Ectopic pregnancy, methotrexate and pharmacists

[Chicken_Pigeon]

I don’t understand how removing the fallopian tube is okay to save the life of the mother but using methotrexate isn’t okay when both options kill the baby.

I don’t know, I’m not a mom or a canon lawyer, but this doesn’t make sense. Under the principle of double effect if doctors do something to save the life of the mother and the baby dies because the doctors were trying to save the life of the mother, how is it an abortion? If methotrexate just separates the baby from the fallopian tube–which is the cause of the problem since the location of the baby is causing health issues, how is that an abortion? Wouldn’t double effect apply?

bokbok?

 

[KathleenT]

I agree. It sounds a bit like saying if you remove the uterus of a pregnant woman you aren’t killing the baby inside.

 

[KathleenT]

So the moral, Catholic obligation of a person is governed by the conscience laws of the state?

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t understand how removing the fallopian tube is okay to save the life of the mother but using methotrexate isn’t okay when both options kill the baby.

I agree. It sounds a bit like saying if you remove the uterus of a pregnant woman you aren’t killing the baby inside.

The reason is that, in the context of Catholic moral theology, we’re looking at the morality of the specific action taken, and not merely the end result. These days, society looks at things in a different way. It tends to evaluate things in one of two ways:

• “is there any negative effect to me?” – this approach, called consequentialism, really ignores the morality of the act and the intent of the person acting. Instead, it simply says, “look – as long as it doesn’t come back to bite me in the butt, then it’s all good.” In a Catholic context, that’s hardly appropriate: if we cause suffering, then that’s evil. (There was an interesting segment on one of the Sunday evening documentary programs that demonstrated the effects of plastic garbage on the ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean and Pacific islands.) Consequentialism shrugs and says “it doesn’t affect me, so I’ll keep using all the plastic I want” or, even more callously, “meh… let someone else clean it up – if there are no negative consequences on me, I’m good to go!”.
• The other approach asks us to compute a big math equation: put all the negative consequences on one side, and all the positive ones on another, and total it up. If it ends up ‘positive’, then we should do it. If ‘negative’, we shouldn’t. This is known as ‘utilitarianism’. This is immoral, too. After all, if more Americans benefit from an ‘immigration wall’ than potential immigrants suffer… well, then it’s the right choice, no?

So, the difference in Catholic moral theology is that we ask the question “is the action itself – in what it does directly and in what the person intends – morally good?” In the present example, we make our distinction upon the act itself and the intent of the act.

In both cases, we intend to save the mother’s life. That’s the good that we intend. However, in one case, we achieve that good by performing an operation on the mother. In the other, we achieve that good by directly killing an innocent person. Consequentialism and utilitarianism give us the thumbs-up on that action. Catholic moral theology says “you cannot commit an immoral act in the service of a virtuous goal.”

 

[TheLittleLady]

Because for almost half of the weeks of pregnancy, the fetus has a chance of survival outside of the womb. As technology advances, the earlier the viability date becomes.

The extremely rare cases when the uterus must be removed prior to 20ish weeks of pregnancy, the removal is to cure an illness, not to end the pregnancy.

 

[KathleenT]

Okay, but shouldn’t we also consider the end result?

If you lie to the gunman and say you are the only person in the house…Catholic ethics would say the action of lying is wrong, correct?

But 90% of the people would lie and would not think they did the wrong thing because they saved lives.

God gave us judgement and reason. We aren’t robots. How can we live in a practical sense if we don’t consider the direct action AND the results as far as we can know (which admittedly is not far)

 

[ColorMomma]

But the surgery reduces the chances of the mother being “open to life” in the future. With the loss of the tube, the mother only has one functioning tube on the other side. Ectopic pregnancies are not a choice the mother makes, unlike abortion. In my case, I desperately wanted a child and would have done anything to have a healthy pregnancy. It feels so unfair to loose a baby and also reduce the chances of a successful pregnancy in the future.

 

[Gorgias]

Okay, but shouldn’t we also consider the end result?

Sure, but not to the exclusion of what gets us there.

If you lie to the gunman and say you are the only person in the house…Catholic ethics would say the action of lying is wrong, correct?

Catholic ethics would say that, since the gunman intends to do evil, he has no right to the truth that would facilitate the evil. So, the answer isn’t “nah, it’s just me”, but something that refuses to reveal the truth without lying (“seriously? if we were all here, would i be the one answering the door?” or “so… seeing you coming, don’t you think all the kids wouldn’t take off, out the back door?” or something along those lines. Not the truth, but not a lie.)

But 90% of the people would lie and would not think they did the wrong thing because they saved lives.

90% of the people would be acting in an immoral way. Oh, sure… the end result would be good – but the act would be immoral. Are you cool with acting immorally so that good might result?

How can we live in a practical sense if we don’t consider the direct action AND the results as far as we can know

We refuse to give in to sin. We refuse to do evil.

The ‘results’ can intensify or diminish the moral goodness (or evil) of an act, but they cannot change an act from immoral to moral (or vice versa).

 

[KathleenT]

No, I wouldn’t be cool with it. But I might not be smart enough to avoid it.

I will just be grateful the good Lord has not seen fit to throw such situations my way.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Just because 90% of people would commit X sin does not somehow make X not a sin. The culpability may be reduced if the person has not been taught that lying, or direct abortion, is wrong.

 

[TheLittleLady]

As the Church says, we may not do evil so that good may come of it.

“Open to life” is a nice term that gets bantered about. It is not a standard by which we judge morality. What the Church says is that each marital act must be ordered toward procreation. We women who have had our Fallopian tubes shattered by ectopic rupture are still having marital intercourse in the way that is ordered toward procreation.

 

[Elf01]

Chicken_Pigeon:

I don’t understand how removing the fallopian tube is okay to save the life of the mother but using methotrexate isn’t okay when both options kill the baby.

I agree. It sounds a bit like saying if you remove the uterus of a pregnant woman you aren’t killing the baby inside.

The reason is that, in the context of Catholic moral theology, we’re looking at the morality of the specific action taken, and not merely the end result. These days, society looks at things in a different way. It tends to evaluate things in one of two ways:

• “is there any negative effect to me?” – this approach, called consequentialism, really ignores the morality of the act and the intent of the person acting. Instead, it simply says, “look – as long as it doesn’t come back to bite me in the butt, then it’s all good.” In a Catholic context, that’s hardly appropriate: if we cause suffering, then that’s evil. (There was an interesting segment on one of the Sunday evening documentary programs that demonstrated the effects of plastic garbage on the ecosystems of the Pacific Ocean and Pacific islands.) Consequentialism shrugs and says “it doesn’t affect me, so I’ll keep using all the plastic I want” or, even more callously, “meh… let someone else clean it up – if there are no negative consequences on me, I’m good to go!”.
• The other approach asks us to compute a big math equation: put all the negative consequences on one side, and all the positive ones on another, and total it up. If it ends up ‘positive’, then we should do it. If ‘negative’, we shouldn’t. This is known as ‘utilitarianism’. This is immoral, too. After all, if more Americans benefit from an ‘immigration wall’ than potential immigrants suffer… well, then it’s the right choice, no?

So, the difference in Catholic moral theology is that we ask the question “is the action itself – in what it does directly and in what the person intends – morally good?” In the present example, we make our distinction upon the act itself and the intent of the act.

In both cases, we intend to save the mother’s life. That’s the good that we intend. However, in one case, we achieve that good by performing an operation on the mother. In the other, we achieve that good by directly killing an innocent person. Consequentialism and utilitarianism give us the thumbs-up on that action. Catholic moral theology says “you cannot commit an immoral act in the service of a virtuous goal.”

I would also add that in the future it may be possible to save the baby - artificial wombs or such
and - what I think makes the difference - if a tube was going to rupture and kill the mother and no baby was in it the action would be to remove the tube.

 

[Gorgias]

But the surgery reduces the chances of the mother being “open to life” in the future.

No, it doesn’t. The gist of what’s commonly referred to as “being open to life” speaks not to the particular functional biological status of the person having marital relations, but to the way that s/he enters into that act. So, an infertile person who has sex with their spouse, completing the act naturally, is “open to life”. On the other hand, the person (regardless of how fertile he or his partner is) who uses artificial means to prevent conception is not “open to life”.

Therefore, if one fallopian tube is non-functional for any reason, that does not affect whether the marital relations that person has are “open to life.”

With the loss of the tube, the mother only has one functioning tube on the other side.

And, if she has marital relations in the absence of means of artificial contraception, then she is as “open to life” as a woman who has two functioning tubes.

Ectopic pregnancies are not a choice the mother makes, unlike abortion.

Agreed. There are many reasons that babies might not come to term and be born successfully. Some have impacts on their mothers’ lives or ability to carry a baby to term in the future.

It feels so unfair to loose a baby and also reduce the chances of a successful pregnancy in the future.

It does feel unfair, and it’s something we should mourn.

 

[Chicken_Pigeon]

what I think makes the difference - if a tube was going to rupture and kill the mother and no baby was in it the action would be to remove the tube.

usually the baby is in the tube which is causing the tube to rupture………

bokbok

 

[Sophie111]

No idea what you are on about sorry.
I leave you to research for yourself that the current PODE (if there actually is a consistently defined and Magisterially endorsed version) goes well beyond anything Aquinas stated.

 

[Sophie111]

Yes this tired position is clear thanks. Am actually engaging @canvas on this one so wont be responding directly to you.

 

[Sophie111]

Removal of the damaged portion of the tube is just that. There is nothing done directly to the embryo.

I dont believe that is of any concern in a moral act (as opposed to a medical act). The act of concern is the intent involved in choosing a medical act. Cutting out a tube with a live embryo in it is intending in some way to terminate its life. It is hair splitting to pretend otherwise.

The difficulty it seems to me is finding definitive objective reason to conclude this intent is indirect rather than direct.

I presume we all agree it is morally acceptable…the problem is to find a coherent philosophic justification consistent with many other widely different scenarios. The PODE seems to fail in this regard.

 

[QwertyGirl]

The responses on this issue is why I just reminded my daughter of child bearing age to keep something in her wallet with instructions to never take her to a Catholic hospital in the event of an emergency. Scary!

What I find scary is that there are so many interpretations. I wouldn’t want her medical team arguing while she is dying on the table.

 

[Gorgias]

No idea what you are on about sorry.

If you can’t grok Aquinas, you’re right… there’s no need to continue this discussion.

I leave you to research for yourself that the current PODE goes well beyond anything Aquinas stated.

And yet, he concisely defined its salient points, which every exposition of the principle of double effect asserts.

Cutting out a tube with a live embryo in it is intending in some way to terminate its life. It is hair splitting to pretend otherwise.

So, Aquinas was wrong, then, eh? Intending self-defense is, in fact, intending to kill the aggressor?

Again… whom shall we believe? You… or Aquinas?

the problem is to find a coherent philosophic justification consistent with many other widely different scenarios.

Psst… re-read the Summa: “intention belongs first and principally to that which moves to the end”. If the end is ‘saving the mother’, then that’s what the intention is. The intention is not, then, in the side effects. Sorry if that doesn’t seem coherent to you; it’s seemed coherent to centuries of other thinkers, and to the Church.

Yes this tired position is clear thanks

Ahh, there we go! Your issue is that you find the positions of the Church ‘tired’. Gotcha. Thanks for making that clear.

 

[Sophie111]

I suggest if you put the same effort on more deeply educating yourself rather than others your arguments might find better traction.
I am comfortable with my position on the gap between Aquinas and present PODE formulations none of which have been endorsed in any clear manner by the Magisterium as far as I am aware.
I am willing to reconsider that position if you can actually source a Magisterial quote on the matter rather than your own personal “wows”.