Ectopic Pregnancies

  • Thread starter Thread starter Holly3278
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Holly3278

Guest
Hi everyone. I have heard that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, it is morally neutral to remove the “infected” fallopian tube, thus indirectly killing the baby but that it is not moral to save the fallopian tube and thus directly kill the baby. Is this correct? :confused:
 
Hi Holly,

I recently had a diagnosis of an ectopic pregnancy…(fortunately it was a misdiagnosis) but I went to see a prolife, nfp only dr.

He was going to do surgery to remove the tube. He explained that by opening the tube, was actually more dangerous, because it could cause subsequent ectopic pregnancies.

He also explained that there were various scenarios that could happen.
  1. was to monitor closely with blood tests and sonograms, ectopic pregnancies sometimes end on there own, and reabsorb into the body.
  2. Surgery, this would be necessary for an ectopic that would seem close to bursting the tube, He explained that sometimes the sonograms and the blood levels don’t match up. If the embryo in the sonogram looks larger than the blood levels indicate, it could indicate that the embryo has actually died and in fact placental tissue is still growing.
I’m sorry that I don’t have a link that explains this, basically it what I remember him telling me during a very difficult doctor’s visit.
 
Holly3278 said:
Hi everyone. I have heard that in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, it is morally neutral to remove the “infected” fallopian tube, thus indirectly killing the baby but that it is not moral to save the fallopian tube and thus directly kill the baby. Is this correct? :confused:
Click to expand...
This is roughly correct. More precisely, the first part of your sentence should read that it is morally neutral to allow the ectopic pregnancy proceed naturally until the fallopian tube is horribly damaged and the mother is in immediate danger of death, at which point the action of removing the damaged fallopian tube, along with the egg, is considered to be morally allowed.
 
Mary_Gail_36 said:
Hi Holly,

I recently had a diagnosis of an ectopic pregnancy…(fortunately it was a misdiagnosis) but I went to see a prolife, nfp only dr.

He was going to do surgery to remove the tube. He explained that by opening the tube, was actually more dangerous, because it could cause subsequent ectopic pregnancies.

He also explained that there were various scenarios that could happen.
  1. was to monitor closely with blood tests and sonograms, ectopic pregnancies sometimes end on there own, and reabsorb into the body.
  2. Surgery, this would be necessary for an ectopic that would seem close to bursting the tube, He explained that sometimes the sonograms and the blood levels don’t match up. If the embryo in the sonogram looks larger than the blood levels indicate, it could indicate that the embryo has actually died and in fact placental tissue is still growing.
I’m sorry that I don’t have a link that explains this, basically it what I remember him telling me during a very difficult doctor’s visit.
Click to expand...
It’s ok. Don’t worry about not providing a link. 🙂 I trust your information. 😉
Just_Lurking said:
This is roughly correct. More precisely, the first part of your sentence should read that it is morally neutral to allow the ectopic pregnancy proceed naturally until the fallopian tube is horribly damaged and the mother is in immediate danger of death, at which point the action of removing the damaged fallopian tube, along with the egg, is considered to be morally allowed.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about this? This is not what I read.

Anyway, here is some information from Catholics United For Faith about ectopic pregnancies and the treatment of them:

cuf.org/Faithfacts/details_view.asp?ffID=57
 
From here:

In extrauterine pregnancy the affected part of the mother (e.g., cervix, ovary, or fallopian tube) may be removed, even though fetal death is foreseen, provided that (a) the affected part is presumed already to be so damaged and dangerously affected as to warrant its removal, and that (b) the operation is not just a separation of the embryo or fetus from its site within the part (which would be a direct abortion from a uterine appendage) and that (c) the operation cannot be postponed without notably increasing the danger to the mother.41

About this statement, Dr. May concludes, “This directive clearly authorizes as morally licit the use of partial salpingectomy or total salpingectomy in order to safeguard the mother’s life when there is grave danger of hemorrhaging from the fallopian-tube pregnancy.

The first paragraph is from a 1971 U.S. Bishops’ statement.
 
Just_Lurking said:
No, I’m not 100% sure. I will research this some more. If I come up with another reference I will post it.
Click to expand...
I’m 99.99% sure you’re correct. In the case of an ectopic pregnancy, both the mother and the child will eventually die if there is no intervention. There is no chance that the child will live, but there is an excellent chance that the mother can be saved.
 
The dividing line is intent. This is what I’ve learned from reading many posts in AAA:

If the intent is to save the mother’s life, and the death of the baby is what you might call a side effect, then it is moral.

If the intent is to destroy the baby, by ending the pregnancy, because of future danger to the mother, it is wrong. I.e. the mother’s safety is the side effect of destroying the baby.

Thus, removing the baby from the fallopian tube, or removing the tube before rupture is imminent, is wrong. Emergency surgery to remove the tube, to directly save the mother’s life is not wrong.

Hopefully this will all become moot in a few years, and it will become routine to re-implant an ectopic baby in the womb. Of course, that will bring its own ethical questions…

Ruthie

So
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top