Ectopic Pregnancy

[canadianguy1143]

I would like to discuss ectopic pregnancy in light of the recent events about the actions of the former Catholic Hospital in Arizona.

The hospital’s Catholic status was removed for many reasons but the most recent action of the abortion because some Nun decided to approve a Direct Abortion.

I have been told that under the principal of double effect, a woman’s fallopian tube can be removed. The action required is the surgical removal of the damaged portion of the fallopian tube (morally neutral). An undesired, but unavoidable side effect is the death of the unborn child (morally wrong of itself). Since the death of the child is not a desired result and is not the direct cause of the desired benefit AND since both will die if the emergency surgery is not performed, the undesired side effect of the child dying is outweighed by the primary effect and means of achieving it.

Now if I have misstated anything above please feel free to correct me.

The first question I have is this: Would removing the fallopian tube in the above circumstance guarantee that the unborn baby would die?

If there is no chance that the baby survives I don’t understand how that can’t be considered a direct abortion?

I say that because I know people have mentioned intent. That the intent in the above situation is to “save the Mother”. However, since none of us can read the hearts of any other person, how can we say that in cases like the Arizona Hospital or elsewhere that the same intent to save the Mother was not present there as well?

I am not trying justify in any way the actions of the Arizona Hospital. But in reading the comments of people here of defending the Bishop (which I do), I am not convinced that in ectopic pregnancy, the situation at its heart, is dissimilar.

You can kill a person by putting a bullet in their head. If you keep a person forced in a room and suck out all the oxygen that they need to live, you haven’t touched them but how is that any different?

 

[Trishie]

Describing Ectopic Pregnancy for those who are unaware of what this means

Ectopic means “out of place.” In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus. The egg settles in the fallopian tubes in more than 95% of ectopic pregnancies. This is why ectopic pregnancies are commonly called “tubal pregnancies.” The egg can also implant in the ovary, abdomen, or the cervix, so you may see these referred to as cervical or abdominal pregnancies.

None of these areas has as much space or nurturing tissue as a uterus for a pregnancy to develop. As the fetus grows, it will eventually burst the organ that contains it. This can cause severe bleeding and endanger the mother’s life. A classical ectopic pregnancy does not develop into a live birth.

kidshealth.org/parent/pregnancy_center/your_pregnancy/ectopic.html

Why is ectopic pregnancy dangerous?

Embryos that do not implant in the uterine wall are unable to develop normally and cannot end in a healthy term pregnancy. Usually the embryo has already stopped developing at the time of diagnosis…Ectopic pregnancies may cause rupture of the organ in which they are implanted, typically the fallopian tubes. This generally leads to slow, prolonged bleeding although in some situations may cause rapid bleeding. Rapid blood loss such as this has resulted in maternal death.

philipthomas.com.au/ectopic_pregnancy.html

 

[blackrobe]

In the case of the ectopic pregnancy, the treatment is to remove the section of the fallopian tube containing the embryo. The intent is to save the life of the mother; the death of the embryo is an unintended result of the procedure. In the recent case, the treatment was the deliberate murder of the fetus. The deliberate killing of the fetus was objectively immoral; no good intention can change that.

Had the hospital elected to treat the mother’s pulmonary hypertension by some means other than killing the child and the child died as a result, that would have been an example of the principle of double effect, like the ectopic pregnancy scenario.

The hospital claimed that the mother could not possibly have survived carrying the baby to term; other medical authorities have disputed this assertion. In the case of ectopic pregnancy, neither mother nor baby can survive untreated. Another difficult situation arises when an ectopic pregnancy can be treated chemically by destroying the embryo without removing the tube. This seems to me to be the moral equivalent of a direct abortion but I would like to have some authoritative guidance. I think I will contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

AMDG
jsa

 

[Trishie]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=314511

 

[promethius]

I’m going to comment on your understanding of the principle of double effect inside your comment by using bold red text…

I have been told that under the principal of double effect, a woman’s fallopian tube can be removed. The action required is the surgical removal of the damaged portion of the fallopian tube (morally neutral). An undesired, but unavoidable side effect is the death of the unborn child (morally wrong of itself → This statement is incorrect, in that there was no action taken to kill the child, so there is no moral wrong. A sad, unfortunate, but necessary side effect is a death. It is an unintended negative result, though it does not bear moral weight). Since the death of the child is not a desired result and is not the direct *cause*result of the desired benefit AND since both will die if the emergency surgery is not performed, the undesired side effect of the child dying is outweighed by the primary effect and means of achieving it. → In the principle of double effect, the primary consideration is intent of action, followed by weight of consequence. You’ve reversed the two. The action MUST be morally good, or at best morally neutral, AND the negative impact must not be GREATER than the positive good. Example: A train is running towards a cliff, you can throw the switch to change tracks, but if you do it will hit ten children. If throwing the switch saves a thousand passengers, then it is acceptable. If it saves only ONE passenger, it is not morally acceptable… but that all hinges on throwing the switch being morally neutral. If the situation were you can shoot ten children in the head to save the passengers, it would be immoral regardless of the weighted effects

The first question I have is this: Would removing the fallopian tube in the above circumstance guarantee that the unborn baby would die?

Yes

If there is no chance that the baby survives I don’t understand how that can’t be considered a direct abortion?

Any woman with a damaged fallopian tube needs the damaged portion of it removed. If there is not a baby there, the damaged portion would still have to be removed. The action, independent of the consequences, is morally neutral. Direct abortion, by contrast, has only one action: Go in and kill that baby. There is no case where a direct abortion is performed on a woman with no child, so the only existance of direct abortion is as a morally illicit act.

I say that because I know people have mentioned intent. That the intent in the above situation is to “save the Mother”. However, since none of us can read the hearts of any other person, how can we say that in cases like the Arizona Hospital or elsewhere that the same intent to save the Mother was not present there as well?

Their intent certainly was to save the mother. But the intent of the ACTION they took is different from their overall intent. The intent of a direct abortion is murder of a child. Though their goal was to save the mother’s life, and they did, they did it through an action which is totally morally bankrupt. You cannot use an immoral action to justify an overall good intent in any scenario whatsoever.

I am not trying justify in any way the actions of the Arizona Hospital. But in reading the comments of people here of defending the Bishop (which I do), I am not convinced that in ectopic pregnancy, the situation at its heart, is dissimilar.

It is not dissimilar. Removal of the damaged portion of a woman’s fallopian tube in order to allow her to live is morally neutral, as giving heart medication to a woman with heart disease is. They are permissable acts to save the life of the mother, despite the unfortunate consequence. Scraping a baby from it’s mother’s womb is NOT morally neutral, and therefore NOT allowed in any situation.

You can kill a person by putting a bullet in their head. If you keep a person forced in a room and suck out all the oxygen that they need to live, you haven’t touched them but how is that any different?

Both are murder. This has no analogy to the ectopic pregnancy situation you referenced.

 

[runningdude]

I would like to discuss ectopic pregnancy in light of the recent events about the actions of the former Catholic Hospital in Arizona.

The hospital’s Catholic status was removed for many reasons but the most recent action of the abortion because some Nun decided to approve a Direct Abortion.

I have been told that under the principal of double effect, a woman’s fallopian tube can be removed. The action required is the surgical removal of the damaged portion of the fallopian tube (morally neutral). An undesired, but unavoidable side effect is the death of the unborn child (morally wrong of itself). Since the death of the child is not a desired result and is not the direct cause of the desired benefit AND since both will die if the emergency surgery is not performed, the undesired side effect of the child dying is outweighed by the primary effect and means of achieving it.

Now if I have misstated anything above please feel free to correct me.

The first question I have is this: Would removing the fallopian tube in the above circumstance guarantee that the unborn baby would die?

If there is no chance that the baby survives I don’t understand how that can’t be considered a direct abortion?

I have some difficulty understanding what happened and why exactly it was immoral in the recent case, as well so I sympathize

I say that because I know people have mentioned intent. That the intent in the above situation is to “save the Mother”. However, since none of us can read the hearts of any other person, how can we say that in cases like the Arizona Hospital or elsewhere that the same intent to save the Mother was not present there as well?

I am not trying justify in any way the actions of the Arizona Hospital. But in reading the comments of people here of defending the Bishop (which I do), I am not convinced that in ectopic pregnancy, the situation at its heart, is dissimilar.

You can kill a person by putting a bullet in their head. If you keep a person forced in a room and suck out all the oxygen that they need to live, you haven’t touched them but how is that any different?

To help my thinking, I came up with a different example that might help you as well; say someone illegally climbed into a rocket, and the rocket accidentally got fired into the sky and was heading towards a peaceful city. Obviously, you must shoot the rocket down to save the city.

Shooting the rocket, like removing the fallopian tube, to save the city or the mother is morally neutral. That the “illegal” guest in the rocket will have to die is an unfortunate consequence of shooting down the renegade rocket. Likewise, the death of the child who by accident of biology, gets implanted on the fallopian tube, is an unintended consequence of removing the tissue.

By design of nature, babies belong in the womb. A baby that is implanted in the womb has a natural right to be there. It is never moral to destroy a child in the womb.*

However, a baby that is implanted outside the womb has no natural right to be there. The baby retains its right to life, and no action may be taken to destroy his or her life. Just like it would be wrong to shoot the man while allowing the rocket to hit the city, it is wrong to destroy the child, when the medical problem is the damaged fallopian tube.

*Though removing a severely diseased womb, even with child present, might moral, I’m not sure, by the same logic as with the tube.

I guess in the woman’s case, the damage was to her heart, caused by the stress on uterus due to the pregnancy; perhaps she might have been a hysterectomy candidate - gosh this is confusing… and potentially dangerous territory to speculate about.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The medical disorder in the case of ectopic pregnancy is that the prenatal is growing in the wrong location. So its removal from the wrong location is a direct treatment of the medical disorder. The moral object is therefore a treatment of a medical disorder, and the death of the prenatal is indirect.

If it were possible to move the prenatal into the womb (reportedly done successfully in only one case), then that procedure would be morally required as well. But since it is not possible, it is not required. Perhaps with some advancements in medicine it may one day be possible.

In the Phoenix abortion case, the prenatal was removed from the womb, which is the proper location. So this removal was not the treatment of a medical disorder. Rather, it was the use of direct abortion as an evil means to the good end of saving a life. But the end does not justify the means.

 

[CuriousInIL]

To help my thinking, I came up with a different example that might help you as well; say someone illegally climbed into a rocket, and the rocket accidentally got fired into the sky and was heading towards a peaceful city. Obviously, you must shoot the rocket down to save the city.

It is my understanding that if you know that there is an innocent person in the rocket, it is NOT moral to shoot it down even to save the city. You can’t commit a wrong even for a good result.

 

[promethius]

It is my understanding that if you know that there is an innocent person in the rocket, it is NOT moral to shoot it down even to save the city. You can’t commit a wrong even for a good result.

you’re not shooting down someone’s personal plane that’s gone bonkers. You’re shooting down a military rocket with a person that invalidly climbed aboard. The goal is not destruction of the person, but destruction of the rocket that has gone ballistic. If you remove the person from the equation, shooting down the rocket is a morally good action. Adding the person back in, shooting down the rocket is STILL a morally good action, which now carries the unfortunate side effect that a person is aboard that rocket.

 

[Bookcat]

here you go ncbcenter.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=940

 

[LittleSoldier]

I have some difficulty understanding what happened and why exactly it was immoral in the recent case, as well so I sympathize

To help my thinking, I came up with a different example that might help you as well; say someone illegally climbed into a rocket, and the rocket accidentally got fired into the sky and was heading towards a peaceful city. Obviously, you must shoot the rocket down to save the city.

Shooting the rocket, like removing the fallopian tube, to save the city or the mother is morally neutral. That the “illegal” guest in the rocket will have to die is an unfortunate consequence of shooting down the renegade rocket. Likewise, the death of the child who by accident of biology, gets implanted on the fallopian tube, is an unintended consequence of removing the tissue.

You’re confusing man-made laws with Universal Laws. No child went against any Universal Law by climbing illegally into a fallopian tube. The baby is a human being, just like the mother, and should be treated with respect, as she has a soul and has been created in the image of God. Her life is not ours to do with as we please.

By design of nature, babies belong in the womb. A baby that is implanted in the womb has a natural right to be there. It is never moral to destroy a child in the womb.*

Nature has no design. Things just happen. A baby that is implanted anywhere is just there.

However, a baby that is implanted outside the womb has no natural right to be there. The baby retains its right to life, and no action may be taken to destroy his or her life. Just like it would be wrong to shoot the man while allowing the rocket to hit the city, it is wrong to destroy the child, when the medical problem is the damaged fallopian tube.

I am bothered by your language here. "A baby that is implanted outside the womb has no natural right to be there. (bolding added). It makes it sound like the baby is a fallopian tube “squatter,” a human being who is holding the fallopian tube hostage, or is a parasite with the intention of taking over the mother’s body.

*Though removing a severely diseased womb, even with child present, might moral, I’m not sure, by the same logic as with the tube.

I guess in the woman’s case, the damage was to her heart, caused by the stress on uterus due to the pregnancy; perhaps she might have been a hysterectomy candidate - gosh this is confusing… and potentially dangerous territory to speculate about.

Here I agree with you. It is potentially dangerous territory to speculate about. None of us were there; as far as I know none of us are experts in OB medicine, Catholic theology, and canon law. The bishop is an expert in Catholic theology and canon law, so I trust in his judgment. He is one more in the long line of Apostles. The decision was his to make and he made it. I have to trust him.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The medical disorder in the case of ectopic pregnancy is that the prenatal is growing in the wrong location. So its removal from the wrong location is a direct treatment of the medical disorder. The moral object is therefore a treatment of a medical disorder, and the death of the prenatal is indirect.

If it were possible to move the prenatal into the womb (reportedly done successfully in only one case), then that procedure would be morally required as well. But since it is not possible, it is not required. Perhaps with some advancements in medicine it may one day be possible.

In the Phoenix abortion case, the prenatal was removed from the womb, which is the proper location. So this removal was not the treatment of a medical disorder. Rather, it was the use of direct abortion as an evil means to the good end of saving a life. But the end does not justify the means.

I agree. And I hope that soon all babies implanted in the fallopian tube will be able to be saved, along with their mothers.

 

[runningdude]

It is my understanding that if you know that there is an innocent person in the rocket, it is NOT moral to shoot it down even to save the city. You can’t commit a wrong even for a good result.

I don’t think Catholic teaching would go that far…

Besides, to cover my bases , I said the guy climbed in illegally - he was never supposed to be in there, and therefore not innocent per se!

 

[CuriousInIL]

you’re not shooting down someone’s personal plane that’s gone bonkers. You’re shooting down a military rocket with a person that invalidly climbed aboard. The goal is not destruction of the person, but destruction of the rocket that has gone ballistic. If you remove the person from the equation, shooting down the rocket is a morally good action. Adding the person back in, shooting down the rocket is STILL a morally good action, which now carries the unfortunate side effect that a person is aboard that rocket.

I don’t see how the morality changes from “someone’s personal plane that’s gone bonkers” to “a military rocket.” If by the phrase “a person that invalidly climbed aboard” you are saying that the person is not an innocent then I can understand where you are going. But, if somehow the issue is plane vs rocket I’m totally lost by your post.

Also, how is shooting down the rocket a morally good action? I would have thought it morally neutral. What makes the action good? (The good result doesn’t do so and the way you have stated it, it makes it seem as if shooting down any rocket, wherever it is headed and for whatever purpose, is a good action.)

 

[runningdude]

You’re confusing man-made laws with Universal Laws. No child went against any Universal Law by climbing illegally into a fallopian tube. The baby is a human being, just like the mother, and should be treated with respect, as she has a soul and has been created in the image of God. Her life is not ours to do with as we please.

Nature has no design. Things just happen. A baby that is implanted anywhere is just there.

I am bothered by your language here. "A baby that is implanted outside the womb has no natural right to be there. (bolding added). It makes it sound like the baby is a fallopian tube “squatter,” a human being who is holding the fallopian tube hostage, or is a parasite with the intention of taking over the mother’s body.

Please excuse if my absolute respect for the child’s life and dignity was not apparent; I was writing off the top of my head.

My point was that the uterus was “created” by God to house the developing child, the fallopian tubes were not - just like intercourse was “designed” for marriage. I’m borrowing from Natural Law philosophy here that morality follows natural form and function.

It is certainly through no fault of the child’s that it implanted in the tube, however its presence damages the tube, and the damaged tube directly threatens the mother. Treating the injury by “amputating” the damaged Tube is moral, even if the child can’t possibly survive. Its death is a natural evil, not a moral evil, due its unfortunate implantation location.

Destroying the child directly, as I said, is a terrible evil. But an analogy about a rocket can only convey so much subtlety - hence the footnote about the damaged womb could be removed for the same reason! Its not the child’s presence, its the injury that can be treated.

Here I agree with you. It is potentially dangerous territory to speculate about. None of us were there; as far as I know none of us are experts in OB medicine, Catholic theology, and canon law. The bishop is an expert in Catholic theology and canon law, so I trust in his judgment. He is one more in the long line of Apostles. The decision was his to make and he made it. I have to trust him.

I wrote in another thread the sentiment that its the Bishop’s decision alone

 

[runningdude]

I agree. And I hope that soon all babies implanted in the fallopian tube will be able to be saved, along with their mothers.

 

[promethius]

I don’t see how the morality changes from “someone’s personal plane that’s gone bonkers” to “a military rocket.” If by the phrase “a person that invalidly climbed aboard” you are saying that the person is not an innocent then I can understand where you are going. But, if somehow the issue is plane vs rocket I’m totally lost by your post.

Also, how is shooting down the rocket a morally good action? I would have thought it morally neutral. What makes the action good? (The good result doesn’t do so and the way you have stated it, it makes it seem as if shooting down any rocket, wherever it is headed and for whatever purpose, is a good action.)

A plane doesn’t fly without a person. It has a natural purpose, which is to take a pilot and possibly passengers from point A to point B. There is no time that you’ll shoot down a plane that has gone haywire without killing a person who is innocent (unless said person is actually TRYING to crash the plane into buildings, etc). Therefore, there is no moral neutrality to the act. If you shoot at a civilian plane, you WILL be directly targeting the civilians on board, or in other words your actions are directly tied to killing the person.

A rocket DOES fly without a person in it. The person is incidental to the rocket, not necessary. Ergo, the situation is different because we can remove the person and look at JUST the rocket objectively. Shooting down a rocket which is headed for a city that has only innocent civilians is a moral good. The fact that defending the lives of innocents by shooting down a rocket (without a person) is morally good does NOT become negated by the fact that for some reason a person is now riding on the rocket. Their presence is incidental and their death is now an unfortunate side effect of the good action, not directly intended or implied by the action itself.

And, I believe the person was trying to create an analogy. We don’t need to tear the analogy up with a fine toothed comb. It was reasonably accurate.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Please excuse if my absolute respect for the child’s life and dignity was not apparent; I was writing off the top of my head.

My point was that the uterus was “created” by God to house the developing child, the fallopian tubes were not - just like intercourse was “designed” for marriage. I’m borrowing from Natural Law philosophy here that morality follows natural form and function.

It is certainly through no fault of the child’s that it implanted in the tube, however its presence damages the tube, and the damaged tube directly threatens the mother. Treating the injury by “amputating” the damaged Tube is moral, even if the child can’t possibly survive. Its death is a natural evil, not a moral evil, due its unfortunate implantation location.

Destroying the child directly, as I said, is a terrible evil. But an analogy about a rocket can only convey so much subtlety - hence the footnote about the damaged womb could be removed for the same reason! Its not the child’s presence, its the injury that can be treated.

I wrote in another thread the sentiment that its the Bishop’s decision alone

Thank you for your clarification. I guess I got a little defensive but that’s because I read that unborn children are now being called “womb squatters” by some pro-abortion activists. And I see that a few of the threads on this topic are becoming very clinical and detached. Maybe that’s the way it should be. Maybe being involved emotionally is not a good thing. But as an abortion survivor who lost two children through spontaneous abortions and who was told by a very insensitive physician (who also was a jerk) that I should abort my own child, I can’t help but be emotionally involved. A physician wanted to kill me because he thought my parents shouldn’t have a third child. He had no problem with the idea. And he practiced out of a Catholic hospital.

An aspect of this case that I haven’t seen discussed is that this child has a soul. That’s important for us to remember.

 

[LittleSoldier]

It is not dissimilar. Removal of the damaged portion of a woman’s fallopian tube in order to allow her to live is morally neutral, as giving heart medication to a woman with heart disease is. They are permissable acts to save the life of the mother, despite the unfortunate consequence. Scraping a baby from it’s mother’s womb is NOT morally neutral, and therefore NOT allowed in any situation.

Why is removal of the damaged portion of the tube considered morally neutral? Why isn’t it morally positive? It allows the mother to live - isn’t that a positive result?

Can you give an example of a morally positive action?

Please excuse my confusion. I feel like I’m reading my organic chemistry textbook and trying to make sense of it. There is something I’m just not “getting.”

 

[promethius]

Why is removal of the damaged portion of the tube considered morally neutral? Why isn’t it morally positive? It allows the mother to live - isn’t that a positive result?

Eh, now that I rethink on it, removing a DAMAGED portion of the fallopian tube is a postive action. However, don’t confuse the consequence with the action itself. The fact that the mother lives is a positive consequence. It says nothing about the morality of the action itself.

Can you give an example of a morally positive action?

Shooting down a rocket which was inadvertantly launched at a city full of innocent civilians.

Please excuse my confusion. I feel like I’m reading my organic chemistry textbook and trying to make sense of it. There is something I’m just not “getting.”

Remove the person from the equation and regard the action by itself. Example: a train is heading towards a cliff with 1000 passengers. You can switch the tracks, but if you do the train will hit a car with 4 people inside. Everyone on the train will live if you do this.

First, remove ALL the people from the situation. Switching the tracks is niether morally positive or morally negative. It is, quite simply, a morally neutral action.

Second, weigh the consequences. If there are only two people on the train and a bus carrying 100 people, you cannot switch the tracks. Not because switching the tracks would be immoral, but because the negative consequences outweigh the good.

So, first, determine if the action is intrinsically evil by removing the people. If you cannot remove the people from an action, there’s a high likelihood that it is intrinsically wrong. (such as aborting a baby… if there’s no baby, you can’t have an abortion, so the act and the person cannot be separated… there is no direct abortion which does not specifically entail murdering a person)