- Status
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Absolutely sickening. 
E
egm85
Guest
She was 11 weeks pregnant with her fifth child. Her condition would have killed her. AND the baby. I feel that the removal of just the baby is inappropriate, but if they would have removed her uterus (which is the object that would have killed her), then it wouldn’t have been a moral issue.
It’s hard to imagine yourself in such a situation and to quickly dismiss it as sickening, but what if that were you? With 4 other children to take care of? 4 people that you wouldn’t see graduate or marry or anything? Really stop and think about it before you retort that you would never think of alternatives and would just die. If you are 100%, and I mean ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, sure that you wouldn’t consider your options and perform a necessary removal of the uterus, then I respect your opinion. But unless that is you laying in the hospital with pulm HTN with a 100% death rate diagnosis, I don’t think we’ll ever know what you’d truly do.
It’s hard to imagine yourself in such a situation and to quickly dismiss it as sickening, but what if that were you? With 4 other children to take care of? 4 people that you wouldn’t see graduate or marry or anything? Really stop and think about it before you retort that you would never think of alternatives and would just die. If you are 100%, and I mean ONE HUNDRED PERCENT, sure that you wouldn’t consider your options and perform a necessary removal of the uterus, then I respect your opinion. But unless that is you laying in the hospital with pulm HTN with a 100% death rate diagnosis, I don’t think we’ll ever know what you’d truly do.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
This hospital should never have performed that procedure. Whether or not the woman decided to have the procedure is another subject. But the Catholic hospital should have referred this woman to another medical facility - an abortion is an abortion, no matter how you justify it. Catholic hospitals shouldn’t do them.
I don’t know how I could live with myself for knowingly killing a baby. And what was this condition?
Anyway, don’t attack me, I was giving my opinion on the hospital doing this.
I don’t know how I could live with myself for knowingly killing a baby. And what was this condition?
Anyway, don’t attack me, I was giving my opinion on the hospital doing this.
V
vera_dicere
Guest
If you have a 100% death rate diagnosis, killing or not killing the child is medically redundant, because you’re going to die anyway.
There are treatments available to people with pulm htn, it is not an easy disease to live with, but honestly, if she’d had those 4 other children then surely one more, at least till viability wouldn’t have tipped her over.
Frankly, there’s gotta be more to this story then we’re being told, rightly or wrongly, no one can comment really unless they have the medical notes in front of them and understand what they mean.
As for the Hospital, remove its “catholic” status, any hospital that’s worth its salt as a Catholic institutition would never kill children on its premesis, let alone defend it. If they had time to convene an “ethics committee hearing” they could of shipped her elsewhere that would have done the abortion.
E
egm85
Guest
I’m sorry if it sounded like I was attacking. That’s the worst part of the internet. We can’t hear eachother
The Church allows sacrifice in the case of diseases where a pregnancy cannot be maintained; uterine cancer for example. If the uterus has to be removed, it is a VERY VERY unfortunate consequence that the baby must be removed too. I see this case in much the same way. The uterus is pumping out a lot of hormones that would literally have killed this patient. Like I said, I don’t think they should have performed an abortion per se, but I see a difference by removing the uterus.
I didn’t mean that her disease process is a 100% mortality diagnosis, I meant that her disease coupled with pregnancy was a 100% mortality diagnosis. I’m sorry if I -]misspoke/-] mistyped.
You’re right, of course, there is more to the story. Here’s what I could glean off of NPR
“Too ill to be moved” sounds like dying to me. I’m not a doctor–yet (only in my third year), but that sounds pretty darn serious. Right heart failure is BAD. It rarely happens, usually it’s only a consequence of the left heart failing. When you see right heart failure, you know the lungs are messed up, but not totally and completely irreparable.
You say that since she had 4 children already, one more wouldn’t have “tipped her over”. Chances are high, as in pretty much certain, she did not have pulmonary hypertension with her other children. We don’t know for sure of course; we don’t have her chart as you mentioned.
As for the committee meeting, it could’ve been a 5 minute shout fest followed by the procedure. A meeting doesn’t have to be a long, drawn out process. There are times when a pt is so sick, they literally should not be moved. Mayhaps this was one of those times.
You’re so right though, that we have no idea what actually happened. We are not the patient not the docs, nor the nun, nor the ethics committee. I just don’t think we should be so quick to judge. I am pro-life, but this one is tough. I still maintain that removing the uterus would have been the best option.
F
Fledgling
Guest
Why would they defend such an atrocity?
Being a Catholic institute they should have never done it anyway, they know better, or at least we would like to think they know better.
Being a Catholic institute they should have never done it anyway, they know better, or at least we would like to think they know better.
- Status