"Except to Save the Mothers Life"

[POJIUJH]

I’m a little puzzled by this. Or rather, I am puzzled that a lot of us want to put this in different words. I want to get on good footing with regards to this (particularly living here in Ireland just outside Belfast) and when my sister had a threat of complication in her pregnancy, this really knocked me.

For instance, if a woman is surely going to die as a complication of pregnancy, and the child will surely die with her, why is it that the act of killing the child stops being immoral?

(If anyone has any knowledge in the area it would really like to hear the statistics of these occasions if anyone knows of any).

The only way I have heard it said differently is that the child is connected to X, and thus by removing X the child isn’t the target and thus is a side effect and not immoral.

Surely by that reasoning the same would apply if I were to remove the oxygen from the room my brother was in, and my brother suffocated as a consequence of the absence of oxygen, I would legitimately have an excuse for murder?

Is there a distinction I’m missing?

Any help is much appreciated,
Darran.

 

[1ke]

For instance, if a woman is surely going to die as a complication of pregnancy, and the child will surely die with her, why is it that the act of killing the child stops being immoral?

It doesn’t.

The Church teaches abortion is always wrong.

The only way I have heard it said differently is that the child is connected to X, and thus by removing X the child isn’t the target and thus is a side effect and not immoral.

Not exactly.

A doctor may legitimately treat the woman’s illness even if this has the unintended consequence of harming the child. For example, chemo for cancer, surgery for something, etc. This is the Principle of Double Effect. If the child dies in the course of legitimate treatment for the mother, this is not an abortion.

The doctor has two patients, and he must do what he can to save both.

 

[POJIUJH]

Not exactly.

A doctor may legitimately treat the woman’s illness even if this has the unintended consequence of harming the child. For example, chemo for cancer, surgery for something, etc. This is the Principle of Double Effect. If the child dies in the course of legitimate treatment for the mother, this is not an abortion.

The doctor has two patients, and he must do what he can to save both.

Okay, I understand that he must do what he can to save both, and I can understand that if he were to treat the mother in a way that was critical to the child unknowingly, that he would be without sin.

But why is it alright if he does it knowing that the child will die? The commandment is to not kill either of them, causing the death of either is surely killing. If say the air I took out of my brothers room was going to fill up a canister of oxygen for an old woman, would that make the death of my brother moral?

Surely the doctor must do what he can to save both, and if any action is made to kill, that it is on his hands whereas it would have been a God-intended natural death that didn’t need to involve sin.

Am I going wrong anywhere?

 

[1ke]

I suggest you read up on the Principle of Double Effect to help you understand why it is moral in some cases to take an action that will have a foreseen but unintended consequence.

 

[POJIUJH]

I suggest you read up on the Principle of Double Effect to help you understand why it is moral in some cases to take an action that will have a foreseen but unintended consequence.

Alright, thanks for the tip. I’ll search up a bit tomorrow and get back.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Inducing early labour to treat women, even if that indirectly results in the death of the baby, set out by guidelines by the Irish Medical Council for doctors is in compliance with the law. Apparantly they did not that at the hospital, if the investigation concludes that, legalising abortion would change nothing because the issue is about medical codes being followed

 

[edwest2]

Helo Darran,

In a situation like this, always contact a proper authority in the matter. Here is an example of how the Church views certain pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother, with an example of the completely unintended consequence of the baby dying in the process.

ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=940

Contact the National Catholic Bioethics Center if you need further help.

ncbcenter.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=1182

Peace,
Ed

 

[MilesVitae]

Okay, I understand that he must do what he can to save both, and I can understand that if he were to treat the mother in a way that was critical to the child unknowingly, that he would be without sin.

But why is it alright if he does it knowing that the child will die? The commandment is to not kill either of them, causing the death of either is surely killing. If say the air I took out of my brothers room was going to fill up a canister of oxygen for an old woman, would that make the death of my brother moral?

Surely the doctor must do what he can to save both, and if any action is made to kill, that it is on his hands whereas it would have been a God-intended natural death that didn’t need to involve sin.

Am I going wrong anywhere?

It’s important to distinguish between something be foreseen and something being intended. At times, one can do something, for a good purpose, even though one knows that there will be also negative consequences. Consider the case of someone doing something to save others, even though he knows it will result in his own death. The negative consequence is foreseen, perhaps even with certainty, but it is not the intention nor the means (and if it was the means, it would be intended) to achieving the desired end.

 

[Homebody422]

I’m a little puzzled by this. Or rather, I am puzzled that a lot of us want to put this in different words. I want to get on good footing with regards to this (particularly living here in Ireland just outside Belfast) and when my sister had a threat of complication in her pregnancy, this really knocked me.

For instance, if a woman is surely going to die as a complication of pregnancy, and the child will surely die with her, why is it that the act of killing the child stops being immoral?

(If anyone has any knowledge in the area it would really like to hear the statistics of these occasions if anyone knows of any).

The only way I have heard it said differently is that the child is connected to X, and thus by removing X the child isn’t the target and thus is a side effect and not immoral.

Surely by that reasoning the same would apply if I were to remove the oxygen from the room my brother was in, and my brother suffocated as a consequence of the absence of oxygen, I would legitimately have an excuse for murder?

Is there a distinction I’m missing?

Any help is much appreciated,
Darran.

Are you familiar at all with ectopic pregnancy? The fertilized egg attaches to the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. When this happens, the child will not live, period. If it is not removed, the tube will rupture and the mother and child will die. Since there is nothing whatsoever that can be done to save the child, saving the mother’s life is the priority. This is the most common scenario in which the life of the mother is in danger. The CCC discusses this scenario specifically, I’ll post where if I can find it.

Your metaphor about the oxygen doesn’t make any sense. To what end are you removing the oxygen from the room? Surely it’s not to save someone’s life. I’m not a doctor, but I’m pretty sure no one can live without oxygen. A woman can, however, live without her uterus, and sometimes removing it is the only way that she can continue to live.

 

[POJIUJH]

Are you familiar at all with ectopic pregnancy? The fertilized egg attaches to the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. When this happens, the child will not live, period. If it is not removed, the tube will rupture and the mother and child will die. Since there is nothing whatsoever that can be done to save the child, saving the mother’s life is the priority. This is the most common scenario in which the life of the mother is in danger. The CCC discusses this scenario specifically, I’ll post where if I can find it.

Your metaphor about the oxygen doesn’t make any sense. To what end are you removing the oxygen from the room? Surely it’s not to save someone’s life. I’m not a doctor, but I’m pretty sure no one can live without oxygen. A woman can, however, live without her uterus, and sometimes removing it is the only way that she can continue to live.

My problem is that I can’t find anywhere in the Catechism that endorses this idea, CCC 2270 to 2275 states plainly that “abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law”. Unless the way I read this is wrong, this restricts abortion under every circumstance, since even to save the mothers life is a “means”.

I haven’t yet given the principle of double effect any reading, I could complicate that story, but instead I’ll make a new scenario:

Two men are in a critical state due to two separate illnesses. They are both expected to die before the end of the next day. The first man is unconscious and terminal. The second man is in need of a heart.

Since the first man is going to die anyway, would it be moral to take his heart, without the permission that he cannot give due to being unconscious, and give it to the second man to prolong his life?

 

[ValPal]

Are you familiar at all with ectopic pregnancy? The fertilized egg attaches to the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. When this happens, the child will not live, period. If it is not removed, the tube will rupture and the mother and child will die. Since there is nothing whatsoever that can be done to save the child, saving the mother’s life is the priority. This is the most common scenario in which the life of the mother is in danger. The CCC discusses this scenario specifically, I’ll post where if I can find it.

The above is not entirely true. While not common, there are cases of extrauterine pregnancies where the child survives. You can search these case by using your search engine. In fact, some religious blogs even cite these cases as a reason not to remove fetus so soon.

 

[Homebody422]

My problem is that I can’t find anywhere in the Catechism that endorses this idea, CCC 2270 to 2275 states plainly that “abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law”. Unless the way I read this is wrong, this restricts abortion under every circumstance, since even to save the mothers life is a “means”.

I haven’t yet given the principle of double effect any reading, I could complicate that story, but instead I’ll make a new scenario:

Two men are in a critical state due to two separate illnesses. They are both expected to die before the end of the next day. The first man is unconscious and terminal. The second man is in need of a heart.

Since the first man is going to die anyway, would it be moral to take his heart, without the permission that he cannot give due to being unconscious, and give it to the second man to prolong his life?

Double effect is what I was talking about. I am certain that I read about this in CCC, but can’t find it for now. In the meantime, here’s what Pope Pius XII had to say on the topic.

“Deliberately we have always used the expression ‘direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,’ ‘direct killing.’ Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions—granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”

And:

“Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child.”

These remedies would include removal of the fallopian tube or part of the fallopian tube which contains the embryo. But taking an aborificant for the same effect would not be permitted. Because in the first case, the embryo is not directly targeted. The intention is to remove the fallopian tube which has become dangerous to the mother, the removal of the embryo within that tube is a side effect of the removal. But taking a drug to kill the embryo would be killing it directly and deliberately, which is why that solution is not permitted.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3362

 

[Homebody422]

The above is not entirely true. While not common, there are cases of extrauterine pregnancies where the child survives. You can search these case by using your search engine. In fact, some religious blogs even cite these cases as a reason not to remove fetus so soon.

Yes, but NOT in the fallopian tube, which is what I was specifically talking about. The tube is far too small and there is nothing in it to support the growing baby. Most ruptures take place by week ten-- even a healthy embryo growing in the uterus isn’t going to be more than an inch long by then.

 

[POJIUJH]

Double effect is what I was talking about. I am certain that I read about this in CCC, but can’t find it for now. In the meantime, here’s what Pope Pius XII had to say on the topic.

Every time I heard it mentioned was alongside the Catechism, but not from the Catechism. This is starting to leave me a little suspect of it’s Orthodoxy, but I will keep reading.

“Deliberately we have always used the expression ‘direct attempt on the life of an innocent person,’ ‘direct killing.’ Because if, for example, the saving of the life of the future mother, independently of her pregnant condition, should urgently require a surgical act or other therapeutic treatment which would have as an accessory consequence, in no way desired or intended, but inevitable, the death of the fetus, such an act could no longer be called a direct attempt on an innocent life. Under these conditions the operation can be lawful, like other similar medical interventions—granted always that a good of high worth is concerned, such as life, and that it is not possible to postpone the operation until after the birth of the child, nor to have recourse to other efficacious remedies.”

And:

“Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to an act of direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child.”

These remedies would include removal of the fallopian tube or part of the fallopian tube which contains the embryo. But taking an aborificant for the same effect would not be permitted. Because in the first case, the embryo is not directly targeted. The intention is to remove the fallopian tube which has become dangerous to the mother, the removal of the embryo within that tube is a side effect of the removal. But taking a drug to kill the embryo would be killing it directly and deliberately, which is why that solution is not permitted.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3362

Unfortunately these weren’t infallible statements. Saying that the life of the mother and child are equal is perfect. Going on to say that a child can legitimately be killed to extend the mother’s life creates what is surely a contradiction.

What I have found so far is only indirect language with regards to this (outside this thread mostly). It would either be right to say that the Catholic position is that abortion is wrong except to save the mothers life, or that abortion is wrong always and everywhere.

 

[Homebody422]

Unfortunately these weren’t infallible statements. Saying that the life of the mother and child are equal is perfect. Going on to say that a child can legitimately be killed to extend the mother’s life creates what is surely a contradiction.
.

I don’t see how it is a contradiction. In the case of a tubal pregnancy, the child will not live, period. It is not currently medically possible to save a child in this situation. So you either remove the tube containing the embryo to save the mother, or you just let the mother die along with the embryo. One person dies, or both die, but the embryo ALWAYS dies. It is not remotely the same thing as the heart transplant you mentioned above. You cannot make an appropriate analogy using two autonomous, fully formed, separate people.

 

[ValPal]

Yes, but NOT in the fallopian tube, which is what I was specifically talking about. The tube is far too small and there is nothing in it to support the growing baby. Most ruptures take place by week ten-- even a healthy embryo growing in the uterus isn’t going to be more than an inch long by then.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3294090

 

[Homebody422]

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3294090

All I see is an abstract of a German article from 1988.

Regardless, let’s say this is true-- absent all the relevant details, let’s say that the pregnancy was successful, exactly in the manner in which you want it to be successful. How many times has this actually happened, let’s say in the last 50 years. Once? Twice? Ten times? A hundred? Out of how many tubal pregnancies? Are you willing to risk your own life, or the life of your wife or sister or daughter, to a one in a billion chance that the child might somehow miraculously survive through some ridiculous series of chance occurrences? Everything I’ve read suggests that the Catholic church disagrees with you if that is how you feel, and thank God for that, because I would never want to join a church that treated women that way, expecting them to be ready to die painful deaths on the off-est of off chances that that child might survive the unsurvivable. If you think a woman’s life is worth that little, then I don’t think there’s anything more I can say to you.

 

[ValPal]

If you think a woman’s life is worth that little, then I don’t think there’s anything more I can say to you.

If you think a child’s worth is worth that little, then I don’t think there’s anything more I can say to you.

 

[POJIUJH]

I don’t see how it is a contradiction. In the case of a tubal pregnancy, the child will not live, period. It is not currently medically possible to save a child in this situation. So you either remove the tube containing the embryo to save the mother, or you just let the mother die along with the embryo. One person dies, or both die, but the embryo ALWAYS dies. It is not remotely the same thing as the heart transplant you mentioned above. You cannot make an appropriate analogy using two autonomous, fully formed, separate people.

This is exactly what wanting to bring out. In fact I think the analogy works well. It is precisely the same situation, the first man is in the same position as the child, the second man is in the same position as the mother and will die unless the first man is killed. The only difference is that they are fully grown. Being autonomous most certainly doesn’t define your right to life, on the contrary we are morally obliged to protect those who aren’t. Being fully formed most certainly doesn’t define your right to life, and being separate people isn’t relevant since the child is separate, yet dependent on the mother.

What the analogy shows, just like what the Church teaches on euthanasia and abortion, is that the taking of any innocent life is gravely sinful.

Just think of it. Only in a situation where God intends two to die, would the devil ever tempt a person to save one, at the expense of killing the other. Satan has no problem sending a child to heaven provided he makes a murderer in the process.

 

[Newbie2]

Are you familiar at all with ectopic pregnancy? The fertilized egg attaches to the fallopian tube instead of the uterus. When this happens, the child will not live, period. If it is not removed, the tube will rupture and the mother and child will die. Since there is nothing whatsoever that can be done to save the child, saving the mother’s life is the priority. This is the most common scenario in which the life of the mother is in danger. The CCC discusses this scenario specifically, I’ll post where if I can find it.

Your metaphor about the oxygen doesn’t make any sense. To what end are you removing the oxygen from the room? Surely it’s not to save someone’s life. I’m not a doctor, but I’m pretty sure no one can live without oxygen. A woman can, however, live without her uterus, and sometimes removing it is the only way that she can continue to live.

We have to be VERY careful how we state this. Although true, this is the crux of the dilemma, and it has to be taken in context.

Some people will use the counter argument, “How is that different than a woman with severe heart issues, or cancer (other than uterine cancer) or whatever “would-be-fatal-if-she-carries-to-term” condition? If she carries to term, the baby will surely die”.

I usually try to add "If we could transplant the embryo into the uterus, we would, but at this point in time we do not have the surgical technology available to do so.