Can I use a barrier for medical reasons?

[Rau]

So let me get this straight: it’s a sin to use a drug to clear an ectopic pregnancy. It is not a sin to use surgery to clear an ectopic pregnancy.

What if they could remove the Fallopian tube clear the ectopic pregnancy and put the tube back in. Would that be a sin?

It’s a sin to resolve the danger to the mother by means which directly attack the baby, for that is doing an evil (kill baby) to achieve a good (save mother). [A few ethicists have proposed a view that the fact that the ectopic pregnancy is not viable changes the reasoning - this is however a minority view and not accepted at this time.]

It is morally right to treat the mother, even when it is known that that treatment might, or even definitely will, have the side-effect of killing the baby. [It is wrong to leave the mother to die when moral treatment is available.] The usual (morally good) treatment is to remove the tube prior to it bursting. This saves the mother. The child dies unavoidably because we do not have the capability to save the baby while saving the mother.

If there were a technique (new drug X?) to cause the embryo to re-locate itself to the uterus, with some chance of success, perhaps (but I do not know or assert) that that may well be deemed moral - it would seem to be a great outcome.

Perhaps what you suggest would also be moral (I don’t know…). I don’t know a reason why one would not repair the woman (replace the tube) following the death of the embryo, if that were possible to do.

 

[Evania]

Who among is is arguing that the woman shouldn’t be helped in the case of an ectopic pregnancy?

You said:

"HOWEVER–having stated my position on abortion:
An embryo attached inside a woman’s fallopian tube is never–not EVER–going to live. "

Except that…it is living.

Yes, I realize that it won’t CONTINUE to survive in that environment, but we are NOT EVER allowed to directly end the life of another person. You are advocating that we directly kill the child’s life by dissolving it by a “simple shot in the mother’s butt”. The mindset here is: Kill the child so we don’t have to remove the tube. You go for the emotional argument of since God gave her two tubes, that it’s wrong to remove one. I quote, " plus she loses one of the 2 fallopian tubes God gave her." Somehow, that becomes part of your argument in why the baby should be directly attacked, because “It’s going to die anyway.” Yes, God gave her two tubes. No, we are still not allowed to directly end a child’s life. You translate this teaching into that we are proposing she bleed to death among other red herrings.

A doctor may in this case cause an unintended loss of life by treating the mother by removing a Fallopian tube, without directly harming the dignity of the child by directly attacking him/her. Yes, each result will end with the loss of the baby, but the death happened in treating the mother’s condition rather than the child itself.

You said:

" Again, Jesus warned the pharisees about following the letter of the law without looking at the spiritual thinking behind the law. In this case, there isn’t even a “letter of the law” to follow yet–the church in its wisdom hasn’t yet taken a position as they feel they need to know more about the medical knowledge behind the second procedure prior to issuing a final decision."

The Church doesn’t need to investigate every medicine on the market in order to not change it’s position on respecting the dignity of each living person. I also doubt that when Jesus said this statement that he was referring to the “spiritual thinking behind the law of Thou Shalt Not Kill”

I also find it interesting that in one breath you say, “The Church in it’s wisdom hasn’t yet taken a position.”, and in the next breath argue against a position the Church DOES have on contraceptives.

 

[Evania]

LOL! The Truth is sometimes bitter. Perhaps a cup of sugar should be offered at RCIA classes. Nobody said it would be easy:shrug:
But as you can see from our modern situations, walking around on eggshells worrying about offending some people is not the position that has been working!

As Pope francis is showing us, sometimes it is better to just come out and say it rather than beat around the bush. He does not shy from his words no matter if they offend staunch conservatives or liberals. He just preaches the Gospel. It is up to the world or individuals to either take it, leave it, or twist it into their own agendas.

 

[Starrsmother]

It’s a sin to resolve the danger to the mother by means which directly attack the baby, for that is doing an evil (kill baby) to achieve a good (save mother). [A few ethicists have proposed a view that the fact that the ectopic pregnancy is not viable changes the reasoning - this is however a minority view and not accepted at this time.]

It is morally right to treat the mother, even when it is known that that treatment might, or even definitely will, have the side-effect of killing the baby. [It is wrong to leave the mother to die when moral treatment is available.] The usual (morally good) treatment is to remove the tube prior to it bursting. This saves the mother. The child dies unavoidably because we do not have the capability to save the baby while saving the mother.

If there were a technique (new drug X?) to cause the embryo to re-locate itself to the uterus, with some chance of success, perhaps (but I do not know or assert) that that may well be deemed moral - it would seem to be a great outcome.

Perhaps what you suggest would also be moral (I don’t know…). I don’t know a reason why one would not repair the woman (replace the tube) following the death of the embryo, if that were possible to do.

Oh please!
This is a complete sham and total silliness. Perhaps someday a woman’s tube can be “cleaned out” and put back in–but at this time there is just no such thing as a “fallopian roto-rooter”! To say it’s more morally correct to surgically remove the baby AND tube than only the baby–when the bottom line is that the goal in order to save the mom’s life IS to rid her of the baby–it has to be–is just such hogwash, to me anyway, that this is my last post on the subject. I’m beginning to think I’m arguing with some at least a few folks who didn’t even take basic human anatomy classes in high school school!

 

[Evania]

Oh please!
This is a complete sham and total silliness. Perhaps someday a woman’s tube can be “cleaned out” and put back in–but at this time there is just no such thing as a “fallopian roto-rooter”! To say it’s more morally correct to surgically remove the baby AND tube than only the baby–when the bottom line is that the goal in order to save the mom’s life IS to rid her of the baby–it has to be–is just such hogwash, to me anyway, that this is my last post on the subject. I’m beginning to think I’m arguing with some at least a few folks who didn’t even take basic human anatomy classes in high school school!

You know perfectly well that he said this in response to a poster’s hypothetical question.

I’m sorry that you are getting frustrated and feel that your only recourse is to attack on a personal level.

In the meantime, we stand behind Church Teaching.

 

[St_Francis]

Oh please!
This is a complete sham and total silliness. Perhaps someday a woman’s tube can be “cleaned out” and put back in–but at this time there is just no such thing as a “fallopian roto-rooter”! To say it’s more morally correct to surgically remove the baby AND tube than only the baby–**when the bottom line is that the goal in order to save the mom’s life IS to rid her of the baby–**it has to be–is just such hogwash, to me anyway, that this is my last post on the subject. I’m beginning to think I’m arguing with some at least a few folks who didn’t even take basic human anatomy classes in high school school!

And you seem to lack an understanding of basic moral theology, like the prinicple of double effect. The reason that removal of the Fallipian tube is *definitely *acceptable is that it is not directly targeting the baby for death.

Look at what you wrote in the part I bolded. This is also the justification for killing a baby in the womb when the mother has pre-eclampsia.

Look what you have writteni in your other posts about using methotrexate being betwer becUse it preserves the health of the mother–the exact same justification for the orignal loosening of abortion laws back in the 1960s.

 

[Rau]

Oh please!
This is a complete sham and total silliness. Perhaps someday a woman’s tube can be “cleaned out” and put back in–but at this time there is just no such thing as a “fallopian roto-rooter”! [yes, we know this - you obfuscate again] To say it’s more morally correct to surgically remove the baby AND tube than only the baby–when the bottom line is that the goal in order to save the mom’s life IS to rid her of the baby–it has to be–is just such hogwash, to me anyway, that this is my last post on the subject. I’m beginning to think I’m arguing with some at least a few folks who didn’t even take basic human anatomy classes in high school school!

It’s just dawned on me…you didn’t know what principles the Church used in determining what is moral in this area, did you? You’ve just discovered them, and found them at odds with what you’ve always believed.

I think you’ve cleared up any doubts some may have had regarding the foundations for what you’ve argued.

 

[KellyPalmer]

It’s just dawned on me…you didn’t know what principles the Church used in determining what is moral in this area, did you? You’ve just discovered them, and found them at odds with what you’ve always believed.

I think you’ve cleared up any doubts some may have had regarding the foundations for what you’ve argued.

hit nail on head

 

[maryjk]

As to how long you’re on methotrexate–it’s not always the same. I try to get my ladies off of it and onto something like Humira shots asap–because --in my practice–most of my women don’t have the fabulous results with no side effects that you experience. They complain of upset stomachs, sometimes sore mouths and etc and then they don’t want to keep taking it. So, I work with them. I’m glad it has worked so well for you–it just hasn’t been my luck that it works so positively. I usually keep my ladies on it for a month or two–then flip then to Humira or Enbrel. But whatever works for you and your provider the best is exactly what you should do!

My point is, that you don’t seen to know what you are talking about. You make broad claims that are wrong. Then seem to back them up with posts that have nothing to do with the original claim. (Condom on a probe, anyone?)

Which leads me to believe that you aren’t what you claim.

It also leads me to question other things you claim to know. Like, your claim that the church is A-okay with chemical abortion. (Again, something that this thread isn’t about. But that came out because you repeatedly have tried to change the topic.)

 

[Starrsmother]

My point is, that you don’t seen to know what you are talking about. You make broad claims that are wrong. Then seem to back them up with posts that have nothing to do with the original claim. (Condom on a probe, anyone?)

Which leads me to believe that you aren’t what you claim.

It also leads me to question other things you claim to know. Like, your claim that the church is A-okay with chemical abortion. (Again, something that this thread isn’t about. But that came out because you repeatedly have tried to change the topic.)

Think as you will. I never said that the church is okay with any abortion–chemical or otherwise. Nor am I okay with any abortion–though my opinion would certainly not be above church opinion or of any importance in church decisions. What I said was that the church has made no absolute pronouncement on the use of methotrexate as a remedy for an ectopic pregnancy over a salpingectomy as the only permissable method. And that’s a fact you can check if you doubt me. The church’s position is that they have no position–as they are as of yet, less familiar with what is considered to be an off label use. However the church HAS accepted that saving the woman’s life in such a case becomes paramount–over the doomed pregnancy in the tube. I have no personal moral issue with using methotrexate for an ectopic as it isn’t somehow causing an abortion that can be avoided. If you remove the woman’s tube with the embryo inside–you have aborted the pregnancy. Call it what you wish, but that’s what it is. All that happens differently with the methotrexate management is that you avoid the surgery and the woman usually can keep her tube. I work in conjunction with a Peacehealth hospital just by the way–which is a Catholic owned facility–and a nun is the Chair of the Board. Perhaps you should search on line and learn a little about ectopics, the inevitable outcomes and the treatments advised. I’m sure there are some good sites for lay people on line that probably lay things out clearer than I have or will.

BTW,I kinda wondered the same about what you really knew and who you were seeing --10 years is a LONG time to be on an old drug like methotrexate when there are so many newer treatments for RA and lupus out there with fewer side effects that most people get switched to. And most folks with an autoimmune disease who’ve dealt with one for a long time, come in knowing nearly every possible option in the book when they meet with you–they become almost experts in their illness if you will–which I think is a good thing. People should learn all they can about their bodies and what’s going on and options for treatment. Again–only my opinion–not doctrine–church or otherwise! But hey-- if methotrexate works for you and it’s what your doc chooses to prescribe–go for it!

 

[on_the_hill]

Two thoughts:
First, not to fight starsmother’s battles, but from a fairly objective standpoint she’s been hit with a few personal attacks in this thread, too.

Second, an ectopic pregnancy is a living entity, but would God assign a soul to an entity that is dying even before it has a chance at life? I fully agree that life begins at conception (as a default position since we can’t know for sure) but does an ectopic pregnancy have personhood? Does a fertilized egg that is “spontaneously aborted” / miscarried have personhood? Are we arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin?

 

[St_Francis]

Two thoughts:
First, not to fight starsmother’s battles, but from a fairly objective standpoint she’s been hit with a few personal attacks in this thread, too.

Second, an ectopic pregnancy is a living entity, but would God assign a soul to an entity that is dying even before it has a chance at life? I fully agree that life begins at conception (as a default position since we can’t know for sure) but does an ectopic pregnancy have personhood? Does a fertilized egg that is “spontaneously aborted” / miscarried have personhood? Are we arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin?

A lot of questions!

1. would God assign a soul to an entity that is dying even before it has a chance at life?

The Church does not teach *when *ensoulment occurs. However, I doubt that God would refrain from ensouling someone simply because He foreesees their imminent death.

1. I fully agree that life begins at conception (as a default position since we can’t know for sure) but does an ectopic pregnancy have personhood?

“Person” is actually a legal term and is therefore decided by the government. In the US, the unborn are generally not persons, but in some states under some circumstances they are, so killing a pregnant woman can be prosecuted as a double homicide.

Are you asking if the baby who is implanting outside the womb is a living human being? Yes, just as much as the baby implanting inside the womb.

1. Does a fertilized egg that is “spontaneously aborted” / miscarried have personhood?

See above.

1. Are we arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin?

No, this has not been brought up. I think another thread should be started if you want to discuss that

 

[St_Francis]

Oops, I missed an implied question…

1. I fully agree that life begins at conception (as a default position since we can’t know for sure) but does an ectopic pregnancy have personhood?

We actually do know for sure that *life *begins at conception. Conception occurs when a new life begins because the union of the sperm and the egg start a new being with its own human DNA–a new human, and the human is growing, which means it is alive. Thus: life begins at conception.

What is unknown is when the baby is ensouled.

 

[1ke]

Second, an ectopic pregnancy is a living entity, but would God assign a soul to an entity that is dying even before it has a chance at life?

yes. You are defining life strictly as our earthly life, but our souls are eternal. Whether we live 5 minutes or 100 years, what is that compared to eternity?

I fully agree that life begins at conception (as a default position since we can’t know for sure)

The Church teaches life begins at conception

but does an ectopic pregnancy have personhood?

Since an ectopic pregnancy is a post-conception pregnancy, then yes.

Does a fertilized egg that is “spontaneously aborted” / miscarried have personhood?

A fertilized egg is no longer an egg. It is a zygot, or embryo. It is a person because conception has occurred.

Are we arguing over how many angels fit on the head of a pin?

No, since angels are (a) immaterial and (b) have nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[on_the_hill]

No, since angels are (a) immaterial and (b) have nothing to do with this discussion.

Um…yeah.

But just as an aside, I don’t always believe something simply because the Church teaches it. But that, too, is a topic for another discussion.

 

[maryjk]

Think as you will. I never said that the church is okay with any abortion–chemical or otherwise. Nor am I okay with any abortion–though my opinion would certainly not be above church opinion or of any importance in church decisions. What I said was that the church has made no absolute pronouncement on the use of methotrexate as a remedy for an ectopic pregnancy over a salpingectomy as the only permissable method. And that’s a fact you can check if you doubt me.

I have checked and you are wrong. Sorry. Now they may not name methotrexate at the medication. But they do talk about chemical abortions. And they do state that they are wrong.

The church’s position is that they have no position–as they are as of yet, less familiar with what is considered to be an off label use. However the church HAS accepted that saving the woman’s life in such a case becomes paramount–over the doomed pregnancy in the tube. I have no personal moral issue with using methotrexate for an ectopic as it isn’t somehow causing an abortion that can be avoided. If you remove the woman’s tube with the embryo inside–you have aborted the pregnancy. Call it what you wish, but that’s what it is.

The abortion is the side effect of the surgery. Removing the tube is not an abortion. Taking a medication/chemical to abort the pregnancy, is.

All that happens differently with the methotrexate management is that you avoid the surgery and the woman usually can keep her tube. I work in conjunction with a Peacehealth hospital just by the way–which is a Catholic owned facility–and a nun is the Chair of the Board. Perhaps you should search on line and learn a little about ectopics, the inevitable outcomes and the treatments advised. I’m sure there are some good sites for lay people on line that probably lay things out clearer than I have or will.

Using any medication to cause an abortion, is just that, an abortion.

An abortion is morally wrong. Period.

There is nothing in Church teaching that will say that abortion is okay.

Perhaps you should learn a little more about the Church and what she teaches.

BTW,I kinda wondered the same about what you really knew and who you were seeing –10 years is a LONG time to be on an old drug like methotrexate when there are so many newer treatments for RA and lupus out there with fewer side effects that most people get switched to.

10 years?

Reread my post. I said 3 years.

Regardless. All of this is smoke and mirrors.

The question is: Is there ever a reason to take or use birth control for and as birth control. And the answer is: NO.

 

[LongingSoul]

I have checked and you are wrong. Sorry. Now they may not name methotrexate at the medication. But they do talk about chemical abortions. And they do state that they are wrong. The abortion is the side effect of the surgery. Removing the tube is not an abortion. Taking a medication/chemical to abort the pregnancy, is.Using any medication to cause an abortion, is just that, an abortion.

An abortion is morally wrong. Period.

There is nothing in Church teaching that will say that abortion is okay.

Perhaps you should learn a little more about the Church and what she teaches.

In an earlier post I linked to the official Catholic position on the use of methotrexate in treating ectopic pregnancy. Catholic practitioners using this procedure on the basis that* it does not constitute direct abortion*, are within the bounds of Catholic teaching.

“Resolution of this debate will depend on further specification of the exact nature of these medical procedures and further refinement of the arguments about the moral object of each act. Generally, if there are two competing but contrary bodies of theological opinion about a moral issue, each held by experts whose work is in accordance with the magisterium of the Church, and if there is no specific magisterial teaching on the issue that would resolve the matter, then the decision makers may licitly act on either opinion until such time that the magisterium has resolved the question.”

Edward J. Furton, et al., eds., Catholic Health Care Ethics: A Manual for Practitioners, Philadelphia, PA: The National Catholic Bioethics Center, 2009, p. 123.

chausa.org/docs/default-source/general-files/c6776764f3cc4624a8ea2a31037e9b111-pdf.pdf?sfvrsn=0

 

[on_the_hill]

. I work in conjunction with a Peacehealth hospital just by the way–which is a Catholic owned facility–and a nun is the Chair of the

Oh-oh. You know that American nuns are trouble makers. The Vatican has had its hands full with them. . (I’m sure I just tossed a red herring.)

I still don’t quite see why the drug is an abortion and the surgery isn’t. Both are performed to save the mother. Both are performed to end the ectopic pregnancy. Justifying the surgery because the abortion is a secondary outcome is a distinction without a difference. The only reason to remove a Fallopian tube (in this case) is to end a life threatening pregnancy. Regardless of how ethicists have framed the justification, pulling the tube causes the death of the fetus.

In one case, a lethal drug is administered. In the other, death comes from suffocation (or whatever). You can’t call one “saving the life of the mother,” and the other an abortion. The only difference is one takes longer than the other. And one causes the mother to suffer more physical trauma.

 

[LongingSoul]

I still don’t quite see why the drug is an abortion and the surgery isn’t. Both are performed to save the mother. Both are performed to end the ectopic pregnancy.

Technically they are both performed to redress a blocked fallopian tube of potentially fatal blockage. But that is essentially the crux of the debate between to two parties trying to refine the Church position.

 

[Corki]

Oh-oh. You know that American nuns are trouble makers. The Vatican has had its hands full with them. . (I’m sure I just tossed a red herring.)

I still don’t quite see why the drug is an abortion and the surgery isn’t. Both are performed to save the mother. Both are performed to end the ectopic pregnancy. Justifying the surgery because the abortion is a secondary outcome is a distinction without a difference. The only reason to remove a Fallopian tube (in this case) is to end a life threatening pregnancy. Regardless of how ethicists have framed the justification, pulling the tube causes the death of the fetus.

The reason is that the drug is used to directly kill the developing fetus. ** That is it’s action as well as the effect.** With surgery, the action is to remove a ruptured or septic portion of the woman’s reproductive tract. The result (effect) is two-fold 1) the damaged part is removed and 2) the developing fetus will die.

In Catholic moral theology, all parts are important - the intent, the action and the result.

With the drug, a good intent is there but the action is immoral. There are two results - one good and one bad.

With surgery, the intent is the same, the action is morally sound and the results are the same.