Discussion about ectopic pregnancies

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheMike0012
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you aware that methotrexate usually is the only available treatment when the ectopic pregnancy is placed outside of the fallopian tubes, for example in the abdomen?
 
Last edited:
Look, I think you are trying to corner me for some reason. Okay, fine. I’ve worked through the vital-conflict issue pretty substantially. I am WELL aware of the stakes and the various intuitions, and how strong those intuitions are. While respecting that, we also need to have more than intuition guiding us in morals.

I don’t think that the targeted use of methotrexate is moral - maybe I am wrong regarding the biology, but if the point is really to destroy a vital organ of the embryo, as some seem to say, then it is a materially direct destruction of bodily integrity of the child, which in this case is not justifiable.
 
I am not trying to corner you, I want an honest discussion about this and hear what your position really is. Salpingectomy is not always possible (although they usually are), since not all ectopic pregnancies occur in the fallopian tubes. What options are there for a woman who is faced with such a pregnancy? If the methorexate is deemed immoral, then the only option would be for her to sacrifice her life. Is this your opinion?
 
I don’t think that’s the only other option available, as laparotomy could be possible. Also it seems at least somewhat plausible to bring the child to viability in some cases. But I would need to study this particular issue in more depth from the medical standpoint.

What is unacceptable in principle is to act on the child with a chemical (in this case) which itself is sufficient to destroy the child’s bodily integrity such that it will kill him.

-K
 
Last edited:
Laparatomy is usually not possible because of the difficulty of location the embryo. If an ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed by hcg-tests but the vaginal ultrasound shows normal fallopian tubes, it is very hard to locate the embryo. So you don’t know where to cut, literally.

Bringing the child to viability is extremely rare, it is far more likely that the woman will die. It’s a bit like abstaining from chemotherapy and hope for the cancer to heal itself.
 
Well you’ll have to educate me then - what is the chronological prognosis for being able to find the PUL? Then what is the mortality rate of the mother after that point, vs. when pregnancy is identified in the first place?

-K
 
Last edited:
kapp19 said:
bodily integrity of the child…
Click to expand...
I do not want to derail what seems to be a promising discussion. Keep it up. But I do want to raise the terminology point. Is an embryo a child? This, of course, is related to the abortion controversy. But a child is more than a few cells. A child is a complex entity with tissue and systems. That is not to say and embryo does not have moral rights. But that is another issue.
 
Shakuhachi said:
Is an embryo a child? This, of course, is related to the abortion controversy. But a child is more than a few cells. A child is a complex entity with tissue and systems. That is not to say and embryo does not have moral rights. But that is another issue.
Click to expand...
In short yes an embryo is a child and has dignity of life.
 
GodIsPerfection said:
In the face of potential tubal rupture, hemorrhage, and possibly death, neither salpingectomy or salpingotomy constitutes elective abortion.
Click to expand...
That may be appropriate medical terminology, but not a correct moral analysis according to catholic principles.
 
Strange moral analysis in that post.

The clearing of the tube is inherently the taking of the life of the child. Which is distinct from saying we desired the child’s death, but because the child is the target of the act and the act inherently kills the child, the act is deemed immoral by virtue of its moral object.

The removal of a piece of tube acts on mother. The ultimate death of the child follows consequentially but it is not inherent to the act. The morality now rests on weighing the balance of consequences.

Methotrexate - as I understand it - is given with the objective of bringing about the child’s death. It’s purpose is only achieved when the child dies.
 
GodIsPerfection said:
In the face of potential tubal rupture, hemorrhage, and possibly death, neither salpingectomy or salpingotomy constitutes elective abortion.
Click to expand...
The National Catholic Bioethics Center’s summary document

Protocols for Managing Ectopic Pregnancy
.
“SalpinGOSTOMY … The act by its object removes the trophoblast ; removal of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended side effect.
.
The 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.”
.
As we see above: Part of the Catholic ethicists (the enabled ministers of His new covenant as 2 Cor.3:6 describes it) instead of SalpinGECTOMY prefer the use of SalpinGOSTOMY or the use of methotrexate.
.
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, some Catholic ethicists steel thinking in the era of the Old covenant time, when instead of the Spirit, the written laws dominated.
.
It is time that we all Catholics, to be qualified/ enabled ministers of his new covenant, not of written laws, but of the Spirit.
.
Then we will all agree with the qualified/ enabled Catholic ethicists (2 Cor.3:6) and as GodIsPerfection stated: “In the face of potential tubal rupture, hemorrhage, and possibly death, neither salpingectomy or salpingotomy constitutes elective abortion.”

Even the use of methotrexate is morally permissible. – Of course not permissible among those who are still thinking in the era of the Old Covenant, when instead of the Spirit the old written laws dominated.
.
God bless
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Strange moral analysis in that post.
Click to expand...
The moral analyse of: 2 Cor.3:6, etc. 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.

God bless
 
Last edited:
As a non Christian, I do understand the reasoning behind the ethicists views. My only addition is that methotrexate allows the women to keep her Fallopian tube which in some cases, is the only one she has left if she previously had the other tube sectioned. I can’t imagine the moral dilemma a mother would face in knowing that her final chance of having a child has been removed.
 
Latin said:
The moral analyse of: 2 Cor.3:6, etc. 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.
Click to expand...
A scene from “The Princess Bride” comes to mind… “You keep saying this, but I don’t think it means what you think it does…”

For real, what on EARTH are you talking about?
 
Last edited:
To view a natural/ healthy pregnancy equal with an ectopic pregnancy and view the termination of an ectopic pregnancy as same as an elective pregnancy is simply heartless and the viewer mentally still thinking according to the written laws of the Old Covenant, not the Spirit of the New Covenant. – Not yet enabled/ qualified ministers of God’s New Covenant.

.
Ectopic pregnancy
[ectopic pregnancy]
NOUN
A pregnancy in which the fetus develops outside the uterus, typically in a fallopian tube.
“one in every 100 women run the risk of an ectopic pregnancy”
.
How do you terminate an ectopic pregnancy?
If the doctor confirms that the pregnancy is ectopic but there is no sign of rupture, the doctor may recommend a medication called “methotrexate” to terminate the pregnancy or may recommend monitoring the hCG levels if the pregnancy seems as if it may end naturally.

.
The National Catholic Bioethics Center’s summary document
Protocols for Managing Ectopic Pregnancy

SalpinGOSTOMY … The act by its object removes the trophoblast ; removal of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended side effect.
.
According to some Catholic ethicists: 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.
.
As we see above: Part of the Catholic ethicists (the enabled ministers of God’s new covenant as 2 Cor.3:6 describes it) instead of SalpinGECTOMY they prefer the use of SalpinGOSTOMY or the use of methotrexate. – This is the Spirit of the new Covenant!!!
.
God bless
 
Last edited:
kapp19 said:
So moral theology is a waste of time… because you think intuition about feeling moral is good enough?
Click to expand...
As 2 Cor.3:6 describes it, moral theology of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant is NOT THE SAME and we all should know the differences of them. – 2 Cor.3:6 explains 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.

God bless
 
Also, I do not think you understand what “the written law” is… It’s not just “rules that feel difficult.” It’s a very precise set of ritual, juridical, and also moral precepts given to the Jews as a complex pedagogical tool. So, when Paul is talking about “the written law,” he means circumcision, not wearing certain kinds of clothing, avoiding certain foods, etc… He is not talking about the 5th Commandment, which is what concerns us here. Is it really “in the Spirit” to point a chemical weapon at an innocent child, however small he or she may be, and then attack him or her, even if it is to achieve some further good? I don’t think so. You’d have to show that the biology leads to the conclusion that the tissue being targeted is not actually the child. Maybe that’s possible, but waving a wand over it saying “Spirit,” “Covenant” “qualified ministers” etc. is not very helpful - and, frankly, your last post was not only grossly incorrect, but also rather insulting, with your accusation that one is “heartless” for trying to get the “pro-life” position correct based on the sound principles we have in front of us.
 
Last edited:
Latin said:
2 Cor.3:6 explains it.
Click to expand...
Yes, well, there is more to Scripture than your favorite verse. Thankfully, we don’t need to interpret all of Scripture on our own, either… nor should we try, which is what you seem to be doing. That certainly does not lead to the Spirit, or to life eternal, I can tell you that for sure.

I’m sorry, but I do not think this is a productive discussion.

Peace,
-K
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top