Ariz. hospital loses Catholic status over surgery

[seekerz]

Rence, I appreciate the points you make, however:

1. the theological argument in favor of surgical treatment (all that I have ever read) is based on the tube being diseased and infected, not on failure of the tube to usher the pregnancy in the right direction. Unless of course you have access to a different explanation.

If we’re talking about primary process here, I suppose we mean what is at the basis of it all. The tube is not necessarily (although it commonly is) abnormal to begin with and in the absence of a pregnancy within it would pose no threat that could not be treated with antibiotics alone. So my question is, what is the primary process that requires removal of the tube?

I gave a link earlier to a CHAUSA document that now suggests that the pathology lies at the point of attachment of the tube and that a tube can be licitly preserved in cases of ectopic pregnancy. Whether that is indeed so or not, the fact that a tube can be preserved (in non Catholic institutions) and not cause the mother’s death, in fact indicates that surgical removal of the tube is not necessary to preserve life. So why exactly are we removing it? Because it is a diseased organ threatening the mother’s life or because that is the only (?) licit option given to us? Which takes us back to a discussion I’ve had many times…

1. I don’t think you get the point I was making about infection generally either. If the contention is that the hypoxic placenta is not the primary disease process (the pulmonary hypertension is, I agree) and cannot be treated despite the fact that it was a result of the primary process, how then does infection that begins somewhere else and secondarily affects the reproductive organs and their function, qualify them for removal? Poor circulation is the problem in this patient - it is caused by her lung disease but affects all her organs. I’m really trying to see how this is not an artificial distinction that’s being made.
2. If lung cancer spreads to the uterus, how does the uterine cancer become the primary disease process? If I grant that the primary process is the cancer and not its site, then any organ affected can be licitly treated. In the same vein, if I grant that the primary process is pulmonary hypertension, why can’t any organ affected by it be licitly treated? The disease begins in the blood vessels of the lung but it affects and causes malfunction of the circulatory system of the entire body, including the placenta whose own malfunction in turn has negative effects on the circulatory system. The disease process in cancer and pulmonary hypertension are vastly different but I’m not sure why the theological principles have to be applied differently.

 

[Rence]

Rence, I appreciate the points you make, however:

1. the theological argument in favor of surgical treatment (all that I have ever read) is based on the tube being diseased and infected, not on failure of the tube to usher the pregnancy in the right direction. Unless of course you have access to a different explanation.

It is “diseased and infected” because there is an embryo stuck in it…because of the failure of the tube to move the pregancy in the right direction. It’s all of these things.

If we’re talking about primary process here, I suppose we mean what is at the basis of it all. The tube is not necessarily (although it commonly is) abnormal to begin with and in the absence of a pregnancy within it would pose no threat that could not be treated with antibiotics alone. So my question is, what is the primary process that requires removal of the tube?

The primary process that requires removal of the tupe is rupture. The fallopian tube has little fingerlike projections that move the zygote out through the tube and into the uterus. For whatever reason, the zygote doesn’t get moved out of the tube, whether the fingers aren’t working properly, or the zygote gets stuck. It doesn’t matter why, it matters that it is. A baby cannot grow in a tube. The tube will rupture, causing the woman to hemorrhage, and the baby will die anyway. The Church allows the tube to be removed, in order for the woman to not, or stop the rupture. The Church does not allow the embryo to be removed in order for the tube to be saved, because to do so would be directly removing the embryo, which they don’t allow. But because the whole tube is removed, the removal of the tube is primary and the fact that there is an embryo in it is secondary.

I gave a link earlier to a CHAUSA document that now suggests that the pathology lies at the point of attachment of the tube and that a tube can be licitly preserved in cases of ectopic pregnancy. Whether that is indeed so or not, the fact that a tube can be preserved (in non Catholic institutions) and not cause the mother’s death, in fact indicates that surgical removal of the tube is not necessary to preserve life. So why exactly are we removing it? Because it is a diseased organ threatening the mother’s life or because that is the only (?) licit option given to us? Which takes us back to a discussion I’ve had many times…

If the tube has not ruptured, removal of the tube is not always necessary to preserve the woman’s life. It is the Church that requires that the whole tube be removed, because removing the embryo from the impaired tube would be an “abortion”. The Church forbids directly removing the embryo. In non-Catholic settings, they either give the woman methotrexate to flush out the tube, or they surgically remove the embryo and try to fix the tube.

1. I don’t think you get the point I was making about infection generally either. If the contention is that the hypoxic placenta is not the primary disease process (the pulmonary hypertension is, I agree) and cannot be treated despite the fact that it was a result of the primary process, how then does infection that begins somewhere else and secondarily affects the reproductive organs and their function, qualify them for removal? Poor circulation is the problem in this patient - it is caused by her lung disease but affects all her organs. I’m really trying to see how this is not an artificial distinction that’s being made.

hey, I’m trying to understand the distinction too I’m still trying to understand why removing the tube is required, instead of fixing the tube, since it’s already a known fact that they embryo can’t grow in the tube. If the placenta wasn’t functioning properly to begin with, I don’t know why it couldn’t be licitly removed. Do we know for a fact that it wasn’t functioning properly?

1. If lung cancer spreads to the uterus, how does the uterine cancer become the primary disease process?

Uterine cancer does not become the primary disease process. Cancer is the primary disease process.

If I grant that the primary process is the cancer and not its site, then any organ affected can be licitly treated.

Yes, any organ affected by the cancer can be treated.

In the same vein, if I grant that the primary process is pulmonary hypertension, why can’t any organ affected by it be licitly treated?

How is any organ affected? In this case, Is the placenta diseased? and how is it diseased? This is what I don’t understand in this case. What is the placenta doing or not doing that causes pathology? As far as I knew from this case, she was given an abortion because the physiological demands of the pregnancy on her body were directly responsible for endangering her life because her heart and lungs couldn’t support her anymore with the added stress of the pregnancy. How is the placenta impaired in this case?

The disease begins in the blood vessels of the lung but it affects and causes malfunction of the circulatory system of the entire body, including the placenta whose own malfunction in turn has negative effects on the circulatory system. The disease process in cancer and pulmonary hypertension are vastly different but I’m not sure why the theological principles have to be applied differently.

If the placenta was malfunctioning, I don’t know how it couldn’t be licitly removed. If a pregnant woman’s placenta ruptures (either by trauma or pathology) and she is bleeding, it can be licitly removed. How is the placenta in this case any different?

I’m saying it again: this has to do with 7 years of drama, not this one case.

 

[seekerz]

It is “diseased and infected” because there is an embryo stuck in it…because of the failure of the tube to move the pregancy in the right direction. It’s all of these things.

No, it is infected because microbes spread from somewhere into the tube and the pregnancy. The disease part, depending on the explanation you read, may or may not be separate from the infection.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Actually, only Catholic hospitals should be run following Church teaching. Secular hospitals are not required and will not be forced to run following Church teaching. What the Church teaches re morals is not considered correct by non-Catholics, and being in a country which affords all of its citizens to choose and follow their own religion, they are not required to follow Church teaching.

I disagree. The Catholic Church teaches Truth. I never stated that secular hospitals are required or will be forced to run following Church teaching. It will most probably be that Catholic hospitals will shut down when they are forced to provide anti-life services. The ACLU has announced that it is going to sue to force Catholic hospitals to provide direct abortions.

But as the Church teaches Truth, every hospital should follow her teachings, as every person should follow her teachings. Truth is not limited to the Church. Truth is for everyone.

How do you know? Were you there? Are you omniscient? Can we try to be civil? I’d like to be

How do I know what? I’ve already stated that I rely on the bishop. I didn’t have to be there or be omniscient as I am not making any statements that would require my presence or absolute knowledge.

I am trying to be civil. It seems that I’m posting the same things over and over and over. Truth should be a simple concept. Forget about the Church. Forget everything except Universal Law. There is a Universal Law which states: Human life is precious. That is Truth for Catholics, Protestants, and everyone else in the world, right? Shouldn’t we all follow this Universal Law?

I’m bringing up the Church because she teaches Truth. She teaches us how to apply Universal Law to situations we may be involved in or discuss.

For some reason only a few people that I’m aware of seem to understand this and you’re not one of them. So this is my reaction:

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

I’m getting extremely frustrated and every day that I post in this thread I get an “Arizona Hospital Case” headache.

Actually I didn’t put six “bangheads” in - my computer did that. But I’m leaving it.

I will try to be more civil. I appreciate your taking the first step. I’m really not a nasty person. I’m honestly very, very scared. I see the U.S. heading in a horrible direction and I’m terrified because I live in a very small town with one hospital - a Catholic hospital. And I’m ill. I’m chronically ill and I’m not going to ever get better. I’m going to get worse and worse as it’s a degenerative disease. I am becoming more ill from fear and worry. I’m moving to help my health, but guess where I’m moving? To Phoenix. Right into the lions’ den. I’m a frustrated, scared person right now. A frustrated, scared person with an “Arizona Hospital Case” headache.

 

[bookgirl32]

Your refusal to accept that the placenta can develop pathology is what distinguishes us.

I’m not refusing to accept that it can become diseased. But the stand - alone diagnosis of “diseased” is not enough to let it fall under double effect. It has to be a pathology that is life threatening directly to the mother. Can a placenta become hypoxic in absence of already existing pulmonary hypertension or something of the same effect? Can a hypoxic placenta in an otherwise healthy mother threaten her life in and of itself? Not as a result of something else that is already life threatening?

Pregnancy is not a pathology but like any human life, the baby, placenta and membranes can develop disease and so threaten a mother’s life.

This is where you seem to be taking a departure from Catholic theology. The existence of the baby, diseased or not, can never be considered such a threat to it’s own mother’s life that it warrants the premature, unnatural termination of that baby’s life. Even if the baby is most certainly going to die soon and in that time the mother may die.

If this were not so, then we would be saying life in the womb is not subject to the same laws of nature as life elsewhere.

This is precisely why it is so. Let’s say a mother and child were both accidentally sealed in a space with little oxygen. There is not enough oxygen to sustain both of their lives until they can be rescued. The child’s organs have been damaged to the point that it will certainly die, but is still alive and using some of the oxygen. If the child dies the mother may have enough oxygen left to be rescued and would then have a chance at remaining alive. That the mother has a chance and the child does not does not forfeit the child’s right to whatever oxygen it may consume until it dies. The mother does not have more of a right to the oxygen because she may live if she can have it, and the child definitely won’t. The dignity of the child’s life, under natural and divine law, still guarantee the child the right to the oxygen until it should naturally die. The mother could not smother it in order to possibly save herself.

So let’s say that a mother’s body cannot supply enough oxygen to itself and the child within it. The child is still alive but will die. All of the above rights still apply to the child. The only difference is the location of the child. It has a right to whatever oxygen it receives, from a hypoxic placenta or not, until it’s natural death. That removing the diseased placenta will provide more oxygen to the mother and that the baby is certain to die does not make the situation fall under double effect. If the baby is still alive then the placenta, however diseased, is still supplying oxygen to the baby that it has a right to, regardless of the state of it’s mother or the fact that it is going to die.

Both mother and baby have a right to life saving treatment and a right to live their life for as long as it lasts and die a natural death. But neither at the expense of the other while it is still alive. If one should die as an indirect result of a treatment, it is still a natural death. Is removing the placenta an actual treatment of a diseased placenta? Or is it a treatment that is done in order to supply more oxygen to the mother?

 

[bookgirl32]

I disagree. The Catholic Church teaches Truth. I never stated that secular hospitals are required or will be forced to run following Church teaching. It will most probably be that Catholic hospitals will shut down when they are forced to provide anti-life services. The ACLU has announced that it is going to sue to force Catholic hospitals to provide direct abortions.

But as the Church teaches Truth, every hospital should follow her teachings, as every person should follow her teachings. Truth is not limited to the Church. Truth is for everyone.

How do I know what? I’ve already stated that I rely on the bishop. I didn’t have to be there or be omniscient as I am not making any statements that would require my presence or absolute knowledge.

I am trying to be civil. It seems that I’m posting the same things over and over and over. Truth should be a simple concept. Forget about the Church. Forget everything except Universal Law. There is a Universal Law which states: Human life is precious. That is Truth for Catholics, Protestants, and everyone else in the world, right? Shouldn’t we all follow this Universal Law?

I’m bringing up the Church because she teaches Truth. She teaches us how to apply Universal Law to situations we may be involved in or discuss.

For some reason only a few people that I’m aware of seem to understand this and you’re not one of them. So this is my reaction:

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

I’m getting extremely frustrated and every day that I post in this thread I get an “Arizona Hospital Case” headache.

Actually I didn’t put six “bangheads” in - my computer did that. But I’m leaving it.

I will try to be more civil. I appreciate your taking the first step. I’m really not a nasty person. I’m honestly very, very scared. I see the U.S. heading in a horrible direction and I’m terrified because I live in a very small town with one hospital - a Catholic hospital. And I’m ill. I’m chronically ill and I’m not going to ever get better. I’m going to get worse and worse as it’s a degenerative disease. I am becoming more ill from fear and worry. I’m moving to help my health, but guess where I’m moving? To Phoenix. Right into the lions’ den. I’m a frustrated, scared person right now. A frustrated, scared person with an “Arizona Hospital Case” headache.

And if the hospital did nothing to protect the rights of a person by virtue of the fact that “it’s going to die anyway” or “it can’t live” in favor of a seemingly good action, why would they protect the life of someone with a degenerative disease? The life of someone who is going to die anyway? When their resources could be going to people who could live if they had them in favor of the one who will die?

That is what you’re scared of. And while right now it seems to some a ridiculous thought, that it would never get that bad, that it would be ludicrous to think that a hospital would favor one life over another, try to remember that that’s what is meant by what the Church calls “the Culture of Death”, and that we’re living in it every day that abortion is legal. The ludicrous is already legal and accepted and has been for thirty some years.

I’ll keep you in my prayers. It’s so hard to remember that the continuence of our physical lives is not what matters most, and is definitely not what will fulfill us. I can’t imagine being in your position and hope that I would have the strength to stay strong in my faith. We’re all in that position to some degree, we’re all “dying”.

 

[seekerz]

I’m not refusing to accept that it can become diseased. But the stand - alone diagnosis of “diseased” is not enough to let it fall under double effect. It has to be a pathology that is life threatening directly to the mother. Can a placenta become hypoxic in absence of already existing pulmonary hypertension or something of the same effect? Can a hypoxic placenta in an otherwise healthy mother threaten her life in and of itself? Not as a result of something else that is already life threatening?

A placenta can become hypoxic from various causes but in this case it was hypoxic from the patient’s state of shock. That state of hypoxia can in turn lead the placenta to act deleteriously on the function of the mother’s cardiovascular system as explained in the theological argument I previously cited. It’s not a simple matter of who gets how much oxygen but what the lack of oxygen causes. Analagously, a placenta cannot become infected on its own without microbes being carried to it from other parts of the body. As I asked before, why the different treatment of infection and hypoxia of the placenta if both can tip the mother toward death? Note here, that just like the hyoxic placenta, the infected placenta acts INDIRECTLY in putting the mother at risk of death - ultimately it too acts on the cardiovascular system by causing septic shock. An infected placenta in and of itself cannot kill a healthy woman any more than a hypoxic placenta alone can. Everything that kills ultimately does so by causing the heart to stop or the vital centers of the brain to stop working (or both).

 

[1holycatholic]

[bad quoting deleted]

Please use the forum software properly.

 

[Captain_America]

I’m grateful and happy the Bishop did this. More of this stuff needs to take place in order to fight abortion and homosexual “marriage.”

Church leaders shouldn’t be sitting on their hands.

 

[seekerz]

Please use the forum software properly.

I’m sure I don’t know what you mean.

 

[seekerz]

And if the hospital did nothing to protect the rights of a person by virtue of the fact that “it’s going to die anyway” or “it can’t live” in favor of a seemingly good action, why would they protect the life of someone with a degenerative disease? The life of someone who is going to die anyway? When their resources could be going to people who could live if they had them in favor of the one who will die?

That is what you’re scared of. And while right now it seems to some a ridiculous thought, that it would never get that bad, that it would be ludicrous to think that a hospital would favor one life over another, try to remember that that’s what is meant by what the Church calls “the Culture of Death”, and that we’re living in it every day that abortion is legal. The ludicrous is already legal and accepted and has been for thirty some years.

I’ll keep you in my prayers. It’s so hard to remember that the continuence of our physical lives is not what matters most, and is definitely not what will fulfill us. I can’t imagine being in your position and hope that I would have the strength to stay strong in my faith. We’re all in that position to some degree, we’re all “dying”.

In God’s company, there is no need to fear - that’s number 1.

Number 2, this situation has less to do with an encroaching culture of death and more to do with mora/ethical dilemmas and practices that have ALWAYS plagued the care of women and their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. If anything, hospital care (and I am NOT including abortion on demand clinics in this statement) is at the very worst as pro-life as it ever was, if only because anything bad that happens to a baby now is basis for a very expensive lawsuit. Find an OB/GYN in his 80’s or 90’s if you can (preferably one who worked in areas with little resources) and ask him about “destructive procedures” which are no longer even described in textbooks today…Sometimes they did indescribably horrible things when they couldn’t get a baby out of its mother. Thankfully medicine has advanced and those acts would land a person in jail today.

It helps to get some historical perspective…

 

[1holycatholic]

Please use the forum software properly.

I’m sure I don’t know what you mean.
[/quote]

The one post of yours didn’t use standard quoting. You apparently wrote inside the other poster’s quoted material and bolded your text. That makes it impossible to reply to your post because the forum software attributes what you wrote to the other poster and shows that you didn’t post anything. If I hit reply to that post it’s blank.

 

[bookgirl32]

In God’s company, there is no need to fear - that’s number 1

If you’re following God’s will to the best you know how, there is no need to fear. If you’re not, and you know you’re not, then there is plenty to fear.

Number 2, this situation has less to do with an encroaching culture of death and more to do with mora/ethical dilemmas and practices that have ALWAYS plagued the care of women and their babies during pregnancy and childbirth. If anything, hospital care (and I am NOT including abortion on demand clinics in this statement) is at the very worst as pro-life as it ever was, if only because anything bad t.hat happens to a baby now is basis for a very expensive lawsuit. Find an OB/GYN in his 80’s or 90’s if you can (preferably one who worked in areas with little resources) and ask him about “destructive procedures” which are no longer even described in textbooks today…Sometimes they did indescribably horrible things when they couldn’t get a baby out of its mother. Thankfully medicine has advanced and those acts would land a person in jail today.

It helps to get some historical perspective…

I’m just confused about what you’re trying to do here. There are cases where the pregnancy alone puts enough stress on the mother’s body to make it life threatening to the mother and the removal of anything having to do with the baby is illicit. This does happen. If I were to get pregnant and the pregnancy were to worsen my blood condition they couldn’t wait until some part of the baby and/or placenta became pathological and then remove it prior to viability, alive or dead, for any reason. It’s a risk I take in getting pregnant.

It sounds like you’re either trying to come to a point where any problem with any pregnancy at all can always, somehow, become double effect and what would be immoral treatment become licit. It sounds like you’re agreeing that abortion on demand cases of course are always immoral, but when the mother’s life is at stake anything can make a possible abortion (morally speaking) licit.

A situation of someone not being sure, even doctors, should ere on the side of caution. And by this I mean caution towards everyone’s soul who is involved. If there’s a slight possiblity that God could see it as a direct, moral, abortion and they know that, and are Catholic, their actions should reflect that caution. Add to that mix they defititively did NOT ask anyone with that authority prior to performing it and that makes me even more willing to believe that their focus was the saving of the mother’s life only, with disregard to the fact that it might be immoral, and not the following of God’s will as a Catholic institution.

To save the mother’s life, even at the expense of only three more minutes of the dying baby’s, is not always licit due to confusing medial and ethical dilemmas. It might be, if there weren’t an authoritative God granting an authoritative Church the ability to decide over the authority of the medical community. But there is. Simply put, if you really believe the Church, then you really believe the Bishop’s correct. The issue of his authority I’m speaking of does not lie in whether or not he has the right to revoke their Catholic status. It’s in whether or not he has the right to definitively declare what happened as moral or immoral. And he does.

 

[inkaneer]

At what point in the history of mankind did murder become a medical treatment? When was the Pathagerian theorem of “do no harm” rescinded?

 

[bookgirl32]

If you’re following God’s will to the best you know how, there is no need to fear. If you’re not, and you know you’re not, then there is plenty to fear.

I’m just confused about what you’re trying to do here. There are cases where the pregnancy alone puts enough stress on the mother’s body to make it life threatening to the mother and the removal of anything having to do with the baby is illicit. This does happen. If I were to get pregnant and the pregnancy were to worsen my blood condition they couldn’t wait until some part of the baby and/or placenta became pathological and then remove it prior to viability, alive or dead, for any reason. It’s a risk I take in getting pregnant.

It sounds like you’re either trying to come to a point where any problem with any pregnancy at all can always, somehow, become double effect and what would be immoral treatment become licit. It sounds like you’re agreeing that abortion on demand cases of course are always immoral, but when the mother’s life is at stake anything can make a possible abortion (morally speaking) licit.

A situation of someone not being sure, even doctors, should ere on the side of caution. And by this I mean caution towards everyone’s soul who is involved. If there’s a slight possiblity that God could see it as a direct, moral, abortion and they know that, and are Catholic, their actions should reflect that caution. Add to that mix they defititively did NOT ask anyone with that authority prior to performing it and that makes me even more willing to believe that their focus was the saving of the mother’s life only, with disregard to the fact that it might be immoral, and not the following of God’s will as a Catholic institution.

To save the mother’s life, even at the expense of only three more minutes of the dying baby’s, is not always licit due to confusing medial and ethical dilemmas. It might be, if there weren’t an authoritative God granting an authoritative Church the ability to decide over the authority of the medical community. But there is. Simply put, if you really believe the Church, then you really believe the Bishop’s correct. The issue of his authority I’m speaking of does not lie in whether or not he has the right to revoke their Catholic status. It’s in whether or not he has the right to definitively declare what happened as moral or immoral. And he does.

Correction: I meant immoral here, not moral.

 

[nhylan]

At what point in the history of mankind did murder become a medical treatment? When was the Pathagerian theorem of “do no harm” rescinded?

(A x A) + (B x B)= (C x C) also equals do no harm?

 

[seekerz]

The one post of yours didn’t use standard quoting. You apparently wrote inside the other poster’s quoted material and bolded your text. That makes it impossible to reply to your post because the forum software attributes what you wrote to the other poster and shows that you didn’t post anything. If I hit reply to that post it’s blank.

Sorry.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Please use the forum software properly.

Thank you!!

 

[seekerz]

If you’re following God’s will to the best you know how, there is no need to fear. If you’re not, and you know you’re not, then there is plenty to fear.

I’m just confused about what you’re trying to do here. There are cases where the pregnancy alone puts enough stress on the mother’s body to make it life threatening to the mother and the removal of anything having to do with the baby is illicit. This does happen. If I were to get pregnant and the pregnancy were to worsen my blood condition they couldn’t wait until some part of the baby and/or placenta became pathological and then remove it prior to viability, alive or dead, for any reason. It’s a risk I take in getting pregnant.

It sounds like you’re either trying to come to a point where any problem with any pregnancy at all can always, somehow, become double effect and what would be immoral treatment become licit. It sounds like you’re agreeing that abortion on demand cases of course are always immoral, but when the mother’s life is at stake anything can make a possible abortion (morally speaking) licit.

A situation of someone not being sure, even doctors, should ere on the side of caution. And by this I mean caution towards everyone’s soul who is involved. If there’s a slight possiblity that God could see it as a direct, moral, abortion and they know that, and are Catholic, their actions should reflect that caution. Add to that mix they defititively did NOT ask anyone with that authority prior to performing it and that makes me even more willing to believe that their focus was the saving of the mother’s life only, with disregard to the fact that it might be immoral, and not the following of God’s will as a Catholic institution.

To save the mother’s life, even at the expense of only three more minutes of the dying baby’s, is not always licit due to confusing medial and ethical dilemmas. It might be, if there weren’t an authoritative God granting an authoritative Church the ability to decide over the authority of the medical community. But there is. Simply put, if you really believe the Church, then you really believe the Bishop’s correct. The issue of his authority I’m speaking of does not lie in whether or not he has the right to revoke their Catholic status. It’s in whether or not he has the right to definitively declare what happened as moral or immoral. And he does.

All I was trying to say is that this case is not necessarily indicative of any, new disturbing trend - such dilemmas and even more difficult ones - have always dogged the care of pregnancy and delivery. So to extrapolate from this incident and grow fearful for one’s life specifically because of it, is unwarranted I believe.

I have more than once affirmed (here or on other threads) that the Bishop had both the authority and the duty to rule on morality of treatments for disease affecting pregnancy and that he also has the responsibility to understand the disease process for which he is declaring treatment moral or immoral.

It’s not a question of believing the Bishop if I believe the Church. I have read the USCCB document and even it stops short of directly affirming the Bishop’s declaration. Why? Wouldn’t that clarify everything for everybody regarding this specific case? Were the Bishops of days gone by who declared ectopic treatment illicit before rupture somehow symptomatic of error in the Church? I don’t believe so - they made judgments based on what was understood of disease process at the time. The knowledge of the disease process changed, the moral declarations on whether and when treatment is allowed also changed. That is a historical fact.

The study of placental pathology probably did not even exist at the time some of these theological principles were being developed. Can we now ignore that knowledge because it doesn’t fit our principles?

If God in His mercy and concern for all life, were to provide us progressively more knowledge on situations that presently confound us, why should we fear or resist that?

 

[LittleSoldier]

In God’s company, there is no need to fear - that’s number 1.

Thank you for your outright dismissal of my fear. Gee, here I thought I was scared and now I know that if I’m in God’s company I have no need to fear. I don’t even have to fear that the chronic pain I’m in will worsen, as it does sometimes. Wow, I feel better already. In fact, all of my fear has disappeared! I’m jumping with joy - OW!! :crutches: I forgot that I can’t jump with joy. In fact, I can’t jump at all. Or run. Or walk without people asking me what is wrong with my back.

Your confusion about my situation is obvious. Please don’t patronize me. You haven’t walked one step in my moccasins. I don’t mean to be uncivil but I am very insulted by what you’ve written above. I have reason to fear. Your inability to see that shows insensitivity and maybe callousness.

It helps to get some historical perspective…

It also helps to know why a post was written.