Can the principle of Double-Effect apply?

[Mr.Blank1.5]

nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/ttp/

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura is a rare blood disorder that can trigger numerous blood clots in the body that can block the flow of oxygen to organs, and can cause bleeding problems. Although this condition can occur during pregnancy, it is rare.

Typically, treatments such as plasma therapy (similar to a blood transfusion) are utilized to treat the problem. nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/ttp/treatment.html

However, there are cases where the condition is so severe, that doctors have preformed abortions to save the mother. For example:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3694921
and
ouhsc.edu/platelets/TTP/TTP%20Publications/Assn%20of%20pregnancy%20c%20TTPHUS.pdf (page 3).

My question is…in a scenario where a pregnant woman’s clotting is so severe…what would be the adequate treatment? I know abortion is always wrong, but what happens in a case where the double-effect can’t seem to apply?
To be honest, most people probably won’t buy into “leave it to God”. Is there an effective secular argument?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Here is a document (PDF) from the USCCB on the distinction between direct abortion and indirect abortion:
priestsforlife.org/magisterium/bishops/10-06-23-direct-abortion.pdf
The same document in html format:
wf-f.org/11-1-USCCB.html

The principle of double effect NEVER justifies an intrinsically evil act, nor can that principle ever change in intrinsically evil act into a good or morally justifiable act. So if the abortion is direct, even if the purpose or intention is to save the life of the mother, it is still gravely immoral.

In the case you describe, the deliberately chosen act is to directly kill the prenatal, for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. The proximate end (object) of the willfully chosen act is the killing of an innocent. The saving of the life of the mother is consequent to that act. And so the moral object is evil, and the act is intrinsically evil, making the act a direct abortion.

Indirect abortion only occurs when the chosen act is ordered toward treating the health or saving the life of the mother and the death of the prenatal is consequent to that good act of treating the mother.

 

[Newbie2]

Well stated, Ron. The key in this scenario is that a direct abortion occurs. The principle of double effect may apply in a case where the abortion was an unintended side effect, although potentially beneficial to the mother.

For example, if a pregnant woman had…say, ovarian cancer and by removing the affected ovary during pregnancy, it disrupted the pregnancy and caused an unintended abortion. The unintended abortion benefits the mother, as she then could have chemotherapy without concern for teratogenic effects on the baby, since the baby was unintentionally aborted.

Probably not the best scenario example, but the key is that in such a case the abortion would not have been ***direct, ***

 

[Ron_Conte]

The principle of double effect may apply in a case where the abortion was an unintended side effect, although potentially beneficial to the mother.

A point of clarification on this topic.

There are three fonts of morality:

1. intention
2. moral object
3. circumstances (good and bad consequences)

If a bad effect is unintended, that pertains to the font of intention. Also, if a bad effect is unintended, it still weighs in the font of circumstances, as long as it was reasonably anticipated. The fact that a bad effect is unintended does not determine if the act is direct or indirect. What matters is the ordering of the deliberately chosen act toward its moral object (proximate end, morally-immediately end).