S
seekerz
Guest
Pulmonary hypertension leading to cardiogenic shock sounds like what it was.
- Status
S
seekerz
Guest
I’m not an expert in anything (definitely not trying to pass myself off as one) and try to post only verifiable information. If you have difficulty with something I’ve posted, feel free to Google it.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I disagree vehemently (sorry
). The bishop is an expert in Catholic theology and canon law. He understands what constitutes a direct abortion - that is part of his job. He is the one who determined whether this is a direct abortion, not the physicians involved in the case. He relies on the teachings of the Church, not on opinions of physicians, and probably the physicians in this case were not Catholic. And I thought the decision was already made. This abortion occurred in 11-09. It’s not a new case.I have no doubt that ten different physicians would give ten different opinions about this case.
The Sister got what she deserved. She participated in a direct abortion and was automatically excommunicated. That is what happens to Catholics who participate in direct abortions. The process is automatic and the bishop really didn’t have anything to do with it. A poster did say that she had been reconciled with the Church.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Okay, so my first question is in the case of this diagnosis (not necessarily the specific one in Pheonix, but just this diagnosis) the major, vital organ that is malfunctioning is the heart, correct?
So without claiming to know what happened in that situation, it is possible that a situation exists in which this diagnosis exists within the woman where a doctor can make a distinction that the placenta and/or baby did not and are not causing it, but are causing significant, life threatening strain on the organ, and therefore the life, of the mother by being a normally functioning pregnancy?
S
seekerz
Guest
Vehemence of opinion does not equate to correctness. The bishop understands what constitutes a direct abortion but he does depend on the physicians to supply both their intent and the details of the condition they were treating.I disagree vehemently (sorry
I have no doubt that ten different physicians would give ten different opinions about this case.
The Sister got what she deserved. She participated in a direct abortion and was automatically excommunicated. That is what happens to Catholics who participate in direct abortions. The process is automatic and the bishop really didn’t have anything to do with it. A poster did say that she had been reconciled with the Church.
Check this link to see the opinions of doctors who support the bishop’s assessment that this was a direct abortion.
Then read (if you haven’t already) the reasoning of the theologian who reviewed the case.
I agree that the Bishop has both the authority and the responsibility to make a determination - whether the medical facts support his final determination is what concerns me.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
I never claimed you were trying to pass yourself off as anything. There is a problem sometimes when posters, even when they have the best of intentions, write statements that appear to have been written by an expert in the field but don’t provide any documentation. You’ve provided some documentation but you’ve made statements without documentation. That’s why I thought that you might be a physician.
So now I know not to trust in what you write. It would be nice if you would document where you get your information because it appears that you are getting it from somewhere other than your own personal experience.
Look. I’m not trying to start a fight here. I never want to confront anyone. This is a volatile subject. I am upset about this case just like you are and almost everyone seems to be. I think you have written some excellent posts. My concern is about where you get your information. That’s all. No poster should have to google every statement you make. If you’re getting your information from a source other than yourself you should give credit to whomever has given the information.
That’s all I’m going to say about it. I do not mean to offend you. It’s hard to communicate via the Internet. Perhaps in the interest of charity it would be best if I left this thread. I will think about that.
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
Well of course vehemence does not equate to correctness. They aren’t even synonyms. But I get what you’re saying.
And you know what? I have a horrible headache. I’ve been thinking about this case most of the day and it has drained me. Now I’m getting touchy and confused. I appreciate the links very much. I will check them out tonight or in the morning.
I’m very sorry if I’ve said anything to offend you. I don’t want to do that. I wish we weren’t communicating via the Internet. So much is lost. And I don’t want this tragic case to force a wedge between two Catholics.
So I’m going to bow out for now, with apologies. And when I feel a little better I’ll come back.
S
seekerz
Guest
It is certainly possible. Also possible is that the malfunction of the heart produces disease in the previously normal placenta by depriving it of oxygen, rendering it incapable of supporting life. If you haven’t read this, you should.
S
seekerz
Guest
It’s not my intention to upset you or discourage your participation. I write from what I know and from my own experience as well. I’ve also participated in many threads on similar topics. It is kind of difficult to know what information in my posts a reader might want to verify but I’d be happy to help you do this if you indicate which of my positions or points you have trouble with.
Edit: I just saw your comment about taking a break. Hope you feel better soon.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
So in the scenario I presented it is very much possible to say that direct treatment of the malfunctioning organ, the heart, is permissable, but direct treatment of a normally functioning placenta, in this particular case, is not. That the removal of the placenta may cause a positive secondary effect on the heart and thereby improve it’s functioning is an indirect effect of the procedure, since the procedure was not directly performed on the heart.
It’s a situation that this statement, made by the USCCB in response to the Pheonix situation, but not necessarily directly referring to it (link here: usccb.org/doctrine/direct-abortion-statement2010-06-23.pdf ), could be correctly applied:
Why would this even matter? If the placenta becomes diseased and is incapable of supporting life, then it is just that and the baby will die. Removing it will make no difference to the baby at all, except to have the doctor determine the timing of it’s death versus God. Which isn’t necessary (and is immoral) in any situation.
I’ve read it.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
And furthermore, the article you’ve linked to from Commonweal is a theologian’s analysis, not a physician’s analysis. By your own admission you’re frustrated with the medical facts not lining up with the decision of the Bishop. This woman is not a physician, and this article* only* quotes her interpretation of the situation. So by your own reasoning is it anymore useful than any other non-medical expert’s analysis?
B
bookgirl32
Guest
I quoted this from this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=523294, post #5. I believe it is a good analogy for the scenarios we’re talking about. I think many people, in regards to the use of the word “intent”, are confusing “intent of action” with “weight of consequence”.
S
seekerz
Guest
The hypoxic placenta at some point begins to contribute to the pathology (I thought that was understood from the document that there were three effects of the placenta here: one from its normal function and two pathological). Removal of the placenta removes its negative contribution to the malfunction of the circulatory system (heart and blood vessels, to be exact).
If I could use a totally unrelated example to show how these body processes are interrelated and feed on each other: suppose I am in a car accident and I sustain a cut to my neck which causes me to lose a large amount of blood and go into shock. The blood loss could lead to collapse of my circulatory system which might cause my normal, uninjured kidneys to fail. Once they fail, they in turn develop pathology which worsens the problems with my circulatory system and round and round it goes unless the process is interrupted or I die (whichever comes first). Problem with the placenta is that, unlike the kidneys, there aren’t that many options to get it going again.
Removing it would make a difference to the mother (as described above). The point was made to illustrate that two lives were in imminent danger. Not sure how this differs substantially from treatment of ectopic pregnancies (where we don’t even have to wait for the mother to start bleeding to treat). This woman was in shock, the baby possibly in extremis and the placenta contributing to both their conditions. I think it is simply reflects our difficulty in considering pathology and pregnancy as related. Pregnancy is not a disease but it certainly can be affected by or lead to disease.
S
seekerz
Guest
So the applicable question then would be, can a D&C ever be considered a morally neutral act?
S
seekerz
Guest
You need both: theology and medical expertise and her analysis (correct or not) is certainly rich in both. It considers and addresses the biological picture and applies theological principles to that, not in a blanket manner but in a very specific way.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
So here you’re acknowledging that although the placenta has a negative contribution to the malfunctioning organ, it is not the malfunctioning organ itself, and it’s removal is not a procedure directly done on the malfunctioning organ, but a procedure that only secondarily contributes to the improved functioning of the malfuncitioning organ.
Although I can see where you’re making the connection, the analogy wouldn’t work because it does not involve the life of two interrelated human beings, but only one human whose life was threatened by an event, not another life. Catholic teaching is very clear that the existence of a pregnancy, placenta, or baby cannot be considered pathological to the mother in any circumstance.
Of course it would. This, however, is an end which does not justify the means. The baby has a right, under natural and divine law, to a natural death. This is also extremely clear in Catholic teaching. To directly interfere with that (and in this case the removal of the placenta would directly interfere with that, since the pathology of the placenta is relate to the baby and only secondarily related to the primary pathology in the mother, that of the heart condition) is always morally illicit.
Of course they were. This fact does not render intrinsically immoral acts (acts that are immoral regardless of the circumstance or weight of consequence) moral.
It differs in the fact that there is a malfunctioning of a fallopian tube and the removal of the tube is morally licit. It’s not morally licit because “the baby is going to die anyway”. It’s morally licit because it is a direct treatment of the primary malfunction. In Catholic ethics an act is judged independantly of it’s consequences and first dubbed intrinsically moral or not. If an act is not intrinsically evil then it’s weight of consequence can have an effect on it’s morality. If it is, then it cannot.
That it was contributing to the woman’s condition is not equal to it being the organ that is malfunctioning. The malfunctioning organ, in relation to the woman’s system, was the heart. The removal of the placenta is an indirect treatment of the malfunctioning organ and anything resulting in it’s removal in the body of the woman is a secondary result of the removal of the placenta. If a placenta is infected, as in the case with ruptured membranes, the placenta itself is the main, primary cause of the problem. You continue to express that in the case of pulmonary hypertension the placenta becomes hypoxic, therefore rendering it useless to the baby along with being a burden to the mother. But if the heart is making the placenta hypoxic, the heart is the primary cause, correct?
I think that in the case of the removal of a fallopian tube people are getting confused and thinking that the fact that the baby is going to die regardless of what happens is what makes the procedure morally licit, when it isn’t at all.
I’m getting frustrated because the argument of “the baby is going to die anyway” is clearly not sufficient. This does not, in anyway, take away it’s right to a natural death. Even if it’s natural death results in the natural death of the mother.
L
Lutheranteach
Guest
Good. I’m looking for a hospital that can and will provide the most appropriate medical treatment, not acceptable via the Church treatment. The treatment provided was medically appropriate and the best that anyone could do.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
That isn’t answering my question. You continue to say that the medical facts are what concern you, and that only the doctors can evaluate this. She’s not a doctor. I’ve had this discussion earlier in this thread. Her not being a doctor takes away any weight she herself can give medical analysis, she, like the bishop, can rely only on what she infers from the doctor and her own interpretation of it. The difference between her and the bishop, however, is that she holds absolutely no official moral authority, and the bishop, rightfully so as designated by the Church, holds all of it.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
According to Bishop Olmsted as represented in this official document issued by the Diocese of Phoenix (catholicsun.org/2010/phxdio-stjoes/Q-AND-A-ST-JOSEPH-HOSPITAL-FINAL.pdf), on a living child, regardless of prognosis, no. Here’s the quote:
How an infected placenta is removed when specifically dubbed morally licit by the Church I’m admittedly not sure. My guess is that a D&C or D&E are not the only way to do this, even if they are the medically preferred procedure. After viability it is induction or c-section.
B
bookgirl32
Guest
Seekerz, I didn’t see this part of the previous post that I replied to. Maybe you edited it after I began writing:
This would be the difference in Catholic ethics versus medical ethics. Pregnancy itself can never be considered the disease, so to directly treat only the pregnancy, even if it is secondarily treating a disease it is impacting, is intrinsically evil, and never moral. The Church is very clear about this as well.
.
This would be the difference in Catholic ethics versus medical ethics. Pregnancy itself can never be considered the disease, so to directly treat only the pregnancy, even if it is secondarily treating a disease it is impacting, is intrinsically evil, and never moral. The Church is very clear about this as well.
- Status