Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[seekerz]

If you can show that they simply removed the placenta without touching the baby, then removed the baby without directly killing it, okay (and again, I don’t even know if that would be licit considering induction at this point would not be). A D&C being the medically acceptable or most preferred form of removing a placenta does not change the fact that the baby is directly harmed in the process. I’m not trying to keep the baby alive here. I know that the baby will most likely die should it and the mother be left alone and will most definitely die should the placenta be removed in anyway. The point is not the death of the baby. The point is that in the procedures defined as abortions the baby is not passively left to die, it is actively killed. It doesn’t matter if the ultimate goal is to save the life of the mother, or that the baby will inevitably die. The doctor does not have the right to actively take the life of the baby in any procedure for any reason whatsoever. One can understand this point without understanding every technical step of any of the procedures.

What does “actively take the life of the baby” mean? If I cut off the blood supply of a baby (roughly equivalent to cutting the IV line and oxygen tube of a patient on a respirator) am I actively taking its life?

 

[bookgirl32]

Points well taken. The medical intent here would be removal of the ‘diseased’ placenta. The question is (and I’ve seen conflicting theological opinions) is whether a D&C is always illicit? Viability, I think, would be of less concern here - just as it is in ectopic pregnancies. An important consideration is that both lives are at risk: going into shock places the baby at imminent risk of death as well, regardless of the fact that nothing can be done to preserve its life outside the womb. It always bothers me that the argument becomes mother or baby because whatever puts her life at risk also risks the baby’s survival.

I’m not trying to be unfeeling. It would be one of the worst possible situations to face. But I don’t think in this case it would be choosing the life of the baby over that of the mother. If understood through the context of Church teaching, it would be “anti-mother” to do something that would endanger her soul. And advising her to cooperate in the direct killing of her child, which is intrinsically wrong regardless of the circumstances, would be just that. Of course it’s incredbily difficult for people coming from a non-Catholic viewpoint to understand. But if you’re going to believe there’s revealed truth, that the truth is absolute, and that the Church has the authority to interpret this revelation, then you’ve got to come to terms with the fact that letting the mother die is not the worst possible thing you could do to her.

 

[bookgirl32]

What does “actively take the life of the baby” mean? If I cut off the blood supply of a baby (roughly equivalent to cutting the IV line and oxygen tube of a patient on a respirator) am I actively taking its life?

No, your direct action would be whatever procedure you’re performing to cut off that blood supply. It would passively result in the loss of the baby’s life. You’re not, as in the example of a D&C performed on a living fetus, purposefully dismembering it. That’s why turning off life support (and not that you would think this, but to avoid another argument altogether, feeding tubes are not “life support” in Catholic teaching) in a patient is permissable. While euthanasia is not.

 

[bookgirl32]

The diagnosis of cardiogenic shock certainly places the patient in an emergency, and in a life-and-death situation.

When it comes down to it, the situation being an emergency or not really has no bearing on the actual argument itself.

 

[Rence]

When it comes down to it, the situation being an emergency or not really has no bearing on the actual argument itself.

For a “Catholic”, there should be no argument at all. The point I was making is that consenting patients deserve full disclosure from the hospital from which they are receiving medical care. That’s why I think the loss of Catholic status was a positive result for both Catholics and non-Catholics because the patient’s rights in that facility will be better defined.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

For a “Catholic”, there should be no argument at all. The point I was making is that consenting patients deserve full disclosure from the hospital from which they are receiving medical care. That’s why I think the loss of Catholic status was a positive result for both Catholics and non-Catholics because the patient’s rights in that facility will be better defined.

Except now there will be no rights to the unborn patient.

 

[seekerz]

I’m not trying to be unfeeling. It would be one of the worst possible situations to face. But I don’t think in this case it would be choosing the life of the baby over that of the mother. If understood through the context of Church teaching, it would be “anti-mother” to do something that would endanger her soul. And advising her to cooperate in the direct killing of her child, which is intrinsically wrong regardless of the circumstances, would be just that. Of course it’s incredbily difficult for people coming from a non-Catholic viewpoint to understand. But if you’re going to believe there’s revealed truth, that the truth is absolute, and that the Church has the authority to interpret this revelation, then you’We ve got to come to terms with the fact that letting the mother die is not the worst possible thing you could do to her.

My viewpoint is most definitely Catholic and it is not the emotions concerning the case that fascinate me, its the seemingly inadequate relationship between the biological facts and the theological debate. We cannot seem to get beyond the point of applying the tenets of our faith beyond the boundaries of ectopic pregnancy and cancer of the uterus. I asked the question of a religious once, if a removal of the uterus in this case would have been okay (similar to removal of an tube in ectopics) and he said no, because the uterus was not diseased. Thing is, the uterus contributes to formation of the placenta (that’s how it is attached), so biologically speaking he was misinformed. That’s what cemented my concern for the nun (and the docs) involved in this case.

 

[seekerz]

No, your direct action would be whatever procedure you’re performing to cut off that blood supply. It would passively result in the loss of the baby’s life. You’re not, as in the example of a D&C performed on a living fetus, purposefully dismembering it. That’s why turning off life support (and not that you would think this, but to avoid another argument altogether, feeding tubes are not “life support” in Catholic teaching) in a patient is permissable. While euthanasia is not.

By your reasoning then, removal of the tube in an ectopic is wrong (or a pregnant uterus in cancer) because both of those procedures involve cutting off the blood supply to the fetus resulting in its death.

 

[bookgirl32]

For a “Catholic”, there should be no argument at all. The point I was making is that consenting patients deserve full disclosure from the hospital from which they are receiving medical care. That’s why I think the loss of Catholic status was a positive result for both Catholics and non-Catholics because the patient’s rights in that facility will be better defined.

I think that in the case that the hospital continues on it’s current course and changes nothing, then it is the best outcome. So I agree with you there. I personally wouldn’t call an originally Catholic institution completely losing site of it’s orginal mission positive, though.

 

[seekerz]

No, your direct action would be whatever procedure you’re performing to cut off that blood supply. It would passively result in the loss of the baby’s life. You’re not, as in the example of a D&C performed on a living fetus, purposefully dismembering it. That’s why turning off life support (and not that you would think this, but to avoid another argument altogether, feeding tubes are not “life support” in Catholic teaching) in a patient is permissable. While euthanasia is not.

I erased my previous post because I obviously misread yours.

 

[bookgirl32]

By your reasoning then, removal of the tube in an ectopic is wrong (or a pregnant uterus in cancer) because both of those procedures involve cutting off the blood supply to the fetus resulting in its death.

Why would it be wrong? I said that cutting off the blood supply woud NOT be actively causing harm to the actual person. Cutting off the blood supply, assuming you were performing the procedure on a “blood supply” outside of the person, would be something that would passively result in the patient’s death. Which is different than what is considered an abortion by the Church (and what I’m assuming would be medically considered an abortion as well) and is permissable under Church teaching. Hence my analogy to cutting off life support and euthanasia. I think you misunderstood me? Again, the ultimate goal in much of Catholic ethics is not avoiding physical death. The means by which the death happens, and what the implication is to someone’s soul, is.

 

[bookgirl32]

I erased my previous post because I obviously misread yours.

Oh, gotcha. I dont’ think it will let me erase my most recent post. Disregard it then.

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m quite sure there are a number of Catholics who won’t be going into this hospital for treatment because of their refusal to adhere to Catholic guidelines. So yes, it’s a good thing that they lost their status as a Catholic facility.

They intentionally murdered a patient. That’s not merely substandard care, it is the antithesis of care.

 

[bookgirl32]

My viewpoint is most definitely Catholic and it is not the emotions concerning the case that fascinate me, its the seemingly inadequate relationship between the biological facts and the theological debate. We cannot seem to get beyond the point of applying the tenets of our faith beyond the boundaries of ectopic pregnancy and cancer of the uterus. I asked the question of a religious once, if a removal of the uterus in this case would have been okay (similar to removal of an tube in ectopics) and he said no, because the uterus was not diseased. Thing is, the uterus contributes to formation of the placenta (that’s how it is attached), so biologically speaking he was misinformed. That’s what cemented my concern for the nun (and the docs) involved in this case.

But wouldn’t all the arguments you’d be making be applicable to whether or not the removal of the uterus would fall under the concept of “double effect” and separate from the argument of abortion, how the Church defines it, being licit/illicit regardless of circumstances? Abortion as the Church defines it cannot fall under “double effect”, as it’s always intrinsically wrong. Where removing the uterus is not always intrinsically wrong. I guess the argument above would be closer to the argument of if you could remove the placenta in a procedure that wouldn’t directly harm the fetus, even though it will result in it’s death.

My concern for the nun is that she is in the position she is in and doesn’t seem to want to consult her Bishop, who is the final moral authority on the matter.

Also, don’t disregard all the reports of previous issues between the hospital and the Church. This was just the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.

 

[bookgirl32]

Except now there will be no rights to the unborn patient.

Good point, one I didn’t consider, thanks.

 

[seekerz]

But wouldn’t all the arguments you’d be making be applicable to whether or not the removal of the uterus would fall under the concept of “double effect” and separate from the argument of abortion, how the Church defines it, being licit/illicit regardless of circumstances? Abortion as the Church defines it cannot fall under “double effect”, as it’s always intrinsically wrong. Where removing the uterus is not always intrinsically wrong. I guess the argument above would be closer to the argument of if you could remove the placenta in a procedure that wouldn’t directly harm the fetus, even though it will result in it’s death.

My concern for the nun is that she is in the position she is in and doesn’t seem to want to consult her Bishop, who is the final moral authority on the matter.

Also, don’t disregard all the reports of previous issues between the hospital and the Church. This was just the “straw that broke the camel’s back”.

That’s just it, technically every procedure we have just discussed, including removal of the pregnant uterus, qualify as abortion (not morally, but medically). Which is why I made the comment earlier about abortion being more than a single procedure.

 

[seekerz]

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.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well, here, let me clarify. I wouldn’t want you to misunderstand me. When I go to a hospital, I expect to be treated medically with sound medical practices. I do not expect to be subject to the religious affiliation of my health care providers whether they are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or yes, Catholic. I expect their judgement to be based on my diagnosis, which have procedures related to their diagnosis and are the standards of practice. If for whatever reason, they don’t provide the standard of care for my emergency, I’d like to know about it in advance so I don’t have to go there. In addtition, I want to be fully participant in my care, and if I can’t be, I want my designated durable power of attorney to be participant. The patient has the right to to be involved in their treatment. They have the right to participate in the course of treatment. And they have the right to refuse it. That means, if I am of a certain religion (ie Catholic), I want my rights protected. I wouldn’t want my doctor to criticize my choice to adhere to Catholic rules and laws. I would want him or her to tell me what I need to stabilize my condition and return me to health, and or to consent to it. And I expect every patient being wheeled into the emergency room with power of consent to be treated the same. And I’m sure our Protestant, Jewish and Muslim friends feel the same. If a level one hospital cannot provide the care demanded of a level one, then it’s level one status should be removed. Likewise, if a hospital will not provide the care recommended for a particular patient, they need to disclose that so the patient knows in advance. The publicity resulting from this situation at Joe’s will provide potential patients information they need to make informed decisions when they need medical care. And that’s a good thing whether one is Catholic or not.

I’m quite sure there are a number of Catholics who won’t be going into this hospital for treatment because of their refusal to adhere to Catholic guidelines. So yes, it’s a good thing that they lost their status as a Catholic facility.

The problem here is threefold:
(1) Although the hospital claimed to be a Catholic hospital the staff did not follow the rules that Catholic hospitals must follow in order to be called Catholic hospitals. So the Catholic patients going there ran the risk of being treated (medically) in a way which goes against Catholic teaching. No practicing Catholic would want to receive medical care that goes against Church teaching. Not one. In this respect, knowledge of the hospital’s actions is good. However, as a Catholic I assume that when I enter a Catholic hospital that I will be treated as a Catholic. The mother in this case entered a Catholic hospital and should have received treatment which is provided by a Catholic hospital. She didn’t. Her child was murdered at this hospital. That doesn’t seem to bother you at all and the reason I say that is because of the at the end of your post.

(2) The reason we found out about the anti-Catholic behavior of staff at this hospital involved the direct abortion (murder) of an innocent human being. That is not the way we should have found out and that is not the way a Catholic hospital treats patients. The baby was a patient too, you know. You seem to gloss over this fact. It’s not good that we acquired knowledge about the hospital via the murder of an innocent human being.

(3) Ideally, Catholic teaching should be followed at all hospitals!! No hospital should be providing direct abortions. No hospital should be providing contraception and sterilization procedures. As a Catholic I know that what the Church teaches is Truth. Every Catholic knows this, or at least they should. You list “Roman Catholic” as your religious affiliation so I assume you agree with Church teaching. It’s not “good” that any hospital, whether it be Muslim, Protestant, atheist, or anything else provides these services, especially direct abortion.

And that is why I say:

WHAT HAPPENED SHOULD NOT HAPPEN.

 

[LittleSoldier]

There is no single procedure called abortion (back on my soapbox again, I am). Do you know how a placenta is removed at that stage of pregnancy? Usually with a D&C. Is a D&C always illicit regardless of the intent? Abortion in this case is a moral judgment, not a particular procedure.

NOTE: The following is somewhat graphic and may cause pain in those who have lost children before birth:

To clarify: a D&C can be licit. I’ve had a D&C. It is normal procedure for a woman who is pregnant and has suffered a spontaneous abortion or miscarriage to undergo a D&C in order to determine if all parts of the dead child are removed. Oftentimes the baby is not in one piece when she has died and started to decompose. If all the parts are not removed the mother runs a risk of becoming sterile.

It was hard for me to type that. I find the procedure absolutely abhorrent even when medically necessary and what the hospital does with the “parts” of the dead child also abhorrent.

Sorry - I went off topic a bit there. I have some strong emotions about this case and abortion in general.

 

[LittleSoldier]

What does “actively take the life of the baby” mean? If I cut off the blood supply of a baby (roughly equivalent to cutting the IV line and oxygen tube of a patient on a respirator) am I actively taking its life?

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.