Ectopic Pregnancy

[Mr.Blank1.5]

I’ve known that in cases of ectopic pregnancies, the viable options in these cases is removing the damaged portions of whatever organ (fallopian tube, uterus, etc.) an embryo is attached to, as well as the embryo itself.

According to this article: ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT removing a diseased/damaged portion of a fallopian tube is never licit until it poses an immediate threat to the woman.

So if a doctor happens to spot a tubal pregnancy early, and it hasn’t damaged the tube or ruptured yet, he or she cannot remove that section despite the fact that it will eventually pose a threat to the woman?

 

[Castello]

Yes, the tube may be removed before rupture. The baby will die, sadly, that is an unintended consequence.

What may not happen is the doctor may not give medications that kill (dissolve) the baby in order to save the tube nor split the tube open and scrape out the baby. Those are both direct abortions.

 

[1ke]

I’ve known that in cases of ectopic pregnancies, the viable options in these cases is removing the damaged portions of whatever organ (fallopian tube, uterus, etc.) an embryo is attached to, as well as the embryo itself.

According to this article: ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT removing a diseased/damaged portion of a fallopian tube is never licit until it poses an immediate threat to the woman.

So if a doctor happens to spot a tubal pregnancy early, and it hasn’t damaged the tube or ruptured yet, he or she cannot remove that section despite the fact that it will eventually pose a threat to the woman?

a) That is not at all what the article says.
b) This is an ethicist’s opinion, although a well informed one, and not a doctrinal statement

 

[Bookcat]

I’ve known that in cases of ectopic pregnancies, the viable options in these cases is removing the damaged portions of whatever organ (fallopian tube, uterus, etc.) an embryo is attached to, as well as the embryo itself.

According to this article: ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT removing a diseased/damaged portion of a fallopian tube is never licit until it poses an immediate threat to the woman.

So if a doctor happens to spot a tubal pregnancy early, and it hasn’t damaged the tube or ruptured yet, he or she cannot remove that section despite the fact that it will eventually pose a threat to the woman?

It is wait and see with careful monitoring I believe to start…

remember too that…about half resolve on their own.

ncbcenter.org/Page.aspx?pid=940

 

[Mr.Blank1.5]

What would be the moral option in the event an embryo attatches to an organ like the liver? Waiting would be lethal since it would cause a hemmorage right? Is it possible to take that portion of the liver off with the embryo on it? Or would that cause the same situation?

 

[Bookcat]

(they can even go to viability as I recall)

Contact the above source…they are THE experts on such matters.

 

[asd72]

What happens to the body of the child in these cases. Do they receive burial? What about stllborn children?

 

[seekerz]

What would be the moral option in the event an embryo attatches to an organ like the liver? Waiting would be lethal since it would cause a hemmorage right? Is it possible to take that portion of the liver off with the embryo on it? Or would that cause the same situation?

You would not believe how many times I have asked the same question, with no satisfactory response beyond that it is a decision to be made on a case-by-case basis with recourse to a priest. Personally, while I understand the impossibility of addressing individual circumstances, I find that response unsatisfactory for several reasons. Maybe that is simply an area in which our theology has not yet developed to match medical advances. Like you, I know of no other way a pregnancy attached to a vital organ can be dealt with other than by removal of the affected portion of that organ or use of medication to reverse the attachment…Thank you for linking to that article; seems I’ve found my answer though it only seems to raise more questions.

 

[Nate13]

You would not believe how many times I have asked the same question, with no satisfactory response beyond that it is a decision to be made on a case-by-case basis with recourse to a priest. Personally, while I understand the impossibility of addressing individual circumstances, I find that response unsatisfactory for several reasons. Maybe that is simply an area in which our theology has not yet developed to match medical advances. Like you, I know of no other way a pregnancy attached to a vital organ can be dealt with other than by removal of the affected portion of that organ or use of medication to reverse the attachment…Thank you for linking to that article; seems I’ve found my answer.

Have you ever contacted one of the organizations designed to answer such questions?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Yes, the tube may be removed before rupture. The baby will die, sadly, that is an unintended consequence.

What may not happen is the doctor may not give medications that kill (dissolve) the baby in order to save the tube nor split the tube open and scrape out the baby. Those are both direct abortions.

I had a misdaignosed ectopic (twice actually) My ob (prolife–nfp only) actually said opening the tube and removing the embryo causes scar tissue…raising the risk of a repeat ectopic.

 

[seekerz]

Have you ever contacted one of the organizations designed to answer such questions?

I have been directed to several of their websites and to articles dealing with ectopic pregnancies. Even this one, addresses the issue of ectopics on a vital organ but as my final edit (apologies for editing after you posted) shows, the answer only raises more questions: according to the article, the pregnancy might conceivably be removed on the argument that the fetus’, by attaching to the vital organ, is acting as an unjust aggressor…yet the next statement denies that a fetus can ever be an unjust aggressor. Is this a roundabout way of saying that the woman should be left to die in such a case?

My point is that even if these cases are uncommon, they do occur and women should not have to ferret out needles from haystacks to find such information.

 

[Nate13]

I have been directed to several of their websites and to articles dealing with ectopic pregnancies. Even this one, addresses the issue of ectopics on a vital organ but as my final edit (apologies for editing after you posted) shows, the answer only raises more questions: according to the article, the pregnancy might conceivably be removed on the argument that the fetus’, by attaching to the vital organ, is acting as an unjust aggressor…yet the next statement denies that a fetus can ever be an unjust aggressor. Is this a roundabout way of saying that the woman should be left to die in such a case?

My point is that even if these cases are uncommon, they do occur and women should not have to ferret out needles from haystacks to find such information.

Your correct. This article is saying that in such a case the fetus could never be directly killed and can never be considered an unjust aggressor. As Bookcat said though this could just be the opinion of one theologian. Thus the link to the center responsible for dealing with these kinds of issues. If I was really part of a situation like the one described I would probably actually call the center and talk to someone in person.

 

[GraceDK]

Yes, the tube may be removed before rupture. The baby will die, sadly, that is an unintended consequence.

What may not happen is the doctor may not give medications that kill (dissolve) the baby in order to save the tube nor split the tube open and scrape out the baby. Those are both direct abortions.

So what you are saying is… the doctor, in order to act morally, must damage on purpose the tube?
Of course this can not be moral… no matter who says so, for God does not wish for anyone to destroy an organ on purpose.

My sister went through something like this. The tube erupted and she could have died. Just before the operation the doctor said to her: we will do everything to save your tube…
This of course would include only removing what was absolutely necessary…
My sister was very grateful… for she would like to have children in the future see… and you cant have children without your tubes…

 

[Rence]

I’ve known that in cases of ectopic pregnancies, the viable options in these cases is removing the damaged portions of whatever organ (fallopian tube, uterus, etc.) an embryo is attached to, as well as the embryo itself.

According to this article: ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/INDIRECT.TXT removing a diseased/damaged portion of a fallopian tube is never licit until it poses an immediate threat to the woman.

So if a doctor happens to spot a tubal pregnancy early, and it hasn’t damaged the tube or ruptured yet, he or she cannot remove that section despite the fact that it will eventually pose a threat to the woman?

No, the woman doesn’t have to wait until it’s an emergency situation. Once a diagnosis is made it is permissible for the woman to receive treatment for it, which means the treatments must directly be on her, not on the embryo. That means the tube can be removed. She doesn’t have to wait until she hemorrhages. Some people choose to wait, but that’s not required, that’s their personal choice. Sometimes it turns out good, and sometimes it turns out bad. Either way, that’s not required. We are allowed medical care and we don’t have to wait until we’re bleeding out in. What the Church does not allow is taking methotrextate to flush the embryo, because it directly affects and is acted upon the embro. Also, the Church doesn’t allow cutting the embryo out, or cutting out the part that the embryo is stuck in, because that would be a direct action upon the embryo. The only action the Church allows is removal of the whole tube.

 

[seekerz]

Your correct. This article is saying that in such a case the fetus could never be directly killed and can never be considered an unjust aggressor. As Bookcat said though this could just be the opinion of one theologian. Thus the link to the center responsible for dealing with these kinds of issues. If I was really part of a situation like the one described I would probably actually call the center and talk to someone in person.

If that is indeed what the article is saying then no wonder the Church gives no official stance on the matter. I am pretty sure many theologians would take issue with that. For one thing, scientific knowledge shoots ahead while we seem to plod along breathlessly: the fetus does not directly attach to any organ (even the uterus) - it is the placenta, an organ (not a living being) to which both mother and baby contribute, which makes the attachment. Since the placenta is what must be detached, I see no reason (though I am no moral theologian) surgery or drugs cannot be used to achieve this. Why wouldn’t incidental injury to the fetus would fall under indirect and unintended consequences? I’m sure that debate is happening far from the public eye for good reason…

 

[Rence]

So what you are saying is… the doctor, in order to act morally, must damage on purpose the tube?Of course this can not be moral… no matter who says so, for God does not wish for anyone to destroy an organ on purpose.

The tube is already damaged, because there is an embryo growing in it that did not get shunted out of it when it was supposed to. Also, leaving the tube in puts the woman at risk of having another tubal pregnancy. Trying to save the tube sometimes works, and sometimes it doesn’t.

and you cant have children without your tubes…

Actually, women have two tubes and I know you’re not going to believe this, so I encourage you to research it yourself, but when the one damaged tube is removed, the other remaining tube just has the job of carrying the eggs from the ovary to the uterus. But even when she has both remaining ovaries, (now research this yourself, because this is fascinating) when the ovary without a tube produces an egg, it crosses over across the pelvis, and into the remaining fallopian tube. How cool is that?

Anyway, it’s a myth to say that a woman loses her fertility when one tube is removed, although I understand we would want the least invasive procedure, or the precedure that would save the tube. But she still has the other, and unless it is otherwise damaged or diseased, it can do all the work alone.

 

[seekerz]

No, the woman doesn’t have to wait until it’s an emergency situation. Once a diagnosis is made it is permissible for the woman to receive treatment for it, which means the treatments must directly be on her, not on the embryo. That means the tube can be removed. She doesn’t have to wait until she hemorrhages. Some people choose to wait, but that’s not required, that’s their personal choice. Sometimes it turns out good, and sometimes it turns out bad. Either way, that’s not required. We are allowed medical care and we don’t have to wait until we’re bleeding out in. What the Church does not allow is taking methotrextate to flush the embryo, because it directly affects and is acted upon the embro. Also, the Church doesn’t allow cutting the embryo out, or cutting out the part that the embryo is stuck in, because that would be a direct action upon the embryo. The only action the Church allows is removal of the whole tube.

I have seen the argument for using methotrexate to detach the placenta (with effects on the embryo accepted as unintended side-effects). Either way, I have never seen an official Church directive, only ethicists’ arguments.

 

[Rence]

If that is indeed what the article is saying then no wonder the Church gives no official stance on the matter. I am pretty sure many theologians would take issue with that. For one thing, scientific knowledge shoots ahead while we seem to plod along breathlessly: the fetus does not directly attach to any organ (even the uterus) - it is the placenta, an organ (not a living being) to which both mother and baby contribute, which makes the attachment. Since the placenta is what must be detached, I see no reason (though I am no moral theologian) surgery or drugs cannot be used to achieve this. Why wouldn’t incidental injury to the fetus would fall under indirect and unintended consequences? I’m sure that debate is happening far from the public eye for good reason…

Like you, I have yet to see something from the Vatican actually saying what is allowed (the consensus on this forum is that only removal of the tube is allowed) and what is not allowed (again, the consensus on this forum is that methotrexate cannot be used, and neither is saving the tube) in the case of tubal pregnancy. I wish they would produce something form the vatican and put this to rest and I don’t understand why they have not. After all, this is a pretty straight-forward senario. Opinions are great, but they’re just that: opinions. It would be great to get something from the source and there really is no reason why they haven’t addressed this particular issue specifically after all this time.

 

[seekerz]

Like you, I have yet to see something from the Vatican actually saying what is allowed (the consensus on this forum is that only removal of the tube is allowed) and what is not allowed (again, the consensus on this forum is that methotrexate cannot be used, and neither is saving the tube) in the case of tubal pregnancy. I wish they would produce something form the vatican and put this to rest and I don’t understand why they have not. After all, this is a pretty straight-forward senario. Opinions are great, but they’re just that: opinions. It would be great to get something from the source and there really is no reason why they haven’t addressed this particular issue specifically after all this time.

Can’t argue with you there. It’s not like we’re talking esoteric stuff such as the morality of leaving obsolete junk orbiting in outer space. This is stuff that’s happening somewhere among our billion-strong members on a daily basis.

 

[Bookcat]

I have seen the argument for using methotrexate to detach the placenta (with effects on the embryo accepted as unintended side-effects).

As I recall --the placenta is considered an organ of the embryo. Hence it is attacking the embryo directly…

Anyhow I leave it the the moral theologians to hash it out.

When faced with the question – and I was – I judged that unless the doctor could judge with moral certainty that the child was no longer alive…then it could not be used. Other means had to be chosen.

Things however resolved themselves on their own.

(PS just throwing it a comment…I do not plan to continue the discussion beyond this and the article I posted)