Ectopic Pregnancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr.Blank1.5
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bookcat said:
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)
Click to expand...
From Grey’s Anatomy (the text, not the show ;)):
The Placenta.—The placenta connects the fetus to the uterine wall, and is the organ by means of which the nutritive, respiratory, and excretory functions of the fetus are carried on. It is composed of fetal and maternal portions.
Click to expand...
The fetus is attached to the placenta via the umbilical cord, but is not directly attached to any of the mother’s organs.
 
Bookcat said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m glad things worked out but as it happens that personal judgment on your part was not -] in line with/-] required by Church teaching. The child does not have to be ‘no longer alive’ for treatment to be licitly given AND there is a moral imperative to save the mother’s life, not exclusively the child’s.
 
seekerz said:
I’m glad things worked out but as it happens that personal judgment on your part was not in line with Church teaching. The child does not have to be ‘no longer alive’ for treatment to be licitly given AND there is a moral imperative to save the mother’s life, not exclusively the child’s.
Click to expand...
Actually yes since MTX is directly aborting the child. Yes he does have to be no longer alive to use it. The Church is very clear that a direct abortion is the grave sin of abortion and can never be done.

Granted there is no document that directly says " you cannot use MTX to do the abortion" …but there is likely no document that says “you can not use rat poison to murder your wife”…but I still have to follow the thou shalt not murder and not use it…🙂 (not that I want to murder my wife!..in case she or the FBI are reading…)

oh oh…I answered. I still do not plan to be active in this thread --too much to do.
 
Bookcat said:
Right the placenta is an organ of the child not the mother.
Click to expand...
Only if you’re writing you own anatomy book.

The placenta is made up of tissue from both mother and child and it acts as the link between them, attaching to both of them.
 
For the cases involving the liver, or any other vital organ like the intestines or what not…it just seems like a really tough call. I don’t know the likelihood of bringing the child to term without damaging the organs of killing the mother. At the same time, would excising the portion with the embryo damage the organs as well?

Obviously taking out the embryo or fetus solely is a direct abortion. I know I’m repeating myself, but I actually called the Bioethics Center and the ethicist they have on for today is really busy apparently…
 
Bookcat said:
Actually yes since MTX is directly aborting the child. Yes he does have to be no longer alive to use it. The Church is very clear that a direct abortion is the grave sin of abortion and can never be done.

Granted there is no document that directly says " you cannot use MTX to do the abortion" …but there is likely no document that says “you can not use rat poison to murder your wife”…but I still have to follow the thou shalt not murder and not use it…🙂 (not that I want to murder my wife!..in case she or the FBI are reading…)

oh oh…I answered. I still do not plan to be active in this thread --too much to do.
Click to expand...
As I have pointed out above, the Church has not officially pronounced on MTX use. It makes no sense to me that the same drug may not be used to separate a placenta from its abnormal attachment but may be use to treat the mother if she has cancer. MTX, is a cancer drug that acts against rapidly dividing cells;in that aspect it is similar in action to most other cancer drugs. If it is an agent of direct abortion, how can it EVER be used regardless of the pathology?
 
seekerz said:
Only if you’re writing you own anatomy book.

The placenta is made up of tissue from both mother and child and it acts as the link between them, attaching to both of them.

We can argue theology but it’s pointless to argue science with me unless you are going to create it.
Click to expand...
Hum…I refer you to those who treat this question (in moral theology) for I have seen it argued that yes the organ is still considered to be an organ of the child.

I had anatomy and phys. I and II

But such is truly beyond my comp…for I do not remember that detailed sort of thing.
 
seekerz said:
As I have pointed out above, the Church has not officially pronounced on MTX use.
Click to expand...
I do not think the church has officially pronounced on “the use rat poison to murder your wife” either…
seekerz said:
If it is an agent of direct abortion, how can it EVER be used regardless of the pathology?
Click to expand...
If the child is not longer alive…there is no abortion.
Again I am not continuing in this thread here.

Readers can read these:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9024455&postcount=25

jimmyakin.com/2006/03/ectopic_abortio.html (Jimmy Akin of Catholic Answers)
 
seekerz said:
As I have pointed out above, the Church has not officially pronounced on MTX use. It makes no sense to me that the same drug may not be used to separate a placenta from its abnormal attachment but may be use to treat the mother if she has cancer. MTX, is a cancer drug that acts against rapidly dividing cells;in that aspect it is similar in action to most other cancer drugs. If it is an agent of direct abortion, how can it EVER be used regardless of the pathology?
Click to expand...
A hammer could be used to murder someone or it could be used to hammer a nail into place. Its use is not defined by what it is. MTX has moral uses…directly being used with the object being to kill a child is not one of them.
 
Bookcat said:
Hum…I refer you to those who treat this question (in moral theology) for I have seen it argued that yes the organ is still considered to be an organ of the child.

I had anatomy and phys. I and II

But such is truly beyond my comp…for I do not remember that detailed sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Sorry, I edited the post because on re-reading that sounded really mean. My apologies.
 
Nate13 said:
A hammer could be used to murder someone or it could be used to hammer a nail into place. Its use is not defined by what it is. MTX has moral uses…directly being used with the object being to kill a child is not one of them.
Click to expand...
According to my understanding, no means of treatment that produces a direct abortion can ever be licitly used in a pregnant woman. I don’t think that restriction depends on the reason for which the treatment is used.
 
seekerz said:
I was referring to its use in the pregnant woman. Anti-cancer drugs are allowed to be used to treat cancer in pregnant women.
Click to expand...
If the principle of double effect fits…

I will let Nate take it from here…he is quite competent 🙂

I have too much to do at the moment.
 
Bookcat said:
If the principle of double effect fits…

I will let Nate take it from here…he is quite competent 🙂

I have too much to do at the moment.
Click to expand...
“Double effect” does not, to my knowledge cover measures which constitute a direct abortion.
 
seekerz said:
According to my understanding, no means of treatment that produces a direct abortion can ever be licitly used in a pregnant woman. I don’t think that restriction depends on the reason for which the treatment is used.
Click to expand...
Go back and read my statement again…
MTX has moral uses…directly being used with the object being to kill a child is not one of them.
Click to expand...
Moral uses would include cancer and autoimmune diseases.
I was referring to its use in the pregnant woman. Anti-cancer drugs are allowed to be used to treat cancer in pregnant women.
Click to expand...
The object of using it would be to treat the cancer. The object would not be to directly kill a child in the case where it was being used to treat cancer. Thus you would not be dealing with an intrinsic evil because the object of the taking the drug would not be evil. The potential harm done to the child would be an outside consequence and would have to weighed against the potential good of taking the drug.
 
Nate13 said:
Go back and read my statement again…

Moral uses would include cancer and autoimmune diseases.
Click to expand...
You are correct. I used the wrong terminology: I should have said that MTX is said to constitute a direct attack on the fetus, not a direct abortion (slightly different concepts). My memory is that treatments which constitute direct attacks cannot be covered by the principle of double effect.
 
seekerz said:
You are correct. I used the wrong terminology: I should have said that MTX is said to constitute a direct attack on the fetus, not a direct abortion (slightly different concepts). My memory is that treatments which constitute direct attacks cannot be covered by the principle of double effect.
Click to expand...
Correct. When the killing of the child is the object of the action it is intrinsically evil and thus the principle of double effect can never be applied.
 
So the Bioethics Center responded to my call. The ethicist told me that in the situation involving an ectopic pregnancy and the liver, it is possible to take off the portion of the liver where the embryo is attached. He said that generally, the liver can regenerate.

However, he also said in extreme and unusual cases such as these, MTX could be used…which kind of put me off.

So if the liver can regenerate, can similar operations done to the intestines, spleen, kidneys or whatever potential organ an embryo can somehow attach itself to be easily repaired if it had to come to it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top