L
Leek
Guest
They are already developing artificial wombs that will enable preemies to be placed inside and avoid the danger of disabilities like blindness lung damage etc… we should definitely support this!
- Status
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
The National Catholic Bioethics Center’s summary document, “The Management of Ectopic Pregnancy,” might be helpful.
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
Salpingectomy can only be used when the ectopic pregnancy is placed inside the fallopian tube, which indeed is the most common form of ectopic pregnancy. A minority of the ectopic pregnancies are placed in the abdomen, and in that case you need to treat with methotroxate.
Last edited:
O
otjm
Guest
It is also possible to be struck with lightening twice.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Normal women have two fillopian tubes. If one is damaged, they have another to do the job.
K
kapp19
Guest
Paul also said we may not do evil that good may come of it.
I think you will benefit highly from a careful reading of the Catechism… sincerely. You seem confused about what morals are all about.
I think you will benefit highly from a careful reading of the Catechism… sincerely. You seem confused about what morals are all about.
I don’t think so.
Sound a good idea at first,
But,
Why would be the point of saving babies from ectopic pregnancies that are by nature designed to die? Sound a crual question but would it be a disproportion of medical and financial means?
Would this include immoral means such as artificial uterus, at least temporary?
Would the women would be pushed to take care of every early signs of pregnancy and rush to many invasive medical exams in order to detect a pregnancy and possibly ectopic one?
Would that create new mandates again on pregnant women of the wealthy countries?
Would now the woman who don’t do that whould be considered as an immoral and sinful one by pro life and Church people?
Sound a good idea at first,
But,
Why would be the point of saving babies from ectopic pregnancies that are by nature designed to die? Sound a crual question but would it be a disproportion of medical and financial means?
Would this include immoral means such as artificial uterus, at least temporary?
Would the women would be pushed to take care of every early signs of pregnancy and rush to many invasive medical exams in order to detect a pregnancy and possibly ectopic one?
Would that create new mandates again on pregnant women of the wealthy countries?
Would now the woman who don’t do that whould be considered as an immoral and sinful one by pro life and Church people?
Last edited:
L
Latin
Guest
The National Catholic Bioethics Center’s summary document
Protocols for Managing Ectopic Pregnancy
• “Ideally, the embryo would be surgically removed from the fallopian tube and transplanted to the uterus, but this procedure is not yet a viable option.
.
• SalpinGECTOMY … The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of an act directed at removing the pathologically affected section of the fallopian tube.
.
• SalpinGOSTOMY … The act by its object removes the trophoblast ; removal of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended side effect.
.
• Use of methotrexate (permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists).
This argument assumes that the trophoblast is not an organ of the embryo and therefore can be an object of moral focus apart from the developing embryo.
Moral Debate regarding Salpingostomy and the Use of Methotrexate Some Catholic ethicists argue that salpingostomy and the use of methotrexate are morally permissible under the principle of double effect. They argue that both procedures directly intend the removal of the exact cause of the condition, i.e., the trophoblast rapidly dividing in the wrong place, and not the embryonic child itself.
Defending the dignity of the human person in health care and the life sciences since 1972”
.
PLEASE CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCES:
• SalpinGECTOMY: – Most invasive procedure.
Removes the fallopian tube, removes the trophoblast and removes the embryo.
The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of the act.
(Part of Catholic ethicists instead of SalpinGECTOMY prefer the use of SalpinGOSTOMY or the use of methotrexate ).
.
• SalpinGOSTOMY: – Less invasive procedure.
Removes the trophoblast and removes the embryo.
The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of the act.
(Permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists, some Catholic ethicists for it, some Catholic ethicists against it).
.
• Use of methotrexate: – Least invasive procedure.
This drug targets the trophoblastic cells, inhibits the rapid multiplication of trophoblastic cells.
In reality, removes the exact cause of the condition, i.e., the trophoblast rapidly dividing in the wrong place.
The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of the act.
(Permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists, some Catholic ethicists for it, some Catholic ethicists against it).
.
2 Cor.3:6 He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant. This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life.
.
Seems to me, not yet every … ethicists enabled ministers of his new covenant.
.
God bless
Protocols for Managing Ectopic Pregnancy
• “Ideally, the embryo would be surgically removed from the fallopian tube and transplanted to the uterus, but this procedure is not yet a viable option.
.
• SalpinGECTOMY … The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of an act directed at removing the pathologically affected section of the fallopian tube.
.
• SalpinGOSTOMY … The act by its object removes the trophoblast ; removal of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended side effect.
.
• Use of methotrexate (permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists).
This argument assumes that the trophoblast is not an organ of the embryo and therefore can be an object of moral focus apart from the developing embryo.
Moral Debate regarding Salpingostomy and the Use of Methotrexate Some Catholic ethicists argue that salpingostomy and the use of methotrexate are morally permissible under the principle of double effect. They argue that both procedures directly intend the removal of the exact cause of the condition, i.e., the trophoblast rapidly dividing in the wrong place, and not the embryonic child itself.
Defending the dignity of the human person in health care and the life sciences since 1972”
.
PLEASE CONSIDER THE DIFFERENCES:
• SalpinGECTOMY: – Most invasive procedure.
Removes the fallopian tube, removes the trophoblast and removes the embryo.
The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of the act.
(Part of Catholic ethicists instead of SalpinGECTOMY prefer the use of SalpinGOSTOMY or the use of methotrexate ).
.
• SalpinGOSTOMY: – Less invasive procedure.
Removes the trophoblast and removes the embryo.
The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of the act.
(Permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists, some Catholic ethicists for it, some Catholic ethicists against it).
.
• Use of methotrexate: – Least invasive procedure.
This drug targets the trophoblastic cells, inhibits the rapid multiplication of trophoblastic cells.
In reality, removes the exact cause of the condition, i.e., the trophoblast rapidly dividing in the wrong place.
The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of the act.
(Permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists, some Catholic ethicists for it, some Catholic ethicists against it).
.
2 Cor.3:6 He has enabled us to be ministers of his new covenant. This is a covenant not of written laws, but of the Spirit. The old written covenant ends in death; but under the new covenant, the Spirit gives life.
.
Seems to me, not yet every … ethicists enabled ministers of his new covenant.
.
God bless
Last edited:
L
Leek
Guest
I agree that saving ectopic pregnancies seem unlikely though ideally we do want to catch them as early as possible to avoid life threatening complications.
But why are artificial wombs not moral? Currently micro preemies are placed in an incubator but an artificial womb would mean their lungs aren’t forced to adapt to breathing before they’re ready and other benefits.
But why are artificial wombs not moral? Currently micro preemies are placed in an incubator but an artificial womb would mean their lungs aren’t forced to adapt to breathing before they’re ready and other benefits.
There is a great difference between a potential artificial “woomb” for viable premature babies and almost or all the pregnancy done outside of the mother’s body.
The later is immoral, and create something very close to what an uterus do can open the pandora’s box for rechersh and use for the replacement of the mother.
L
Leek
Guest
I really don’t see that happening even micropreemies do better when they get frequent human contact. I just worry about the term “artificial womb” being seen as immoral and people opposing it when it’s just helping early births. The trauma of having ruptured membranes at 24 weeks never really goes away. 
K
kapp19
Guest
There is certainly a fear of a misuse of technology - I think this is worthy of consideration. There is also a legitimate fear of “scrupulizing” the gestation process… but perhaps that is a bit of an over-reaction.
However, I think this line is problematic:
However, I think this line is problematic:
…This is not correct anthropology or metaphysics.
K
kapp19
Guest
This is helpful, except for your strange comment at the end.
I have even had some “bad medicine” corrected in my head…
It does not seem to me at all, for what it’s worth, that methotrexate would be licit. And it seems preferable, for a few reasons, to perform the salpingectomy over the salpingostomy.
I have even had some “bad medicine” corrected in my head…
It does not seem to me at all, for what it’s worth, that methotrexate would be licit. And it seems preferable, for a few reasons, to perform the salpingectomy over the salpingostomy.
There is no way to save them. They are destined to die.Anicette:
…This is not correct anthropology or metaphysics.
K
kapp19
Guest
Yes, me too.
And yet, I am meant to live. Just like everyone.
And yet, I am meant to live. Just like everyone.
We will all die? So what is the argument?
You should find better than that when you make statements over a mother’s choice confronted to an ectopic pregnancy (or more likely her doctors’s actions).
What it does seem preferable to you - the more invasive treatement for a woman’s fertility- should not come into consideration.
You should find better than that when you make statements over a mother’s choice confronted to an ectopic pregnancy (or more likely her doctors’s actions).
What it does seem preferable to you - the more invasive treatement for a woman’s fertility- should not come into consideration.
K
kapp19
Guest
That since death is coming for all, the fact of death coming is not determinative of the nature of any individual as such - the time-frame is irrelevant for what a particular human is. To take a different example, I can’t shoot a man in the skull to “numb his pain” even if he is very close to dying anyway, as we don’t get to destroy innocent people like that.
T
tuffsmurf
Guest
Without treating the ectopic pregnancy, both the woman and child will die. With treatment, the woman survives. Do you disagree with treatments?
K
kapp19
Guest
It depends on the treatment. Methotrexate seems to be immoral. Salpingectomy seems pretty clearly allowable. Salpingostomy seems allowable, though it’s a bit less clear.
- Status