Ectopic pregnancy

[Pheonix]

In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg attaches itself somewhere other than the uterus; the egg in such pregnancies is usually located in the mother’s fallopian tubes.

I imagine such pregnancies are rare. In any case, my question is: what should be done if such a circumstance should arise? In an ectopic pregnancy, both mother and developing child are in critical danger. If the child continues to develop inside the fallopian tubes, they will eventually burst, which increases the likelihood of the mother dying due to internal bleeding; likewise, if the mother dies from internal bleeding, the child will die because his or her support system has just ceased functioning. If both mother and child will die if the pregnancy continues, what should be done?

This question obviously relates to abortion. I realize abortion is a grave offense against human life, so I’m not trying to say abortion should be used under such a rare circumstance. I’m honestly curious as to what would be the, for lack of a better term, “right” thing to do in the situation.

I don’t remember coming across this topic [ectopic pregnancies] when I took AP Biology last year, and I’m not a medical student. Since I’m not well-versed in medical science, please don’t hesitate to correct me if I’m misunderstanding such pregnancies.

Any and all answers/information about this will be greatly appreciated.

 

[Rence]

The Church allows, when an tubal pregnancy is diagnosed, the removal of the fallopian tube. The action is on the damaged fallopian tube.

It is against the rules of the Church to take methotrexate to flush out the embryo (because that is a direct action against the embryo), and it is against Church rules to cut the embryo out and try to save the fallopian tube (again, this is a direct action against the embryo, which is not allowed by the Church).

 

[Castello]

The diseased tube is removed. The baby dies as an unintended consequence. The mother never forgets that and mourns that her child died without baptism.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The Church allows, when an tubal pregnancy is diagnosed, the removal of the fallopian tube. The action is on the damaged fallopian tube.

Could you kindly explain how this is moral, at least in the Church’s view?

 

[Leegal]

In an ectopic pregnancy, the fertilized egg attaches itself somewhere other than the uterus; the egg in such pregnancies is usually located in the mother’s fallopian tubes.

I imagine such pregnancies are rare. In any case, my question is: what should be done if such a circumstance should arise? In an ectopic pregnancy, both mother and developing child are in critical danger. If the child continues to develop inside the fallopian tubes, they will eventually burst, which increases the likelihood of the mother dying due to internal bleeding; likewise, if the mother dies from internal bleeding, the child will die because his or her support system has just ceased functioning. If both mother and child will die if the pregnancy continues, what should be done?

This question obviously relates to abortion. I realize abortion is a grave offense against human life, so I’m not trying to say abortion should be used under such a rare circumstance. I’m honestly curious as to what would be the, for lack of a better term, “right” thing to do in the situation.

I don’t remember coming across this topic [ectopic pregnancies] when I took AP Biology last year, and I’m not a medical student. Since I’m not well-versed in medical science, please don’t hesitate to correct me if I’m misunderstanding such pregnancies.

Any and all answers/information about this will be greatly appreciated.

If it happens, the potential child cannot pass to the uterus and develop properly; it will die. The fallopian tube will burst as the fetus grows, resulting in the death of both mother and child if not attended to which means partial or total removal of the fallopian tube – but it must be full removal. Full removal is accepted by Church teaching; partial removal and suturing is not because the latter causes direct death by abortion.

The fetus cannot develop in such an environment. It’s not an abortion if the tube is removed.

It is the only case where the foreseeable death of the fetus is allowed because the killing is not direct by full removal of the tube that will potentially kill the mother if left unattended. It is allowing the fetus to die as a result of an unintended cause – the complete removal of the fallopian tube.
.

Ectopic pregnancy

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Could you kindly explain how this is moral, at least in the Church’s view?

The principle of double effect. Destroying the embryo/baby is not the action, the fallopian tube is removed and the embryo/baby dies as a much unwanted side effect. Flushing with methotrexate is not allowed because the intention is to kill the embryo/baby and saving the mother’s life is the side effect.

 

[Leegal]

The principle of double effect. Destroying the embryo/baby is not the action, the fallopian tube is removed and the embryo/baby dies as a much unwanted side effect. Flushing with methotrexate is not allowed because the intention is to kill the embryo/baby and saving the mother’s life is the side effect.

True. Methotrexate is also abortion and direct killing.

 

[YoungTradCath]

The principle of double effect. Destroying the embryo/baby is not the action, the fallopian tube is removed and the embryo/baby dies as a much unwanted side effect. Flushing with methotrexate is not allowed because the intention is to kill the embryo/baby and saving the mother’s life is the side effect.

That seems a little morally wishy-washy at best.

 

[odile53]

As a survivor of an ectopic pregnancy, I recall that I was told that the tube itself had become gangrenous because the growth of the embryo had choked off blood supply to it. The doctors speculated that the baby was most likely already dead (because of the choked-off blood supply to the tube) by the time I developed symptoms very similar to appendicitis, and yes, it was emergency surgery (mom called our priest, and I was given last rites and the whole ten yards prior to being wheeled in to the operating room.) It seems that a live baby even existing in a tubal pregnancy is a function of very up to date imaging. You’re talking about a body part that is about the same size as a strand of cooked spaghetti, if you can imagine a hollowed-out spaghetti strand. It happens very early in the first trimester. And nowadays, with a lot of sexually transmitted diseases causing tubal scarring, it happens a lot more than most people think.

My sister, an operating room nurse, is always the source of such lively dinner conversation as strange cases she has seen (I’m one of the few relatives that can still eat my dinner as she describes these, I think she does it to spoil everyone else’s appetite so there’s more desert for her, but that’s beside the point.) Apparently, there are other extratubal pregnancies that are the result of the fertilized egg not entering the tube at all but implanting on different pelvic structures. These are pretty rare, but not unheard of, and there are some rare cases of the fertilized ovum being unable to traverse the tube, and instead implanting on an organ in the true abdominal cavity. My sister had even scrubbed in on one such extratubal ectopic pregnancy where the baby had implanted on a loop of small bowel. According to her, again, I’m no expert, the woman developed a bowel obstruction when placental tissue invaded into the wall of the small bowel. Again, the baby, this time a fourteen week old fetus, was dead from circulatory cutoff, and the woman was in pretty bad shape from a completely obstructed small bowel.

I’m a physical therapist, not a nurse or a doctor, nor do I work in obstetrics, but the scenario of flushing a tube with methotrexate is a really strange one. Traditionally, that drug is an anticancer chemotherapy, and it’s pretty irritating when it isn’t infused into a large vein in cancer patients. Leaving aside church teachings for just a minute, I wonder if someone who underwent such a procedure would be at even higher risk for a subsequent tubal pregnancy in the same tube, just because of probable scarring.

With the advances in microsurgery and extracorporeal circulation, it would be interesting to see if obstetricians could re-implant an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus. They’re already doing far more intricate work in other microsurgical areas, such as brain surgery. For all I know, maybe this has been tried already, or clinical trials are underway. Naturally, if they were useful and produced good results, I wouldn’t be able to imagine the church being against this kind of technique: Two lives would be saved.

 

[Bookcat]

.

Ectopic pregnancy

 

[Pheonix]

Everyone, thanks for all the answers and information.

 

[themeginthemoon]

That seems a little morally wishy-washy at best.

No, no it’s not! I survived an ectopic pregnancy and nearly died. It’s a gory and nasty story, but there is NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL for a fetus that implants in the fallopian tube. If left to rupture, which inevitably happens when the fetus reaches a certain size, the mother can bleed to death. I nearly did - lost 2 liters of blood! God was looking out for me.

The injection is immoral because it simply extinguishes the life. Removing the infected tube saves the mothers life. It is very sad for the fetus, but it simply cannot live… they usually rupture around 8-10 weeks. Once the tube ruptures, the ectopic fetal tissue can also attach to surrounding organs. I lost a small part of my uterus because I walked around for a few days after my tube ruptured, not having known what happened, and the ectopic tissue attached to my uterus. The fallopian tube is about the diameter of a pencil, no room for a baby in there!

The stance of the church is that in cases of ectopic pregnancy, it is morally permissible to remove the fallopian tube, as it is an infected organ that can kill the mother if left untreated. There is no chance for the fetus to survive if it is left alone in the fallopian tube, and they cannot just stick it in your uterus… it is simply a lethal condition

 

[themeginthemoon]

As a survivor of an ectopic pregnancy, I recall that I was told that the tube itself had become gangrenous because the growth of the embryo had choked off blood supply to it. The doctors speculated that the baby was most likely already dead (because of the choked-off blood supply to the tube) by the time I developed symptoms very similar to appendicitis, and yes, it was emergency surgery (mom called our priest, and I was given last rites and the whole ten yards prior to being wheeled in to the operating room.) It seems that a live baby even existing in a tubal pregnancy is a function of very up to date imaging. You’re talking about a body part that is about the same size as a strand of cooked spaghetti, if you can imagine a hollowed-out spaghetti strand. It happens very early in the first trimester. And nowadays, with a lot of sexually transmitted diseases causing tubal scarring, it happens a lot more than most people think.

My sister, an operating room nurse, is always the source of such lively dinner conversation as strange cases she has seen (I’m one of the few relatives that can still eat my dinner as she describes these, I think she does it to spoil everyone else’s appetite so there’s more desert for her, but that’s beside the point.) Apparently, there are other extratubal pregnancies that are the result of the fertilized egg not entering the tube at all but implanting on different pelvic structures. These are pretty rare, but not unheard of, and there are some rare cases of the fertilized ovum being unable to traverse the tube, and instead implanting on an organ in the true abdominal cavity. My sister had even scrubbed in on one such extratubal ectopic pregnancy where the baby had implanted on a loop of small bowel. According to her, again, I’m no expert, the woman developed a bowel obstruction when placental tissue invaded into the wall of the small bowel. Again, the baby, this time a fourteen week old fetus, was dead from circulatory cutoff, and the woman was in pretty bad shape from a completely obstructed small bowel.

I’m a physical therapist, not a nurse or a doctor, nor do I work in obstetrics, but the scenario of flushing a tube with methotrexate is a really strange one. Traditionally, that drug is an anticancer chemotherapy, and it’s pretty irritating when it isn’t infused into a large vein in cancer patients. Leaving aside church teachings for just a minute, I wonder if someone who underwent such a procedure would be at even higher risk for a subsequent tubal pregnancy in the same tube, just because of probable scarring.

With the advances in microsurgery and extracorporeal circulation, it would be interesting to see if obstetricians could re-implant an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus. They’re already doing far more intricate work in other microsurgical areas, such as brain surgery. For all I know, maybe this has been tried already, or clinical trials are underway. Naturally, if they were useful and produced good results, I wouldn’t be able to imagine the church being against this kind of technique: Two lives would be saved.

I am so sorry for your experience! It sounds similar to mine, very scary and quite an emergency. :hug3:

As for implanting the fetus in the uterus: It was explained like this to me, because I asked later if maybe I had not done all I could to save the baby. The fetus is already injured and growth restricted, and has no chance at surviving the re-implantation. It would result in a miscarriage, and further damage the woman’s reproductive organs. The tube generally suffers after having a fetus implant inside of it, as it was not meant for that. The fetus can’t survive because by implanting in an area where it doesn’t receive the nutrients and supply it needs, it really doesn’t have a chance. Your fallopian tube can’t provide the essentials that the placenta produces when it develops in the uterus.

That’s how it was explained to me. I was a biology student at the time, and the entire situation blew my mind.