Ectopic Pregnancy Options

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dave27360
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Abortion is the term for removing the embryo/fetus. This is why there are descriptors, as you said “spontaneous abortion” for miscarriage, a “direct abortion” is immoral.

I am so sorry you lost a child.
 
My apologies for the misquote. I have edited my earlier post to remove the quote.
 
Dlee said:
My doctor apologized as he had to write down “spontaneous abortion.” Ultrasound showed no baby, no heartbeat, but a mass. I was scheduled for a D &C but passed it before I got to the hospital. It was placental tissue, no fetus. He said the fetus must have “re-absorbed.” This was 34 years ago, so I don’t know if they have changed any terminology.
Click to expand...
Miscarriages are still known as spontaneous abortions in the OB world.
 
My youngest daughter had a Fallopian tube removed and has successfully had two babies after the fact.
 
I think he’s alluding to what would be an unnecessary surgery and removal of a healthy Fallopian tube. I honestly also have trouble understanding how the intent is different by going with the Fallopian tube removal route. Perhaps I don’t quite get how the principle of double effect applies here, but isn’t the intent the same?
 
If an ectopic pregnancy is allowed the continue it will rupture the fallopian tube, causing irreparable damage and threatening the mother’s life.
 
stormer83 said:
I think he’s alluding to what would be an unnecessary surgery and removal of a healthy Fallopian tube. I honestly also have trouble understanding how the intent is different by going with the Fallopian tube removal route. Perhaps I don’t quite get how the principle of double effect applies here, but isn’t the intent the same?
Click to expand...
Moral evaluation:
object
intent
circumstances
The object here is the good of human life. If the mother’s life is directly threatened by an ectopic pregnancy, then the tube is removed with the intent of saving the mother’s life.
An abortion is done with the intent to kill the child in favor of a lesser good.
 
Joe_5859 said:
This is different from directly killing the unborn through abortion. That is never permissible. Just because the result is the same (i.e. the death of the unborn) does not mean that the method is of no consequence.

It’s similar to a situation where a person is dying and administering pain medication might hasten their death. This can be permissible as the goal is to alleviate suffering in the face of imminent death. But it would not be moral to suffocate them with a pillow nor to poison them to “end their suffering.”
Click to expand...
Excising the tube saves the mother’s life, not really the same as painkillers at end of life.
 
We actually just had very recent thread on this same subject: Scratching my head over the issue with methotrexate use in ectopic pregnancy

The Church actually does not have an official opinion on the use of methotrexate for an ectopic pregnancy. In the vast majority of ectopic pregnancies, the embryo itself has already died, and it is the trophoblast, or primitive placenta, which continues to grow in the tube. Therefore, removing the whole tube is completely unnecessary in most cases. A priest posted an excellent article on the subject by Dr. Christopher Kaczor: The Ethics of Ectopic Prengancy: A Critical Reconsideration of Salpingostomy and Methotrexate
 
Last edited:
Removing the tube is not the only moral option; I do wish people would stop spreading this assertion.
 
Last edited:
Read the article by Dr. Kaczor that I linked to. 🙂

The Church has not taken an official position on the methods of treating an ectopic pregnancy. Direct killing, of course, is unacceptable. Methotrexate would be acceptable in the vast majority of cases for the reasons stated a few posts back. Dr. Kaczor also makes a case for salpingostomy (removal of the embryo from the tube).
 
Last edited:
EnglishTeacher said:
Dr. Kaczor also makes a case for salpingostomy (removal of the embryo from the tube).
Click to expand...
Thank you for posting the link. I’m going to read the article.

There was another thread recently on this topic in which I questioned the notion that removal (in part or whole) of the fallopian tube is the only moral option. In particular, I questioned the suggestion that removal of the embryo is immoral. I don’t see why - in and of itself- removal is immoral in an ectopic pregnancy. I would think it morally analogous to induced labor.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
40.png
goout:
Your position makes no sense.
You are concerned about harming a woman when the procedure saves her life.
Can you clarify that?
Click to expand...
Other procedures save her life with no harm to her.
Click to expand...
Ok I was under that assumption that the hypothetical proposes this procedure as the only way to save the woman’s life.
If not, that changes everything in regard to removing the tube with the child in it.
 
Oh good. I didn’t see it before.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top