.
When you say “prescribed” are you referring to the direct order of a particular physician or the existence of a “code” within medical ethics that would automatically render a procedure, first of all life-saving, and then the only life-saving procedure? I’m asking because one, I don’t know, and two, if it is the first, it would seem to rest in the hands of the doctor and his/her opinion.