Ectopic Pregnancy Question

[Rob_s_Wife]

yochumjy:

Actually, I have no issue with a tube being removed, I have an issue with the drugs that are given to cause an abortion, or the removal of a child just to try and save the fertility of the mother.
Isn’t that just the dumbest irony ever? I’m going to get rid of this baby, so that I might have a chance to have another some day?? geez. I’m with you on that one.

What is your book called? It sounds like it could be very informative. (and hopefully you either have a pen-name on the book or don’t feel bad about people potentially knowing your real identity…I’ll understand if you you don’t give the book name out publically…)
OH NO! Sorry! I did not mean that I am the author of a pregnancy book! I meant that me, the pregnant woman, owns a book about pregnancy. It’s an old copy of What to Expect When You’re Expecting! So sorry for the confusion in my grammar there.

 

[yochumjy]

Forest-Pine:

There is a room full of gas. The room should be there. It is doing its job there. All is well.

There is fire. Fire in and of itself is good and positive because it is used to start the stove that heats the house that keeps the people from freezing to death and it also allows someone to cook the food to keep them from starving to death. All is well.

A guy goes walking through the room of gas with a lighter in his pocket. What do we do?

Do we pick up the entire foundation, building and all, and remove the room of gas with the fire in it? No. We remove the fire from the room.

The fallopian tube is not the problem. The baby is not the problem. The baby in the fallopian tube is the problem. We must remove the baby from the tube. Taking the tube and all is purposefully mutilating the mother’s body, inhibiting its reproductive functions, for no purpose other than to philosophically and theoretically justify what our main point is in the first place: to remove the baby from the tube, where it does not belong.

The catechism further exhorts us that we are not to mutilate or render parts of our body unusable (2296). And that the intention of the person can make the difference between something being sinful or not (ie intending to save the mother as opposed to intending to kill the child) (1752). As a matter of fact, the same arguments seem to apply here as they do to tattooing. Why would we purposefully mutilate a part of a woman’s body and perhaps render it unusable just to sidestep the fact that our point in the first place is to remove the baby from the environment it does not belong in?

Fire is not bad. Gas is not bad. Fire in a room full of gas is bad. We would remove the fire, not the room.

Actually, by the analogy of killing the baby, you just shot the guy with the ligher!

Maybe you can actually point us to a website that says there is no chance that the fallopian tube has a problem. Further, the direct abortion of a child is ALWAYS intrensically evil, while removing a tube or appendix or other body part about to burst is not. You can not place fertility above the direct killing of a child, which is what is being advocated when you take drugs to remove a child or scrape them out of a fallopian tube.

 

[vluvski]

yochumjy:

Actually, by the analogy of killing the baby, you just shot the guy with the ligher!

That would be true for the methotrexate example, not the removal of the baby example. I haven’t heard anyone here argue in favor of the methotrexate. Clearly, that is not a proper application of the double effect.

Removing the baby could be compared to either taking the lighter away from the guy, or taking the guy and his lighter out of the room.

 

[vluvski]

Let me extend and modify Forest Pine’s analogy.

The room is located on, say, a colony on the moon. Outside the room, a space suit is required to survive. There is enough oxygen in the room for the man to survive inside, and his spacesuit is being repaired so he can’t leave without dying.

If the man uses his lighter inside the room, the entire colony on the moon will probably die,and the man will almost certainly die. Similarly, if the baby grows inside the fallopian tube, the tube WILL rupture, the mother will probably die, and the baby will definitely die.

Now, admittedly we have an extra option in the room full of gas example because the man and the lighter are separable. The baby, however, cannot be separated from its own growth. So let’s just pretend this guy has no choice in the matter and must ignite the lighter.

Obviously the optimum option is to remove the guy, even though the guy is going to die once we put him out on the moon without a space suit. We weren’t trying to kill the guy, we were trying to save the colony. The guy is going to die because we removed him, but we still didn’t kill him. How is that different from saying we didn’t kill the baby even though it will die when we remove it from the fallopian tube?

 

[vluvski]

Clarification:

I am assuming that “removal” is not simply a euphemism for killing the baby. Any tube damage resulting from removing the child intact must be tolerated so that the baby dies from the state of being removed, not from the removal itself, just like the damage due to removing a larger portion of the tube is tolerated when the baby still dies from the state of being within the removed portion of fallopian tube.

 

[leaner]

This is a fascinating discussion, and being well handled when it could easily dissolve into a flame-war. Good on all who are involved, and keep talking, this is what God wants – for us to explore and understand Him as well as eachother

( just felt the need to say that, b/c so often these discussions get nasty when it’s just a discussion…)

 

[Benedictus]

Hmm, this topic again…

While most ectopic pregnancies are tubal, not all are. There are many ectopic pregnancies where the embryo implants somewhere else, such as in the abdomen. What do we do in that case? Cutting out a fallopian tube won’t help. Clearly we don’t just tell the mother to go away and die.

 

[leaner]

Benedictus:

Hmm, this topic again…

While most ectopic pregnancies are tubal, not all are. There are many ectopic pregnancies where the embryo implants somewhere else, such as in the abdomen. What do we do in that case? Cutting out a fallopian tube won’t help. Clearly we don’t just tell the mother to go away and die.

Funny you should mention that, did you see the recent case where a woman DELIVERED a baby that resided and gestated for 9mos in her abdomen!!! OUTSIDE the uterus…and no one knew it…how weird is that in this day and age!!! LOL. Sad part is, instead of seeing this as an amazing “abberation” of the normal gestational pattern, they were all excited about the prospect of men being able to have babies…sigh – enough with the Frankenstein stuff!!!

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

vluvski:

I think some people may be confusing the direct action with the direct object. I will have to defer to someone who has studied theology on this, but I believe the emphasis is on the act itself, not the object upon which the action is inflicted. According to my understanding, therefore, (D) in a proportionally grave circumstance] that (C) requires an inevitable evil effect to be permitted], it is inconsequential whether the (A) morally good or indifferent act] is (B) without a means of evil] performed on the object against which the evil occurs (in case iii, the baby) or performed on another object (in case i, the fallopian tube).

I see what you are saying. I guess our difference in opinions are based on what we interpret a good or indifferent act to be. I was parting from the point (from CCC)
1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1755 A **morally good act ** requires the **goodness ** of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

In one case, the act is removal of the section of the tube. From the Vatican site “84. The various organs and limbs together constituting a physical unity are, as integral parts, completely absorbed in the body and subordinate to it. But lower values cannot simply be sacrificed for the sake of higher ones: these values together constitute an organic unity and are mutually dependent. Because the body, as an intrinsic part of the human person, is good in itself, fundamental human faculties can only be sacrificed to preserve life.” (INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God)
This act is morally good.

In the second case (the one where the child itself is removed alone), the act is not good following the definition of the Catechism and, as we know, for the Principle of Double Effect to take place, the act must be good or indifferent.

 

[Syl]

Benedictus:

Hmm, this topic again…

While most ectopic pregnancies are tubal, not all are. There are many ectopic pregnancies where the embryo implants somewhere else, such as in the abdomen. What do we do in that case? Cutting out a fallopian tube won’t help. Clearly we don’t just tell the mother to go away and die.

I had an ectopic pregnancy which turned into an abdominal pregnancy. The doctor, almost a month later, did exploratory surgery and removed the baby. Had he not done this, I would not be here to explain it. The doctor explained that the remaining portion of the fallopian tube was nothing more than shredded matter; the baby, still attached to the embilical cord ended in my abdominal cavity, where it survived. They had to remove it because of where it was and because I was dying from blood loss. After the surgery, I talked to our priest. He stated that because of the natural law, the removal (abortion) was not wrong; this happened in 1973. Don’t know if technology is such that a baby could be transplanted into the uterus and survive. I was blessed to have one child - a daughter. She, too, had a tubal pregnancy in which the doctor tried to save the tube. She ended back in the hospital a month later with blood clotting, emergency surgery and removal of the tube. Due to many complications, she had a hysterectomy 4 months ago. She and hubby are in the process of adoption.

 

[vluvski]

lifeisbeautiful:

In the second case (the one where the child itself is removed alone), the act is not good following the definition of the Catechism and, as we know, for the Principle of Double Effect to take place, the act must be good or indifferent.

Maybe I’m just being dense here. Can you step me through your logic as to what specific aspect of the child’s removal makes the act not good according to the definition in the Catechism? I still don’t see the connection. Thanks!

 

[leaner]

vluvski:

Maybe I’m just being dense here. Can you step me through your logic as to what specific aspect of the child’s removal makes the act not good according to the definition in the Catechism? I still don’t see the connection. Thanks!

Maybe I’m off track, but here’s what I’m understanding from all of this discussion…

Situation is this: ectopic pregnancy, baby gestating inside fallopian tube instead of uterus – if baby continues to grow, tube will rupture possibly (and most likely) causing death to both baby and mother. There is no known survivability for the baby in this situation…

Option 1 – Remove baby only from fallopian tube, thereby eliminating risk to mother, but in effect, aborting baby – unacceptable b/c while it will save mother’s life, and protect her future fertility, we (as Man) cannot put the fertility above the taking of the child.

Option 2 – Remove the section of the tube containing the baby. Same result to baby, but it is a side-effect of saving the mother’s life, undesireable, but necessary. This (I’m understanding, anyway) is the way the Church wants it to happen, because yes, it will compromise the future fertility of the mother, however the loss of the child is a necessary side-effect of saving the mother’s life and her fertility issues resulting are seen as secondary to the removal of only the baby.

So IF the baby dies as a result of removing the section of the tube it’s residing in, it’s a “sad and unfortunate consequence” of the procedure to save the mother’s life

BUT – IF the baby dies b/c “we” wanted to preserve the mother’s fertility and only take the baby, this is wrong…

Am I deducing this correctly? I don’t mean to offend anyone, just trying to clarify in English without all the “thee, thy, tho, thou” that sometimes can cause confusion…

 

[vluvski]

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. Here, the object is to prevent the baby from killing its mother because it is growing in a place where it isn’t supposed to be. I would be deliberately preventing the baby from growing in the tube to achieve the good of protecting the mother, and hopefully in the future, save the baby as well by reimplanting it in the uterus. It is the matter of a human act. So the matter or substance of my act is the fact that my object is to remove the baby from its bad location. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. My object of preventing the baby from killing its mother is good, which renders the act of removing the baby morally good as well. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1755 A **morally good act ** requires the **goodness ** of the object (my object is to prevent the growth of the baby from causing the tube to rupture), of the end (the end is that the baby’s growth no longer poses a risk to the mother), and of the circumstances together (resulting circumstance is that the mother is no longer being threatened by her baby’s growth). An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”). There is no evil end here. Our inability as of yet to save the baby is an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect.

In one case, the act is removal of the section of the tube. From the Vatican site “84. The various organs and limbs together constituting a physical unity are, as integral parts, completely absorbed in the body and subordinate to it. But lower values cannot simply be sacrificed for the sake of higher ones: these values together constitute an organic unity and are mutually dependent. Because the body, as an intrinsic part of the human person, is good in itself, fundamental human faculties can only be sacrificed to preserve life.” (INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP: Human Persons Created in the Image of God)
This act is morally good. I agree, naturally. Thanks for that explanation.

In the second case (the one where the child itself is removed alone), the act is not good following the definition of the Catechism (this is where I get lost…) and, as we know, for the Principle of Double Effect to take place, the act must be good or indifferent. I understand that if the act is not good or indifferent, the Principle of the Double Effect is not satisfied. I simply don’t understand how the act is morally wrong.

Part of my hang-up with the argument against the morality the removing the baby intact (currently resulting in the baby’s death) is the futuristic considerations. Let’s suppose in 15 years, we have the ability to reimplant the baby in the mother’s uterus after it has been removed from the tube (or abdomen, for that matter). How can the same act suddenly become morally good just because we now have the ability to perform a second, independent act to save the baby once it has been removed?

Having to remove the tube as well just doesn’t make logical sense to me. It is acceptable, yes, but I don’t understand why it would be required.

 

[vluvski]

leaner:

Option 1 – Remove baby only from fallopian tube, thereby eliminating risk to mother, but in effect, aborting baby – unacceptable b/c while it will save mother’s life, and protect her future fertility, we (as Man) cannot put the fertility above the taking of the child.

I understand that the baby’s life is paramount to the mother’s fertility. Why is removing the baby itself considered a direct abortion, while removing the baby within the tube is not?

leaner:

So IF the baby dies as a result of removing the section of the tube it’s residing in, it’s a “sad and unfortunate consequence” of the procedure to save the mother’s life

BUT – IF the baby dies b/c “we” wanted to preserve the mother’s fertility and only take the baby, this is wrong…

Why can’t we say that the baby’s death once outside the mother’s body is a “sad and unfortunate consequence” of removing the baby from the fallopian tube?
Like I said before, if we had the ability to save the baby, the act of removing it is still the same. Saving the baby is achieved through a separate, independent action. How can removing the baby be called a direct abortion if the same action of removing the baby might one day be the thing that can save its life?

 

[vluvski]

Here’s another way to think about it:

In the methotrexate example, the object can only be achieved if the baby dies. If the baby by some miracle survives the methotrexate, the operation to save the mother has been unsuccessful because she is still at risk for the highly dangerous rupture of her fallopian tube. Therefore, the baby’s death is direct, not indirect.

In both the baby’s removal and the fallopian tube examples, the object is still achieved regardless of whether the baby lives or dies. If by some miracle or by some new advance in technology the baby is saved, the operation has still be successful. How can you call that a direct abortion?

On a side note, I have heard rumors that the Chinese have been able to sustain in vitro gestation through the first trimester. The rumor continues that the babies are then aborted, so no one knows whether they babies could be sustained in this environment to a point where they are viable outside the pseudo-womb. However, this is just a rumor I heard. I have no proof.

I couldn’t find a way to post this picture directly, but if you scroll down a little bit, you’ll see a picture of a six week living baby from an ectopic pregnancy. I have no idea if the sac was removed after the tube was taken out of the mother, but that picture looks nothing like the horrifying abortion pictures (which I won’t post links to).
Ectopic Photo

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

vluvski:

Part of my hang-up with the argument against the morality the removing the baby intact (currently resulting in the baby’s death) is the futuristic considerations. Let’s suppose in 15 years, we have the ability to reimplant the baby in the mother’s uterus after it has been removed from the tube (or abdomen, for that matter). How can the same act suddenly become morally good just because we now have the ability to perform a second, independent act to save the baby once it has been removed?

Having to remove the tube as well just doesn’t make logical sense to me. It is acceptable, yes, but I don’t understand why it would be required.

How about this. Cutting someone else’s skin with a knife can be evil, if done just for the heck of it, but if you are cutting someone else’s skin to operate on them because you are a doctor and you know you have a good chance of saving them by cutting their skin to reach whatever area you need to reach, then it wouldn’t be evil. The circumstances matter. If doctor’s were planning on removing the baby intact (every part, the sac, cord,etc) (which I am not sure that that is the practice presently) and then relocating the baby because they know there is a chance of survival and the have weighed it against the effects it could have on the mother, then the circumstances change.

Also, there is a difference between disposing of the child to stump its growth so it does not cause the tube to burst and disposing of the affected tube (which happens to have the child inside) to avoid having the tube burst. These are two very different actions/means.

Btw, your interpretation of evil act is the one I also had at first, so I can understand what you are saying. I was debating between yours and mine till I remembered the CCC info on morality of an act and it made me think differently. Now lets say that the act itself was not evil, following logic that only the action in the act matters. Then the means would be evil (B) since the circumstances would matter for the means.

 

[vluvski]

lifeisbeautiful:

How about this. Cutting someone else’s skin with a knife can be evil, if done just for the heck of it, but if you are cutting someone else’s skin to operate on them because you are a doctor and you know you have a good chance of saving them by cutting their skin to reach whatever area you need to reach, then it wouldn’t be evil. The circumstances matter. If doctor’s were planning on removing the baby intact (every part, the sac, cord etc) (which I am not sure that that is the practice presently) and then relocating the baby because they know there is a chance of survival and the have weighed it against the effects it could have on the mother, then the circumstances change.

The circumstances of your example of the knife and the doctor are specific to the act of cutting, though. The circumstances of whether a removed baby can or can’t survive are independent of the act of removing the baby. The baby’s death in the removal of the tube is part of the circumstance, too, but that act is not immoral. In both cases, the doctor and the mother know the baby will die. Maybe I’m just overthinking this.

I will gladly submit to the requirements of the church, but respectfully disagree with the conclusion here. Since this is a matter of morality, not dogma, I believe I can do this without compromising my standing in the church, right?

 

[Benedictus]

vluvski:

I will gladly submit to the requirements of the church, but respectfully disagree with the conclusion here. Since this is a matter of morality, not dogma, I believe I can do this without compromising my standing in the church, right?

I don’t believe the Church has directly addressed the issue of ectopic pregnancies. The Church has set down the basic principles, and moral theologians have speculated, but the Church hasn’t directly addressed the issue, as far as I can tell.

 

[PCR99]

I recently suffered through an ectopic pregnancy. I also had a miscarriage last Feb. We have no living children and have been trying for 5 years to have a child. This is a very sensitive topic for me and never once did I consider my child as “inconvenient” as some of you have quoted in your posts. You cannot possibly imagine how much we wanted both of our babies and how difficult these decsions were. If I could have saved my baby by dying myself, I would have. By the way it is currently impossible to move a pregnancy from outside the womb to inside. Also, tubes filled with adhesions, scar tissue, etc, can be fixed with surgery - Dr. Hilgers is an expert. Also, some ectopics resolve themselves whereby the body reabsorbs teh pregnancy, although this can be a very dangerous situation to the mother.

I do not think that “solutions” (surgery or Methotrexate) to ectopic pregnancies are cut and dry. I walked around for WEEKS with an ectopic just wondering what to do. I sought the help of a Catholic medical ethisist (a nun) who specilaizes in ectopics at the Pope Paul VI Institute. She helped us with our decision. I think these matters must be handled on a case by case basis and perhaps that is why the Church is having trouble writing specifically on these issues, which makes it hard for people like me who need to make a decision quickly.

 

[Catholic2003]

A similar situation occurs when a woman takes birth control pills to treat a medical condition. It is possible that the birth control pills will cause a spontaneous abortion; however, this is an unintended side effect and is thus not immoral under the double effect rule.