Ectopic Pregnancy

[yochumjy]

javelin:

Somewhat, but the analogy does fall short in one critical way. In the case of the ectopic pregnancy, the child is* killing* (present tense) the mother, as in the mother is already in a state of medical malfunction that will result in her death, and that state is directly caused by the developing child. The child does not just threaten the mother’s life; it is already attacking it. The child is like a suicide bomber, just getting ready to push “the button”. That the child is is such a state as to not know what it is doing is the tragedy in all this.

Sorry, but you are wrong. The child is killing no one. The child is growing, which kills the mother. There is no direct killing. The child is not cognizant of anything. There was a malfunction in the transferal of the child to the uterus, that is true. The malfunction will result in the death of the child. Since the child got stuck in the tube, which is a malfunction, the tube is suspect and should be removed. There is no attack, you should not emotionalize this, just look at the facts.

javelin:

The options are simple: remove the abnormal and fatal pregnancy and save the mother; spare the child initially and both mother and child die. Either outcome is tragic, and both involve the loss of life. Yet the choice is obvious – the pregnancy must end. Whether the tube is removed, or just the child, the same result comes from the same underlying motive: removal of the ectopic pregnancy.

The same result, but not the same underlying motive. The motive is to remove a tube in which a deadly malfunction has occured. The death of the child is a sad result.

javelin:

It is so obvious, in fact, that it is almost humorous how some moralists attempt to justify it. If it really was the case that the child’s life always takes precedence over the mother’s, then why is there any option other than allowing the fatal pregnancy to run its course and kill them both? Why is it somehow OK to remove the child via the fallopian tube? I would argue that the difference is man-made, and that God sees right through it to the true intention of the act.

God does see the truth, he knows our intentions. If there is a problem with the tube and you allow it to continue, then you value your future possible fertility over current and future lives of children.

javelin:

The other thing to consider is that many parents probably don’t even get the choice. I know I didn’t. My wife went in for exploratory surgery for severe abdominal pain and came out with the ectopic pregnancy removed, and neither of us were consulted. The doctor tried to save the fallopian tube, which was what doctors generally try to do. The “easy” thing would have been to just tie it up.

Actually, the easy thing to do is remove the tube, why tie it up. Take out the section where the malfunction occurred. You should have been told. I am NOT saying your wife should have died, but you should have been given the information. If you did not get a choice, then you can not be held accountable.

 

[vern_humphrey]

snoopy:

I admire your common sense approach and your eloquent way of saying this. I wish I could get my point across so professionally and smoothly. Anyway, thank you for saying what I want to say.

You’re welcome. In Decision Science there is something called “The Mother of All Foul-Ups.” (That’s not exactly what it’s called, but you get the picture.) It consists of making two mistakes:

1. Adopting unrealistic decision criteria (in this case, not “killing” the child.)
2. Applying those criteria to only one alternative.

Here we see a case where the death of the child in inevitable. We must modify our decision criteria and see which alternative is first satisfied. The obvious modification is recognize the child will die, no matter what we do, and to adopt criteria to protect the mother.

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

1. The principle of intent. We are not killing a baby here, we are saving a mother’s life. The baby is already doomed, and as in my mother-in-law’s case, we simply accept the inevatible.
2. The principle of alternative outcomes. Will removing the fallopian tube be a BETTER ourcome? Will it leave the mother healthier and MORE able to conceive another life?
3. The principle of proportionality. What is gained by choosing surgery over methotrexate? Will any great good come from it?

It seems clear to me that in a situation as we are contemplating here methotrexate is an acceptably moral choice, and to choose surgery when less intrusive means are available would be less moral.

These last four are where you are off. As I stated in another post, you are killing a baby. The mother’s fertility does NOT make killing the child acceptable, only correcting the malfunction that occured. Using surgery guarentees that that tube will no longer create an ectopic pregnancy again.

It is clear to me that methotrexate is not an acceptably moral choice.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

These last four are where you are off. As I stated in another post, you are killing a baby…

We are not killing the baby any more than we killed my Mother-in-law. As I pointed out, the Church accepts the treatment she received, for the reasons I stated.

The death of the baby is an unwanted event, but one we are powerless to prevent, no matter what we do.

yochumjy:

The mother’s fertility does NOT make killing the child acceptable, only correcting the malfunction that occured. Using surgery guarentees that that tube will no longer create an ectopic pregnancy again.

I don’t know that to be the case – IS the condition caused by a faulty fallopian tube that MUST be removed, or is it simply a chance occurrance?

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

We are not killing the baby any more than we killed my Mother-in-law. As I pointed out, the Church accepts the treatment she received, for the reasons I stated.

The death of the baby is an unwanted event, but one we are powerless to prevent, no matter what we do.

The death of the baby is truly unwanted and will occur, yes. But it is not the same as your MIL. The giving of drugs could have hastened her death, but you did not slit her throat, or give her a lethal injection or in any way directly kill her. In fact the drugs are not given to hasten death, but to remove pain. The effect is to hasten death. The action with methotrexate is acting to directly kill the child. You can’t get around that. The drugs for you MIL were not administered to kill. The action of removing the tube is to prevent reacurrance and what could be a defective body part.
vern humphrey:

I don’t know that to be the case – IS the condition caused by a faulty fallopian tube that MUST be removed, or is it simply a chance occurrance?

It is more than chance:
healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc0202.htm

Causes
Some possible reasons for an ectopic pregnancy are IUD use, tubal infection, a growth pressing against the tube, past tubal surgery, past tubal pregnancy, or smoking. A condition called endometriosis (end-o-meet-ree-O-sis) can also cause an ectopic pregnancy.

Causes of ectopic pregnancies INCLUDE previous ectopic pregnancies. If there is a chance of a reacurrance, then you do the save thing and protect the mothers life in the future as well as prevent future possible deaths.

 

[yochumjy]

snoopy:

You are not killing anyone. There is no chance for the child to live–no chance. If you do nothing, the mother and child will die. I can see how this would be indirect, but never will it be direct. To say that you are killing a child is so insensitive. The mother probablyalready feels horrible and is scared out of her mind, and she did nothing to deserve it. It is an act of God or nature or whatever you want to call it, but the Mother is not committing something parallel to abortion.

You are justifying killing a child. Death is death. You are forcing a living thing to die. Yes, it is true the child will die anyway, but if you do not remove the tube, you could be causing another child’s death in the future.

You have also completely ignored any possibility of the tube being damaged. See my last post to Vern.

 

[BlindSheep]

So far I’ve read that it is permissable to remove a section of tube with the baby inside it, but not acceptable to remove only the baby, because the intent would be to kill the baby. I don’t understand this. In abortion on demand, the intent is to kill the baby, which is obvious when you consider that if the baby lives, it is considered a ‘failed abortion’. But the intent of removing the baby from the tube in ectopic pregnancy is to prevent the rupture of the tube, not to kill the baby. If the baby were able to survive, by being (name removed by moderator)lanted in the uterus, a surrogate or some type of advanced incubator, the operation would still be considered a success, because the goal of preventing the rupture of tha fallopian tube and protecting the mother was achieved. So I don’t really see how the method used to get the baby out of the tube makes any difference, since the intent is not to kill the baby in any case.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

The death of the baby is truly unwanted and will occur, yes. But it is not the same as your MIL. The giving of drugs could have hastened her death, but you did not slit her throat, or give her a lethal injection or in any way directly kill her.

Actually, since she DID receive an injection (the drip is administered that way) and morphine overdose DID contribute to her death, I have to say your own rules apply. We have to recognize that, with death inevitable, we hastened the process.

yochumjy:

In fact the drugs are not given to hasten death, but to remove pain. The effect is to hasten death. The action with methotrexate is acting to directly kill the child.

Just as a morphine overdose can be said to act directly to kill the patient. But the Church recognizes that it is the intent of those administering it which has significance in determining the morality of the case.

yochumjy:

You can’t get around that. The drugs for you MIL were not administered to kill. The action of removing the tube is to prevent reacurrance and what could be a defective body part.

The act of removing the tube kills the baby, just as methotrexate does.

yochumjy:

It is more than chance:
healthsquare.com/mc/fgmc0202.htm

This doesn’t make it clear that in all cases the fallopian tube must be removed.

yochumjy:

Causes of ectopic pregnancies INCLUDE previous ectopic pregnancies.** If** there is a chance of a reacurrance, then you do the save thing and protect the mothers life in the future as well as prevent future possible deaths.

I have emphasized one word in your post. IF the attending physicians say, from their professional estimates the fallopian tube must be removed, then obviously the moral course is to follow their advice.

But if they say it can be saved without danger to future pregnancies, it should be saved.

 

[yochumjy]

BlindSheep:

So far I’ve read that it is permissable to remove a section of tube with the baby inside it, but not acceptable to remove only the baby, because the intent would be to kill the baby. I don’t understand this. In abortion on demand, the intent is to kill the baby, which is obvious when you consider that if the baby lives, it is considered a ‘failed abortion’. But the intent of removing the baby from the tube in ectopic pregnancy is to prevent the rupture of the tube, not to kill the baby. If the baby were able to survive, by being (name removed by moderator)lanted in the uterus, a surrogate or some type of advanced incubator, the operation would still be considered a success, because the goal of preventing the rupture of tha fallopian tube and protecting the mother was achieved. So I don’t really see how the method used to get the baby out of the tube makes any difference, since the intent is not to kill the baby in any case.

If you are only trying to get the baby out of the tube, then your intent is to kill the baby. If you remove the tube, your intent is to remove the tube. The fact that the baby is still in the tube is an unwanted side effect. Once an ectopic pregnancy occurs, there is a increased risk to having another, therefore the removal of the tube is prevening death of the mother and future possible deaths of more children.

Just remember what the cause of death is. The cause of death is a ruptured tube that causes bleeding, etc. The cause of death is NOT THE CHILD!!! To remove the cause of death, you remove the tube. The child’s normal growth will cause the tube to rupture, that is true. The fact that the child ended up in the tube is the original problem. I’ve posted a website that states that previous ectopic pregnancies can result in later ones. Which means, to me, that something is wrong with the tube. So, if something could be wrong with the tube, why not prevent future possible death to mother and future children? This seems like a no-brainer to me.

 

[turboEDvo]

"How does the Church view self-defense? In this case, the child is directly killing the mother."
**This is not the case. In the case of self defense, one is morally permitted to defends oneself from an unjust aggressor who willfully is threatening the life of another, not whose mere existence threatens your life. If it weren’t the case, then if I was stuck on a desert island with you javelin and you had the plague, it would be morally acceptable for me to kill you in self defense because your continued existence and acting as a resivoir for the plague threatens my life. I hope you see the logic of my arguement.

**

But the difference is that in the aforementioned ectopic pregnancy, the death of the mother is guaranteed if no action is taken. However, in your island situation, your death is not guaranteed by the continued survival of a sick person. There is a difference between the guaranteed death caused by a fetus growing in the wrong part of a woman’s body, and potential death by an illness of another person, just as there is a difference between killing in cold blood vs. killing in self defense.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support abortion, and if there is a way to save the child and the mother, then those steps must be taken. But, if a child will definitively die no matter the course of action, then saving the mother by removing part of the tube (and, sadly, the child as well) is the right choice.

Eamon

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

Actually, since she DID receive an injection (the drip is administered that way) and morphine overdose DID contribute to her death, I have to say your own rules apply. We have to recognize that, with death inevitable, we hastened the process.

So, are you saying that the injection was meant to cause death? Or was the injection to relieve the pain, which had a side effect of hastening death? If the desire was for the morphine to remove pain, then the side effect is hastened death. Having a side effect of hastening death is not the same as direct killing. I am being consistant here.
vern humphrey:

Just as a morphine overdose can be said to act directly to kill the patient. But the Church recognizes that it is the intent of those administering it which has significance in determining the morality of the case.

But you did not give the morphine overdose to kill. The (what I would expect was a high dosage of) morphine given to your MIL was not to kill. I may not be explaining this well enough, and for that I appologize.
vern humphrey:

The act of removing the tube kills the baby, just as methotrexate does.

Not in the same way. The methotrexate does not have any other intent than removing the child. That is it’s focus. The focus of the morphine was not to kill.
vern humphrey:

This doesn’t make it clear that in all cases the fallopian tube must be removed.

I have emphasized one word in your post. IF the attending physicians say, from their professional estimates the fallopian tube must be removed, then obviously the moral course is to follow their advice.

But if they say it can be saved without danger to future pregnancies, it should be saved.

What does the doctors professional oppinion have to do with morals? IF there is ANY chance that another ectopic pregnancy could occur with increased probability, it is our moral duty to have it removed. If you want, feel free to show any evidence that there is no increased risk of future ectopic pregnancies after the first. Otherwise, you are simply guessing. Show proof, otherwise you are guessing with people’s lives.

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

So, are you saying that the injection was meant to cause death? Or was the injection to relieve the pain, which had a side effect of hastening death? If the desire was for the morphine to remove pain, then the side effect is hastened death. Having a side effect of hastening death is not the same as direct killing. I am being consistant here.

No, you’re being inconsistent. In the case of the morphine drip, you’re accepting the intent, and in the case of the ectopic pregnancy you deny intent. Instead, you substitute physical result.

I point out that if intent is acceptable in one case, it is acceptable in both. If physical outcome is the determinant in one case, it must be the determinant in both.

yochumjy:

But you did not give the morphine overdose to kill. The (what I would expect was a high dosage of) morphine given to your MIL was not to kill. I may not be explaining this well enough, and for that I appologize.

We did not INTEND it to kill, but knew it would hasten death.

yochumjy:

Not in the same way. The methotrexate does not have any other intent than removing the child. That is it’s focus. The focus of the morphine was not to kill.

The focus of the methotrexate IN THIS CASE is to save the mother’s life and leave her with the possibility of more children.

Take a good look at your position – what if the doctor says, “You have an ectopic pregnancy, and you will die if the fallopian tube ruptures. But we can save you, and we don’t NEED to remove the fallopian tube.”

By your logic, the mother HAS to choose death!

Because since the fallopian tube doesn’t NEED to be removed, to remove it would be for the purpose of removing (and killing) the child!

yochumjy:

What does the doctors professional oppinion have to do with morals?

What do outcomes have to do with morals?

Quite a bit!! When faced with moral choices, we are obligated to examine the probable outcomes of our decisions. In this case, consulting with a doctor on probable outcomes is mandated.

After all, did we not consult with this SAME doctor earlier? And isn’t his professional advice that tells us we have to make a choice?

yochumjy:

IF there is ANY chance that another ectopic pregnancy could occur with increased probability, it is our moral duty to have it removed. If you want, feel free to show any evidence that there is no increased risk of future ectopic pregnancies after the first. Otherwise, you are simply guessing. Show proof, otherwise you are guessing with people’s lives.

Nowhere does the Church demand absolute certainty in cases like these. After all, there COULD have been a miracle in my Mother-in-Law’s case. The Church didn’t step in and say, “Whoa, there big fella! There’s a 0.0000000000001% chance this lady might recover miraculously, so leave her in agony!!”

 

[vern_humphrey]

yochumjy:

If you are only trying to get the baby out of the tube, then your intent is to kill the baby.

Right. And if that is the intent, it doesn’t matter if it is done surgically or wth drugs. Hold that thought.

yochumjy:

If you remove the tube, your intent is to remove the tube.

No. By your own rules, if there is no OTHER purpose in removing the tube (for example, to prevent a future ectopic pregnancy) then the intent is to remove the baby.

So, by YOUR logic, if the best medical opinion is that there is no increased chance of another ectopic pregnancy the mother MUST choose death – because the removal of the tube would be for the sole purpose of removing the baby.

 

[BlindSheep]

yochumjy:

If you are only trying to get the baby out of the tube, then your intent is to kill the baby.

No, the intent is not to kill the baby, because as I said if it were possible to save the baby that wouldn’t mean the operation failed. The intent is to get the baby out of the tube. The fact that the baby can’t survive outside the tube is an unwanted side effect.

If you remove the tube, your intent is to remove the tube. The fact that the baby is still in the tube is an unwanted side effect. Once an ectopic pregnancy occurs, there is a increased risk to having another, therefore the removal of the tube is prevening death of the mother and future possible deaths of more children.

In that case, that is a good reason to remove the tube - however, just removing the tube to make the removal of the baby more “indirect” is illogical, IMO.

Just remember what the cause of death is. The cause of death is a ruptured tube that causes bleeding, etc. The cause of death is NOT THE CHILD!!!

What causes the ruptured tube? The cause of death is not the child, but it is the location of the child in the tube.

To remove the cause of death, you remove the tube.

Removing the child removes the cause of death.
You say there is an increased chance of future ectopic pregnancies, but a risk is not the same thing as an immediate threat of death . The immediate threat comes from the location of the baby - if the baby wasn’t in it, the tube wouldn’t rupture.

 

[SHEMP]

Principle of double effect:

1. Action contemplated be in itself either morally good or morally indifferent.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy the child is developing in the wrong place. Giving an agent that will kill the child is not morally good and is not morally indifferent. Cutting the tube open and removing the child is initially morally neutral but then if you do not reimplant the child or in some way try to save the child it then is neither morally neutral or morally good. Cutting the portion of the tube with the child is claimed to be morally neutral or morally good since you are removing the “diseased tube.” On the surface this seems ok. BUT if you could remove the child and the tube is ok then are you really removing a “diseased tube”? In fact you are removing a fallopian tube that has a child in it. The child is growing in the wrong place. In my opinion you would have to wait until the tube was irreversibly damaged in order to remove the “diseased tube”. Removing the tube prior to this irreversible damage is to use word magic in order to satisfy ones desired end!

1. The bad result not be directly intended.

Again this is why methotrexate or cutting out the child would be a problem. As I already argued in point one if you cut the child out with the recoverable tube then the direct intent is to stop the child from growing in a healthy tube! Only when the tube is irreversibly damaged are you directly intending to remove a truly diseased tube.

1. That the good result not be a direct causal result of the bad result.

Again methotrexate and cutting the child out stop the child from growing in the wrong place. The good result directly is caused by the destruction of the child. Also the fallopian tube that is healthy and normal has a child in it that is in the wrong place. Cutting the tube out with the child stops the child from growing in the wrong place thus killing the child. The good result results form stopping the child from growing. Only when the tube is irreversibly damaged does the good result from an indirect causal result of the bad.

1. The good result be proportionate to the bad result.

In all cases removing the ectopic pregnancy results in a good (saving the mother) that is proportionate to the bad result (loosing the child). If nothing is done then both the mother and child will likely die so the good is proportionately better than the bad result if nothing is done.

 

[Pug]

There has been mention about removing a fallopian tube to prevent future ectopic pregnancies in it. Let’s say that the woman has a disease so that her other one is completely blocked or missing. Then it seems to me that to remove the tube merely so a possible future pregnancy doesn’t cause trouble with it is to sterilize her.

If we have the situation where the child has already died and left the tube, it would be immoral to remove that tube. It would be sterilizing someone so that they can’t get pregnant again. The Church does not let a woman remove her badly damaged uterus, so long as it is fine where it is. She may only remove it if it poses a danger separate from some future pregnancy. If the only reason it really needs to be removed is it is too injured to hold another pregnancy, then she is stuck with it and with abstinence.

I suspect the tube removal thing that moralists talk about only applies to a baby stuck in a tube that is bleeding, exploding, or otherwise currently posing a danger to the woman.

But you can’t play tube removal games if the baby is lodged on the abdominal wall. Ectopics can be lodged outside of any reproductive organs.

 

[TAS2000]

I will restate my earlier position. The Church never supports choosing evil. (Even the lesser of two evils.) We must always choose good. There is always a third choice which may not be pleasant, but it is there. Also the church has never said anything about not suffering to prove a point. In fact, I seem to recall very clearly that the path to heaven is filled with suffering. If we were not required to suffer for what is right, there would be no martyrs. They could simply have recanted their positions and lived out their lives going along with evil because they didn’t need to prove their point.

Vern, there is a huge difference between administering a pain killer (or treatment) that may hasten death (not directly cause it) and directly intending to kill one person to save another, and I am sorry that you can not see that. The child is a person, whether it would be able to survive without intervention or not. It is a very small step from saying that it is ok to kill this child to save the mother, and saying it is ok to euthanize old or sick people, because they will die anyway, and we are removing their suffering. And from there, we have growing children to harvest organs to save currently living people, and having a spare set of body parts around, with no regard to the life of that child.

Many people seem to be trying to muddy the waters with ridiculous analogies. You can’t make a fair comparison unless the same applies in all cases. You can’t say the only choice we have is to let both die, that isn’t the only choice, and no sane person would advocate it. You can’t say that giving a terminal patient painkillers to relieve suffering in that patient is the same as willingly and knowingly killing one person to relieve the possible suffering of another. That is the logic that contributes to aborting children with birth defects so that the child itself and the parents, siblings, society, will not have to “suffer” through raising and caring for the disabled.

You can always argue that the child is dead in any case, but that doesn’t make the means moral. Killing is NOT always killing. The means and motivation must be taken into account. Instead of a child, lets say a terminal cancer patient. Regardless, the person will die. However, if I walk into their room and shoot them, I will go to jail. They are still dead. If the doctor comes in and gives a lethal injection, he will go to jail. If we let the person die naturally, either way the person is dead. But the outcome is not. In two cases, someone was directly murdered, and someone should go to jail. This is why the means is VERY important. The intent was the same, to relieve the suffering. But it isn’t OUR call to say when someone has suffered too much and to choose death over life. It is GOD’s, and while it may very well be unfortunate, and cause suffering, we can’t know God’s purpose. In the same way, in an ectopic pregnancy, until they work to find a way to save the child too, the child’s death is certain. It is the means that makes it moral or not. Directly attacking and killing just the child is wrong and immoral. If the child is killed as in indirect result of a surgical procedure to save another, then that is moral. Using a drug to kill just the baby is wrong. It may be easier on the mother, but no one promised us the easy way would be the right one.

It was also said that removing the tube before it ruptures is that same as directly killing the child, thus the only choice is death for both. It is not. The intent is to remove a life threatening malfunction. The tube itself may or may not be damaged at that particular moment, but it will certainly become damaged if nothing is done. It is similar to the practice of removing seemingly healthy tissue along with a cancerous part. It is not certain if the area is damaged yet, but it will become so if nothing is done. Thus its removal is not considered unnecessary mutilation.

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

No, you’re being inconsistent. In the case of the morphine drip, you’re accepting the intent, and in the case of the ectopic pregnancy you deny intent. Instead, you substitute physical result.

I point out that if intent is acceptable in one case, it is acceptable in both. If physical outcome is the determinant in one case, it must be the determinant in both.

We did not INTEND it to kill, but knew it would hasten death.

You are trying to merge two things, I am separating them. You are trying to merge INTENT with UNWANTED BUT ACCEPTABLE SIDE EFFECT. We can not have a meaningful discussion until you acknowledge the difference. To give morphine with the INTENT to kill is not moral, ever. To give morphine to ease the pain, even if the result will hasten death in addition to easing the pain (which is the intent) can be moral. Can we separate these? If not, this discussion is over. That or you actually have to make a case that your intent was to kill your MIL with morphine. Do you understand the difference I am making between INTENT and SIDE EFFECT?
vern humphrey:

The focus of the methotrexate IN THIS CASE is to save the mother’s life and leave her with the possibility of more children.

Here is the crux. What does the methotrexate do? It clears the child. The intent is to get rid of the child with the result of saving the mothers life. You have to look at the direct action of what the method you are incorporating is doing. The whole issue of leaving the possibility of more children is, unfortunately in this case, irrelavant. Future fertility does not trump an un-moral solution, especially if there is an increased chance of another ectopic pregnancy, I will deal with your view of percentages below.
vern humphrey:

Take a good look at your position – what if the doctor says, “You have an ectopic pregnancy, and you will die if the fallopian tube ruptures. But we can save you, and we don’t NEED to remove the fallopian tube.”

By your logic, the mother HAS to choose death!

Because since the fallopian tube doesn’t NEED to be removed, to remove it would be for the purpose of removing (and killing) the child!

Where did I say the mother must choose death? I didn’t, ever say that. You can now get down off your emotional high horse and start talking rationally. Removing a falopian tube does not equate to death. You are mixing things up in some strange attempt to give yourself credibility. Please stay reasonable. I am currently ONLY arguing that the fallopian tube should be removed. THis is not a you die or the child dies argument. The child will perish, unfortunately. But does the child die because you only remove the child and HOPE it doesn’t happen again? What circumstances made this ectopic pregnancy occur? I gave you a list, which you have now begun to ignore since you have no evidence against it. If all you take is the methotrexate, then you have no possible knowlege of what could have caused the ectopic pregnancy. You are blind and just sticking your head in the sand.
vern humphrey:

What do outcomes have to do with morals?

Quite a bit!! When faced with moral choices, we are obligated to examine the probable outcomes of our decisions. In this case, consulting with a doctor on probable outcomes is mandated.

After all, did we not consult with this SAME doctor earlier? And isn’t his professional advice that tells us we have to make a choice?

Just because a Doctor has sound medical advice doesn’t make the advice moral. A doctor might tell you that IVF is perfectly okay from his opinion. A doctor might say it is okay to starve a patient that in his opinion is in a vegitative state. Consulting with a doctor is one thing, accepting his opinion as MORAL is another. Since you agree we have to look at probable outcomes in moral situations, why do you disagree about understanding ALL possibilities. I don’t disagree about consulting the doctor on the ultimate goal, but not all path’s to that goal are equal.

cont

 

[yochumjy]

vern humphrey:

Nowhere does the Church demand absolute certainty in cases like these. After all, there COULD have been a miracle in my Mother-in-Law’s case. The Church didn’t step in and say, “Whoa, there big fella! There’s a 0.0000000000001% chance this lady might recover miraculously, so leave her in agony!!”

You are making assumptions about things you don’t have a clue about. You throw out ridiculous percentages to try and make a case. Please note that your MIL did not die directly from morphine. So, if you gave her the morphine and a miracle happened, you weren’t hampering the miracle. If you gave your MIL an overdose with the intent to shut her body down and kill her, you would then be hampering a miracle. Do you know what percentage of ectopic pregnancies will result in another if left alone? Could it be high? It could. IF the root cause is tubal infection, an external growth, endometriocis, then what? How do your chances change. Even IF you say the tube could be okay, you are obligated to get the chances of another ectopic pregnancy based on the occurance of the first. Anything else is sticking your head in the sand.

 

[yochumjy]

Pug:

There has been mention about removing a fallopian tube to prevent future ectopic pregnancies in it. Let’s say that the woman has a disease so that her other one is completely blocked or missing. Then it seems to me that to remove the tube merely so a possible future pregnancy doesn’t cause trouble with it is to sterilize her.

The desire for fertility does not trump life. We could play what if games all day. God has given us morals, we have to stay to those morals, even if it causes us suffering in this life. Jesus asked for the suffering to be removed, but accepted it because it was the will of the Father. We are also called to carry our cross, and unfortunately the cross could be infertility. But there are other options like adoption that are licit. And if the intent is to sterilize then it is a problem, if the intent is to save the womans life and prevent future ectopic pregnancies then the sterilization is an undesirable effect.

Pug:

If we have the situation where the child has already died and left the tube, it would be immoral to remove that tube. It would be sterilizing someone so that they can’t get pregnant again. The Church does not let a woman remove her badly damaged uterus, so long as it is fine where it is. She may only remove it if it poses a danger separate from some future pregnancy. If the only reason it really needs to be removed is it is too injured to hold another pregnancy, then she is stuck with it and with abstinence.

Why the change of subject? If the child had died and left the tube, there will be no bursting of the tube. This is a different situation. And what are you talking about with the damaged uterus? Are you saying that the woman should just be able to have abortions at will because she has a damaged uterus and doesn’t desire to use NFP?

Pug:

I suspect the tube removal thing that moralists talk about only applies to a baby stuck in a tube that is bleeding, exploding, or otherwise currently posing a danger to the woman.

But you can’t play tube removal games if the baby is lodged on the abdominal wall. Ectopics can be lodged outside of any reproductive organs.

Again you are speaking of something different, we have been speaking of the child ending up in the tube, where the tube will burst and specifically about the drug methotrexate. But for those not in the falopian tubes not all is lost:
There was actually a case that one child lived:
expage.com/swapna
Obviously the vast majority of children don’t live. I don’t have enough information to talk about an ectopic that is in the ovary or abdomen, maybe someone else does. The case of the ovary might imply removing the ovary, but I doubt that anyone would suggest removing the abdomen.