Ectopic Pregancy and Abortion Issues

[nodito]

I see no point in removing a Healthy organ that can be saved just to make it “appear correct”.

It’s not being removed for the sake of appearances. It’s being removed so that it doesn’t rupture and kill the woman. The alternative, which I think you are proposing, to cause a chemical abortion in order to maintain the tube, is immoral. It is the direct killing of an innocent child and cannot be justified.

 

[Rau]

but that tube would not shortly rupture if it was not for the baby. either case the above person, quoted below, explained it to me and I kinda get it now which is better than not at all.

That’s a fact, but an irrelevant one. The mother’s body needs treatment - full stop. It is regrettable that said treatment will inadverently harm the child.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

I completely disagree with the “diseased organ” theory… as a Medical Professional, the tube is still viable up to a certain point. I see no point in removing a Healthy organ that can be saved just to make it “appear correct”. When we have a tumor on a healthy organ, the whole organ is not removed if it can be saved.

I think it is possible to still keep the tube intact AND have it still be an unintentional process, because if you COULD have it placed elsewhere in healthy part of the uterus you would. We need to focus more on the “intention” rather than the exact medical procedure … as the intention is never for an ectopic pregnancy to happen.

It’s not being removed for the sake of appearances. It’s being removed so that it doesn’t rupture and kill the woman. The alternative, which I think you are proposing, to cause a chemical abortion in order to maintain the tube, is immoral. It is the direct killing of an innocent child and cannot be justified.

What she is implying just as I said, that tube would not be removed otherwise if it was not for the baby being in there.
That tube would ONLY rupture because that baby is in there vs the uterus. That tube is still functional otherwise (even if not perfect).

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Here’s some good information from the National Catholic Bioethics Center:

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940

God bless,
Ed

Thank you

 

[Rau]

I completely disagree with the “diseased organ” theory… as a Medical Professional, the tube is still viable up to a certain point. I see no point in removing a Healthy organ that can be saved just to make it “appear correct”. When we have a tumor on a healthy organ, the whole organ is not removed if it can be saved.

I think it is possible to still keep the tube intact AND have it still be an unintentional process, because if you COULD have it placed elsewhere in healthy part of the uterus you would. We need to focus more on the “intention” rather than the exact medical procedure … as the intention is never for an ectopic pregnancy to happen.

Operations which seek to remove the child may pretend to be relocating the child, but that is false, for there is no medical procedure capable of doing so. What success rate such an operation would need to demonstrate to be considered licit is an interesting question.

 

[Rau]

What she is implying just as I said, that tube would not be removed otherwise if it was not for the baby being in there.
That tube would ONLY rupture because that baby is in there vs the uterus. That tube is still functional otherwise (even if not perfect).

What gives rise to the critical condition of the tube - soon to rupture - is not relevant. The treatment is the same regardless and is directed at the mother’s body. A

Actions can have bad consequences, but if the intention is good, and the act itself is good, we are left with weighing up the good and bad consequences. So long as the bad does not outweigh the good, it is moral to proceed.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

That’s a fact, but an irrelevant one. The mother’s body needs treatment - full stop. It is regrettable that said treatment will inadverently harm the child.

it is very sad I agree.

 

[nodito]

Operations which seek to remove the child may pretend to be relocating the child, but that is false, for there is no medical procedure capable of doing so. What success rate such an operation would need to demonstrate to be considered licit is an interesting question.

It’s interesting that you write that, Rau. I’ve decided that if I’m ever diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy, my first call is going to be to Dr. Hilgers or some other pro-life surgeon willing to attempt to relocate the pregnancy to my uterus. It can’t become successful unless it’s tried, and I can’t see myself feeling comfortable with anything less than attempting to save my child. I do believe this is in keeping with Catholic moral theology.

 

[Rau]

It’s interesting that you write that, Rau. I’ve decided that if I’m ever diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy, my first call is going to be to Dr. Hilgers or some other pro-life surgeon willing to attempt to relocate the pregnancy to my uterus. It can’t become successful unless it’s tried, and I can’t see myself feeling comfortable with anything less than attempting to save my child. I do believe this is in keeping with Catholic moral theology.

It has been tried.

Asking the doctor about the procedure is an attempt to save your child. His answer on the possibility of success would no doubt sadden you.

 

[nodito]

It has been tried.

Asking the doctor about the procedure is an attempt to save your child. His answer on the possibility of success would no doubt sadden you.

Perhaps.

But it’s disingenuous to suggest that because doctors are not currently capable of transplanting ectopic pregnancies with any reliable success, operations that attempt this are merely only “pretending” to attempt to save the embryo and are therefore morally illicit.

It does not seem outrageous to suggest that we might have the capability of transplanting ectopic pregnancies within in our lifetime, but only if we attempt it.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

If it was possible, even if slim, to transplant that fetus to the uterus, I would be at peace with this whole issue and just do that.

I hope that day comes soon where that tactic is sucessful

And the tube would not have to be taken out too.

 

[Rau]

Perhaps.

But it’s disingenuous to suggest that because doctors are not currently capable of transplanting ectopic pregnancies with any reliable success, operations that attempt this are merely only “pretending” to attempt to save the embryo and are therefore morally illicit.

It does not seem outrageous to suggest that we might have the capability of transplanting ectopic pregnancies within in our lifetime, but only if we attempt it.

At this point in time, such an operation is experimental. I have no issue with the mother who seeks an option to save a life. I take issue only with those who have used the “possibility” of saving a life as cover for the alternative treatment of simply removing the embryo from the tube.

 

[nodito]

At this point in time, such an operation is experimental. I have no issue with the mother who seeks an option to save a life. I take issue only with those who have used the “possibility” of saving a life as cover for the alternative treatment of simply removing the embryo from the tube.

Fair enough.

(As an aside, Rau, I have a great deal of respect for you and the way you think through issues like these on the forums.)