Double Effect and Pregnancy

[Whitacre_Girl]

Hey guys

I was having a really good discussion on another thread about abortion to save a mother’s life and this issue came up that I was wondering about.

Let’s give a hypothetical situation here, because I lack the words to describe what I mean otherwise:

A woman is 22 weeks pregnant. There are no known cases where a child has been delivered this early and survived. However, the pregnancy (for whatever reason) is killing the mother. She has carried this child as long as possible and her heart is failing. (let’s just say…) according to double effect, is it okay to remove this child from the uterus and keep it alive as a premature birth even though it is extremely likely the child will die?

In this case - all are hoping to save the child and the mother even though it is highly unlikely the child will survive at all. No one intentionally kills it - no abortion is performed, rather a c-section or other procedure is used to attempt to safely deliver the child.

I know, I know, it’s hypothetical so I know someone out there can poke holes in this particular issue…but let’s just speculate.

 

[Spyral]

I would say yes as the intent is to save life, the side effect is the likely death of the unborn child.

If the mother continued the pregnancy they’d both die.

 

[sw85]

Hey guys

I was having a really good discussion on another thread about abortion to save a mother’s life and this issue came up that I was wondering about.

Let’s give a hypothetical situation here, because I lack the words to describe what I mean otherwise:

A woman is 22 weeks pregnant. There are no known cases where a child has been delivered this early and survived. However, the pregnancy (for whatever reason) is killing the mother. She has carried this child as long as possible and her heart is failing. (let’s just say…) according to double effect, is it okay to remove this child from the uterus and keep it alive as a premature birth even though it is extremely likely the child will die?

In this case - all are hoping to save the child and the mother even though it is highly unlikely the child will survive at all. No one intentionally kills it - no abortion is performed, rather a c-section or other procedure is used to attempt to safely deliver the child.

I know, I know, it’s hypothetical so I know someone out there can poke holes in this particular issue…but let’s just speculate.

Yes. It is is morally licit to treat mother and child in an attempt to save their lives, even if the death of one is almost assured, provided the death is not willed as an end of the act.

 

[tonyrey]

The real problem arises if the unborn child is not likely to die and the mother will die if the pregnancy continues. The child poses a threat but it is obviously not responsible for doing so and has a right to life from the moment of conception. The difficulty is to determine which is the greater evil: to allow the mother to die or to terminate the pregnancy knowing the child will die…

It is a mistake to think that non-intervention relieves us of responsibility because we commit ourselves by failing to act. If the mother has other children who would suffer and be deprived as a result of her death it could be argued that we have the right to terminate the pregnancy. Yet the unborn child has done nothing to deserve an untimely death. The fact that it is unborn does not mean that it has a “lesser” right to life.

Another problem is whether the mother should be the one who makes the decision because she is not the only one who will be affected. This is one of the very rare cases where it seems impossible to reach a satisfactory answer. Both the mother and the child will suffer when they know their survival was at the cost of their nearest and dearest…

All we could do in such a terrible dilemma is pray for guidance…

 

[smichhertz]

I would agree that such a scenario would be morally licit.

Just as an aside: The Double Effect Principle will always fail when abortion is the act as abortion is intrinsically immoral and the Double Effect Principle requires that the act be at least morally neutral if not good. I know no one here suggested it, but thought I’d just clarify that for all the lurkers.

 

[yablabo]

Hey guys

I was having a really good discussion on another thread about abortion to save a mother’s life and this issue came up that I was wondering about.

Let’s give a hypothetical situation here, because I lack the words to describe what I mean otherwise:

A woman is 22 weeks pregnant. There are no known cases where a child has been delivered this early and survived. However, the pregnancy (for whatever reason) is killing the mother. She has carried this child as long as possible and her heart is failing. (let’s just say…) according to double effect, is it okay to remove this child from the uterus and keep it alive as a premature birth even though it is extremely likely the child will die?

In this case - all are hoping to save the child and the mother even though it is highly unlikely the child will survive at all. No one intentionally kills it - no abortion is performed, rather a c-section or other procedure is used to attempt to safely deliver the child.

I know, I know, it’s hypothetical so I know someone out there can poke holes in this particular issue…but let’s just speculate.

The main problem with these hypothetical situations is that it is common in our “culture” to treat medical guess or probability with certitude.

A physician notes that the mother’s health is failing for whatever reason, and using previous cases as a guide, has good reason to believe that her death could occur if the pregnancy continues. However, he also has good reason to believe, by previous cases, that she will carry the child and deliver safely at the end of the pregnancy.

This is not a case in which the mother’s death is either certain or imminent. How then do we treat this hypothetical as if it can be supported by the principle of double-effect when we have either mere conjecture at least or at most probability?

This would be totally different if the woman were unconscious because her heart had stopped and, for whatever reason, in order to resuscitate her the physician had to deliver her child first. That is such a convoluted scenario, however, that I believe it never practically occurs.

The scenario you gave does not fit the principle of double-effect.

– Nicole