Discussion about ectopic pregnancies

[Rau]

You’d have to show that the biology leads to the conclusion that the tissue being targeted is not actually the child.

That would be wholly insufficient. The objective of methotrexate injection is to kill the child. Nothing less would be effective. The death of the child is necessary for that approach to the mother’s medical situation to be effective. Thus methotrexate injection is immoral (and clearly so).

 

[Latin]

the “pro-life” position correct based on the sound principles we have in front of us.

Let’s test what is the pro-life position and sound principles we have in front of us.

AN EXAMPLE: Fallopian tube which is the only one has left, because previously had the other tube sectioned, the fetus develops outside the uterus in the fallopian tube.

Of course, the same principle applies if someone still have both fallopian tube.
.
The following example clearly shows which part of Catholic ethicists are correct and promoting the pro-life position.
.
a. Part of the Catholic ethicists promoting the use of SALPINGECTOMY when the fetus develops outside the uterus in the fallopian tube.

b. The other part of Catholic ethicists instead of SALPINGECTOMY promoting the use SALPINGOSTOMY or the use of METHOTREXATE when the fetus develops outside the uterus in the fallopian tube.
.
CONCLUSION

In the above example, the fetus develops in the mother’s only one fallopian tube.

At the point, the fetus started to develop in the fallopian tube his fate is sealed, whatever way will be, his fate is death.

The question is: Will he dies according to the pro-life position or will he dies according to the anti-pro-life position.

a. If he dies by the use of SALPINGECTOMY he dies according to the anti-pro-life position because the mother robbed from the possibility to have any other beautiful Catholic children.
.
b. If he dies by the use of SALPINGOSTOMY or the use of METHOTREXATE he dies according to the pro-life position because the mother is not robbed from the possibility to have other beautiful Catholic children.

Yes, the pro-life position is correct, based on the sound principles we have in front of us, which is, instead of SALPINGECTOMY promoting the use of SALPINGOSTOMY or the use of METHOTREXATE when the fetus develops outside the uterus in the fallopian tube.

So, those Catholic ethicists who are, instead of SALPINGECTOMY promoting the use SALPINGOSTOMY or the use of METHOTREXATE, promoting the pro-life position.
.
God bless

 

[kapp19]

I think we already had this conversation. You are not going to convince me… sorry, you have no authors on your side.

@Latin you are saying something that is not Catholic but closer to Jainism.

-K

 

[Latin]

The National Catholic Bioethics Center
The Management of Ectopic Pregnancy

Prepared by the Ethicists of the NCBC February 2013

“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.

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.

Defending the dignity of the human person in health care and the life sciences since 1972”
.
God bless

 

[kapp19]

I understand the quotation - which you have cited maybe 6 times now.

What I don’t understand is how you think that St. Paul in 2 Corinthians is talking about making sure women can have more children, even if it might mean killing one of her children to ensure the possibility. For the record, St. Paul encouraged celibacy, and even continence within marriage. So you are just plain wrong.

I’m happy to talk more by personal message, but I will not continue to argue with you here on this thread.

Peace,
-K

 

[Rau]

I think we already had this conversation. You are not going to convince me… sorry, you have no authors on your side.

The info I’ve provided in respect of ectopic pregnancy is as I understand it the standard Catholic position. Only tube removal is generally acceptable.

 

[tuffsmurf]

No doctor would preform a surgery if the condition could be treated with medication only. That would be highly unethical. This attitude that salpingestomy is ok but not methotraxate is weird to say the least.

 

[Anicette]

No doctor would preform a surgery if the condition could be treated with medication only. That would be highly unethical. This attitude that salpingestomy is ok but not methotraxate is weird to say the least.

In my understanding the doctor’s decision would depend if the woman agree to more following after the drug has been taken (to be sure that all had been remooved).

But i agree i see no reason why a doctor would choose to remmove a tube (and certainely not the last) if we can reasonably use drug or only partial remooving of the tube.

all this discution is a theorical theological debate.
The worst are the opinion that a woman should remoove her last tube to stay ethical. And after having her children via IVF. We should not be blind, it would happened in the most majority of cases.

 

[Rau]

No doctor would preform a surgery if the condition could be treated with medication only.

Were there only one patient - mother - you would be correct. But there are two. Now it’s true that the second patient cannot be saved, however in a catholic hospital, the principal of not setting about to directly kill one of the patients needs to be respected.

 

[Rau]

all this discution is a theorical theological debate.

Theological - yes, but not merely theoretical. Please note this thread appears in a “moral theology” section of this forum.

The worst are the opinion that a woman should remoove her last tube to stay ethical. And after having her children via IVF.

IVF is not a moral practice according to the Catholic Church

 

[Anicette]

I agree but it does not stop people from doing it.

My argument is that we should not give them more opportunities to do it with things such as to mandate the more invasive treatment against ectopic pregnancy.

It is also a question of respect of woman who are going through this difficult situation.

Honestly I don’t think many priests ould ask a parishioner whom they know who had had an ectopic pregnancy what method they had used to remoove the embryo. And tell them they had commit an abortion if they use something other than remoove the tube. So basically called them excommunicated until they repent.

 

[Pug]

Honestly I don’t think many priests ould ask a parishioner whom they know who had had an ectopic pregnancy what method they had used to remoove the embryo.

I agree, I doubt they would ask in the USA, since the NCBC appears to say it is currently a matter of conscience:

Nonetheless, in the absence of magisterial direction, the use of any of these procedures becomes a matter of conscience. In the face of the certain death of the embryo regardless of the procedure used (or not used), one may weigh what is proportionately beneficial to preserve a woman’s fertility.

 

[Anicette]

What caracterize an absence of magisterial direction, as many people here claims the only way to remoove an ectopic embryo is to remoove the tube?

A more general question for people who are against remooving an embryo without remooving a tube: What to do when the ectopic embryo is not in a tube? as all ectopics are not in a body part that can be remooved?
Do we have to remoove the uterus for a cervical pregnancy?

 

[Rau]

What caracterize an absence of magisterial direction, as many people here claims the only way to remoove an ectopic embryo is to remoove the tube?

A statement from the church’s teaching authority. As far as I know, there isn’t such a statement, and all that exists are the assessments of theologians.

 

[Anicette]

okay. If I understand, the debate is not closed, and we are all entitled to our opinions.

 

[Rau]

The following document is produced by the US Catholic Bishops and outlines ethical directives to be adhered to in Catholic healthcare institutions:

https://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/ethical-and-religious-directives/upload/ethical-religious-directives-catholic-health-service-sixth-edition-2016-06.pdf

The following clauses are relevant:

1. Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable foetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo. Catholic health care institutions are not to provide abortion services…
2. In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.

The matter of theological debate (relying on a depth of medical knowledge) is whether the following medical procedures:
a) removing the embryo from the tube (Salpingostomy);
b) methotrexate injection
are direct abortions.

Salpingectomy - removing the tube (containing the embryo) is (as far as I know) widely agreed to NOT be a direct abortion.

Here is an article giving some insight into these matters (from a NCBC representative). It basically suggests that:

• tubal removal widely agreed to be acceptable;
• removing embryo from tube widely agreed to be unacceptable;
• methotrexate injection debated.

When Pregnancy Goes Awry: The Moral Ending to an Ectopic Pregnancy| National Catholic Register

I note in passing that this article concludes with statements that seem to contradict earlier statements in the article. Toward the end we read: “the other two treatment methods, salpingostomy and methotrexate, are not licit when the fetus/embryo is alive.” Well – the whole debate is only relevant when the embryo is alive…

 

[Rau]

If I understand, the debate is not closed, and we are all entitled to our opinions.

That’s probably fair, though not all opinions are acceptable. That is, the justification of an opinion held must not ignore or contradict established moral positions.

For example: One could not say it’s OK to abort an ectopic pregnancy because to not do so means I can’t have more children. No - that’s not a morally sound reason. The reason would need to rest on an argument for why the treatment is not a direct abortion - which is what the theologians debate. (See my prior post.)

 

[ReaderT]

I have wondered — and I know medical science may never come up with this — whether an artificial womb could be developed

In fact they already have been developed for lambs, and they were repeatedly successful:

Artificial Womb Used To Successfully Grow Premature Lamb For The Second Time

Artificial Womb Used To Successfully Grow Premature Lamb For The Second Time

www.iflscience.com

By the way, I noticed some people talking about artificial wombs. We, as Catholics, should be opposed to the idea: https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-artificial-wombs-ok .

I disagree with that stance. I think there’s a good compromise that can be struck between pro-choice and pro-lifers when the artificial womb becomes reality:

• If a pregnant woman chooses not to keep the baby, fine, nobody will stand in her way, BUT:
• The baby will be put in an artificial womb. And the pro-choice side should have no problem with this, because to them it’s “no more important than a wart that needs removing”

So either the pro-choice side agrees that it’s a human being (and can’t be terminated) or they keep with the “wart/skin mole” idea and shouldn’t give a second thought about what’s done with it.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

TheMike0012:

By the way, I noticed some people talking about artificial wombs. We, as Catholics, should be opposed to the idea: https://www.catholic.com/qa/are-artificial-wombs-ok .

I disagree with that stance. I think there’s a good compromise that can be struck between pro-choice and pro-lifers when the artificial womb becomes reality:

• If a pregnant woman chooses not to keep the baby, fine, nobody will stand in her way, BUT :
• The baby will be put in an artificial womb. And the pro-choice side should have no problem with this, because to them it’s “no more important than a wart that needs removing”

So either the pro-choice side agrees that it’s a human being (and can’t be terminated) or they keep with the “wart/skin mole” idea and shouldn’t give a second thought about what’s done with it.

You would think so. However, logic is something that is often missing from pro-choice discussions.

There would also have to be some way to pay for all of this. Ahem… maybe have a nationwide “second collection” every so often, and encourage people to be very generous?

 

[rosejmj]

This doesn’t seem too ethical from a Catholic perspective even if it were possible. It makes me think of IVF except in this case you are allowing a baby to grow outside the women’s body after it may have been conceived naturally. I have heard that research and medicine has made it possible to donate or receive a working uterus for a woman who wants to have a biological child and for whatever reason is not able due to gynecological issues. That’s pretty fascinating. I believe it’s pretty new though