Ectopic pregnancy - Would this be okay?

[Guest1]

Would it be moral (according to the Church) in the case of an ectopic pregnancy to remove the child from the tube instead of cutting the tube where the unborn child is located ? Not with the intention of directly killing the child.

Instead: Premature birth.

Or would the Church consider that an abortion?

Thanks.

Don’t worry I’m not pregnant and in this situation. Just a prolifer.

 

[1ke]

When Pregnancy Goes Awry: The Moral Ending to an Ectopic Pregnancy| National Catholic Register

 

[tuffsmurf]

Any procedure to treat an ectopic pregnancy has removing the embryo as the intended purpose; to pretend otherwise is at best a game of semantics and at worst straight up dishonest.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The quote headline of NCR is from Directive 36 and the NCR seems to have quoted the wrong directive, and thus applied it to the wrong context. Directive 36 is not about ectopic pregnancy. It is about the treatment of rape victims. As such, the one sentence quote above is referring to what may not be done to prevent a rape victim from becoming pregnant. The directive that should have been quoted is Directive 48, which states: “In case of extrauterine pregnancy, no intervention is morally licit which constitutes a direct abortion.”

Here is what the Catholic Health Association says about the three therapies:
Catholic Health Association:

Salpingectomy
This therapy — in which the obstetrician surgically removes either the pathological segment of the fallopian tube or the entire tube — is justified by the principle of double effect. Preserving the mother’s life is the physician’s direct intention; the action performed directly accomplishes this goal. The ensuing death of the fetus is an unintended and unwanted effect. The rationale justifying salpingectomy is similar to that justifying the removal of a cancerous tumor from a woman who happens to be gravid.

Salpingostomy
Salpingostomy does not destroy the fallopian tube. The surgeon makes a slit in the tube, removes the embedded trophoblast, and sutures the slit, the tube remaining intact.

The surgeon detaches an injury-producing trophoblast from the fallopian tube, knowing that the fetus will die because it can no longer receive nutrition via the trophoblast. (Note that the trophoblast is not pathological; it is performing its natural function, but in the wrong place.) As Moraczewski states: “The specific focus of the surgical action is the removal of the damaged tubal tissue and damaging trophoblastic tissue, not the destruction or death of the embryo, even though one foresees that the death of the embryo will take place.”

Some theologians maintain that salpingostomy is a direct attack on the fetus. However, when a trophoblast becomes embedded in the fallopian tube wall it seems to create a pathological condition. There is an objective difference between the trophoblast and the embryoblast of the blastocyst. A salpingostomy thus appears to be an acceptable therapeutic practice.

…continued:

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The rest of the Catholic Health Association article:
CHA:

…continuing…

Methotrexate
An even simpler procedure, one that is especially effective if bleeding has not yet occurred, involves the use of methotrexate (MTX).9 MTX is a drug that, because it inhibits cell multiplication, is often used in very high doses as chemotherapy for the treatment of cancer. The drug, which can be either oral or intramuscular, interferes with a cell’s ability to synthesize DNA.10 Trophoblastic cells are extremely sensitive to the action of MTX.

The problem with methotrexate, as with salpingostomy, is that the death of the fetus follows upon the action which inhibits the destructive implantation process of the trophoblast. Can the principle of double effect be applied to the use of MTX? Some would say no, maintaining that the cells of the trophoblast and the cells of the fetus are so intimately connected as to form one entity.11

Others, using the analogy of normal childbirth — in which the result of the trophoblast, the placenta, is definitely separate from the developing fetus — maintain that MTX may be used because the directly intended effect, the treatment of the pathology by inhibiting the trophoblastic cells, is distinct from the unintended effect, the death of the fetus.

Given that in an ectopic pregnancy the fallopian tube is pathological (e.g., will bleed or rupture) because of the manner in which the trophoblast has imbedded itself in the tube’s inner wall, it seems well within moral probity for the obstetrician to intend the removal of the trophoblast and to employ the means to fulfill the intention, even though that means the death of the fetus will result. It seems this opinion has an intrinsic probability — that is, a probability founded on the physical facts of fetal development in an ectopic pregnancy.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Would it be moral (according to the Church) in the case of an ectopic pregnancy to remove the child from the tube instead of cutting the tube where the unborn child is located ? Not with the intention of directly killing the child.

Morality is irrelevant here, that’s just bad medicine. There’s a reason fallopian tubes are usually removed after ectopic pregnancy: The fallopian tube on that side has been weakened and can easily rupture, causing a large amount of medical problems. This would be an even larger issue if the child was removed surgically, as the tube itself would need to be sliced open, weakening it.

The most common procedures are either waiting for/inducing miscarriage, or removing the pregnancy, which is always done by taking out the entire tube if the other one is healthy.

 

[Rau]

Would it be moral (according to the Church) in the case of an ectopic pregnancy to remove the child from the tube instead of cutting the tube where the unborn child is located ? Not with the intention of directly killing the child.

Instead: Premature birth.

There is no medical procedure of the kind you describe that offers any chance of survival. The procedure you describe is regarded (I believe by a majority of theologians) as directed at the unborn and by its nature extinguishes the life of the unborn. If this view is correct, it would be illicit.