Catholic teaching on inducing labor before viability

[CathPhilosopher]

Frequently when one speaks of abortion, one has in mind killing a baby, then removing it from the mother. But how should the case be regarded in which a doctor does not directly (at least not in the physical sense) kill the baby, but removes it live from the mother, by inducing labor or by another means–and does this in a case in which there is virtually no chance that the baby will be able to live, and in which the mother will almost certainly die if she tries to carry the baby long enough for it to live on its own?

I know that this question has been raised before. There were several statements from the Holy Office around the turn of last century which pertain to this. For a doctor, “there was but one way open to him to save the patient from certain and imminent death, namely, to cause abortion. On this course he usually decided in similar cases, taking care, however, to avail himself of such remedies and operations which would not of themselves, or not immediately kill the fetus in the womb, but, on the contrary, would, if possible, deliver the child alive, although, not being able to live, it would die soon afterward.” After reading an earlier response of the Holy Office, he wondered whether his judgment was correct. “Therefore, in order to set his conscience at rest, Dr. T. humbly asks whether, on recurrence of the like circumstances, he may resort to the aforesaid operations.” The response was “No.” (This statement of Church teaching on Abortion with greater context).

In a more document from the USCCB, Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, it is also said that “abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted” (n. 45).

It is not at all clear to me why the principle of double effect wouldn’t apply in this case. But my question is: is there any more recent statement from the pope, or from the Vatican, that explicitly addresses this situation? Namely, the situation in which the mother’s life is in grave danger, and in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the baby is not directly killed, but removed from the mother, with the result that it soon dies.

 

[nodito]

It is not at all clear to me why the principle of double effect wouldn’t apply in this case.

In order for the principle of double effect to apply, the action taken must be considered morally neutral or morally good. Since removing the child from the womb when it is clear the child will not survive is the same as denying the child life (i.e., killing the child) then it can never be permissible, since we may never do evil in order that good may come of it.

But my question is: is there any more recent statement from the pope, or from the Vatican, that explicitly addresses this situation? Namely, the situation in which the mother’s life is in grave danger, and in which, in order to save the mother’s life, the baby is not directly killed, but removed from the mother, with the result that it soon dies.

I’m not aware of anything written more recently, but I thought an analogy might be helpful for perspective. What of a situation in which a mother truly believes she cannot afford to feed both herself and her child? Is it permissible for her to stop feeding her child altogether, to completely deprive the child of food? The child would not be “directly killed,” but merely deprived of food, with the result that it soon dies.

 

[Newbie2]

Interesting question.

Seems to me that with modern medical technology, such a situation would be highly unlikely and certainly less likely than even a few years ago. In saying such, I make the assertion that there is a much less likely certainty that a fetus will die outside the mom, assuming such a situation would occur later in the pregnancy.

In such a case, the principle of double effect would more likely apply, since there is less certainty of the baby’s death.

If there were indisputable evidence that directly aborting or delivering the baby with a certainty of death outside mom was necessary to save the mother, and that the mother would most certainly die without removing the fetus, which seems to be the scenario suggested, then double effect would be in question, methinks.

Very interesting, since there seems to be less and less certainty of loss as medicine continues to make advances.

 

[bugz2007]

I would agree, Newbie2, that this is becoming less of an issue of the child dying and more of a double effect issue as medical technology makes the likelihood of children surviving early births greater and greater.

The unfortunate thing we then must confront are the same issues confronted with all premature births, especially those before what they call the “age of viability.” While we can often accommodate the fact that some organs, such as the lungs and stomach, are not fully develop, we face a problem when it comes to the development of the brain. Any child that survived early delivery would face a very high risk of brain and/or sensory damage. A mother would then also have to decide whether her own life was worth causing that sort of suffering on her child.

It is very sad. My prayers are with all mothers facing difficult pregnancies and that sort of difficult decision. I’m sure it would be difficult even with very clear Church teaching.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Fr. Tadeusz Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center

“In circumstances where an intrauterine infection arises prior to viability, the decision to induce labor does not necessarily constitute an instance of a direct abortion, because in the absence of a suitable alternative or remedy for the infection, and with death looming for both mother and child, the physician who induces labor is seeking to clear and remove the source of the infection by acting pharmacologically on the mother’s body, not the child’s, through inducing the uterus to contract. One is not attacking the body of the child, as in a direct abortion (like a dilation and evacuation) where the child’s body is dismembered with suction or surgical instruments. One is instead delivering the membranes, and thus, also the child, with the foreseen but unintended consequence that the child will probably die subsequently due to prematurity, and due to the other birth defects which were apparently present in the case of the Santorum’s child. When no other alternatives are available, this represents a valid application of the principle of double effect, and would be morally permissible.”

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1263&storyid2509=171&ncs2509=3

 

[QuasiCatholic]

I don’t see how this would be any different than surgically removing the Fallopian tube during an ectopic pregnancy.

This is from an article on EWTN’s website:

Pope Pius XII summarized the intent of the double effect when he addressed the Family Front Congress on November 27, 1951; “Both for the one and the other, the demand cannot be but this: To use every means to save the life of both the mother and the child.”[13]

Pius also stated the general principle of the “double effect” on October 29, 1951, at his address to the Italian Union of Midwives. This speech is codified in the Pope’s Acta Apostilicae Sedis, 43(1951), page 855.

Article 14 of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Declaration on Procured Abortion (November 18, 1974) reiterates it.

The pertinent passage of this document reads; “Deliberately we have always used the expression ‘direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,’ ‘direct killing.’ Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”

 

[Ignatius]

Frequently when one speaks of abortion, one has in mind killing a baby, then removing it from the mother. .

No, The dictionary defines it as the termination of a pregnancy accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the child.

The description if Abortion is the removal or forcing out from the womb of a child before it is able to survive on its own. What the title describes is one form of abortion, it was used by the abortionist Kermit Gosnell because it reduced his liability, after he got the baby out, he would break her neck or snip her spinal chord. He liked to snip off their little feet and collected several in a jar of formaldehyde. You can look up the police records on line.