C
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
S
Seatuck
Guest
Catholic teaching says to work to save them both but that a woman may take steps to save her life that may cause the death of a fetus as a secondary effect. She may not have an abortion as a “treatment”. We do not recognize “therapeutic abortion” as a moral act. There aren’t enough details about her condition to comment more than that.
N
NPC
Guest
From a Catholic perspective, abortion is never permissable. However, if the mother’s life is in danger, she deserves medical treatment. The mother’s life and the child’s life are of equal value - so all that is in the medical profession’s power to save both must be done. This is where the “double effect” principle comes into effect - the death of the child may be an unfortunate side-effect or result of the mother getting treatment, but it was not a desired outcome or a deliberate act.
The article doesn’t say what stage the pregnancy is at - in some cases, delaying treatment slightly and delivering the baby early could be an option…but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. The mother’s life really does seem to be hanging in the balance - given how far advanced her cancer seems to be, it is likely that if her treatment is further delayed, the chances of either of them surviving are slim.
The article doesn’t say what stage the pregnancy is at - in some cases, delaying treatment slightly and delivering the baby early could be an option…but that doesn’t seem to be the case here. The mother’s life really does seem to be hanging in the balance - given how far advanced her cancer seems to be, it is likely that if her treatment is further delayed, the chances of either of them surviving are slim.
R
Ron_Conte
Guest
Evangelium Vitae: “Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, in communion with the Bishops – who on various occasions have condemned abortion and who in the aforementioned consultation, albeit dispersed throughout the world, have shown unanimous agreement concerning this doctrine – I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”
The Church infallibly teaches that direct abortion is always immoral.
However, indirect abortion is **sometimes **moral.
The case in question is a woman who is 10 weeks pregnant, who needs a cancer treatment. The treatment directly treats the mother for a disease, and indirectly would kill the prenatal. The moral object is the treatment of a disease, so the act is not intrinsically evil. The intention is not to kill the prenatal, but to heal the mother, so the intention is good. The circumstances then determine if the act is moral or immoral.
If the cancer is so far advanced that the mother will not likely be saved even with treatment, and if the prenatal might still be saved by developing to the point of viability before the mother dies, then the mother should not be treated.
But if both mother and prenatal will likely die without treatment, but with treatment there is a greater likelihood of saving the mother, then the mother can be treated.
If delaying treament until the prenatal is delivered is possible, this is the best option, since then both lives might be saved.
However, in no cases can the direct killing of the prenatal be used to save the life of the mother.
The Church infallibly teaches that direct abortion is always immoral.
However, indirect abortion is **sometimes **moral.
The case in question is a woman who is 10 weeks pregnant, who needs a cancer treatment. The treatment directly treats the mother for a disease, and indirectly would kill the prenatal. The moral object is the treatment of a disease, so the act is not intrinsically evil. The intention is not to kill the prenatal, but to heal the mother, so the intention is good. The circumstances then determine if the act is moral or immoral.
If the cancer is so far advanced that the mother will not likely be saved even with treatment, and if the prenatal might still be saved by developing to the point of viability before the mother dies, then the mother should not be treated.
But if both mother and prenatal will likely die without treatment, but with treatment there is a greater likelihood of saving the mother, then the mother can be treated.
If delaying treament until the prenatal is delivered is possible, this is the best option, since then both lives might be saved.
However, in no cases can the direct killing of the prenatal be used to save the life of the mother.
C
chosen_people
Guest
As the woman is only ten weeks pregnant and as we can not presume fetus viability under 23 weeks - we are talking of preventing cancer treatment for some three months which is most likely a death sentence for the mother.
On the other hand, it is a medical given that the required treatments for cancer will kill the fetus. It would therefore seem to be playing at semantics to state that the cancer treatment does not include the aborting of the fetus. Indeed, this is the reason that the hospital has not started cancer treatment, so as not to contravene the law against abortion - a law according to the article urged and passed through the lobbying of the Catholic Church. Saving the mother’s life is not a legal exception under this law.
The ability for the fetus to reach viability without treatment of the mother is perhaps unknown, but the reverse situation of giving treatment to the mother is a certainty.
Jewish law forbids abortion but allows it in this case where it is required to save the mother’s life. However this is because Judaism gives precedence to a viable life over one that has not reached viability. To the best of my knowledge Catholicism makes no such distinction.
On the other hand, it is a medical given that the required treatments for cancer will kill the fetus. It would therefore seem to be playing at semantics to state that the cancer treatment does not include the aborting of the fetus. Indeed, this is the reason that the hospital has not started cancer treatment, so as not to contravene the law against abortion - a law according to the article urged and passed through the lobbying of the Catholic Church. Saving the mother’s life is not a legal exception under this law.
The ability for the fetus to reach viability without treatment of the mother is perhaps unknown, but the reverse situation of giving treatment to the mother is a certainty.
Jewish law forbids abortion but allows it in this case where it is required to save the mother’s life. However this is because Judaism gives precedence to a viable life over one that has not reached viability. To the best of my knowledge Catholicism makes no such distinction.
C
Corki
Guest
First of all, where are you getting the idea that the treatment will definitively kill the unborn child? The linked article states:As the woman is only ten weeks pregnant and as we can not presume fetus viability under 23 weeks - we are talking of preventing cancer treatment for some three months which is most likely a death sentence for the mother.
On the other hand, it is a medical given that the required treatments for cancer will kill the fetus. It would therefore seem to be playing at semantics to state that the cancer treatment does not include the aborting of the fetus. Indeed, this is the reason that the hospital has not started cancer treatment, so as not to contravene the law against abortion - a law according to the article urged and passed through the lobbying of the Catholic Church. Saving the mother’s life is not a legal exception under this law.
The ability for the fetus to reach viability without treatment of the mother is perhaps unknown, but the reverse situation of giving treatment to the mother is a certainty.
Jewish law forbids abortion but allows it in this case where it is required to save the mother’s life. However this is because Judaism gives precedence to a viable life over one that has not reached viability. To the best of my knowledge Catholicism makes no such distinction.
Nicaraguan authorities have withheld life-saving treatment from a pregnant cancer patient because it could harm the foetus and violate a total ban on abortion.
Second, treatments such as those listed in the article (chemotherapy or radiotherapy) are not abortions. Only the third choice, the so-called “theraputic” abortion would directly be prohibited by Catholic moral teaching. Since the article states that the cancer is in the womans lungs, brain and breasts, it is unlikely that direct “therputic” abortion would be a direct treatment for the cancer anyway.
You are correct that Catholicism does not separate human life into categories of those deserving full protection and respect vs. those who do not.
As has been stated before, the goal is always to save both. For example, certain chemo drugs might be less toxic to the unborn child and could be chosen to increase the chance the child will survive at least until he/she could be delivered early. Or, shielding, even if imperfect, could be provided when delivering radiation treatment. All efforts to save the mother and give her the best chance to beat this cancer should be taken. Direct abortion should not.
This is not to say that I agree with the doctors’ decision. As often happens, law does not equal Catholic moral teaching (such as the article’s claim about ectopic pregnancy). The doctors have either misinterpreted the law or the law is poorly written.
Not everything that could “harm the foetus” would be abortion. I doubt that any treatment that can cause any harm to an unborn child is actually illegal. There are just too many things that a pregnant woman can do that have the possibilty of affecting the unborn child - everything from taking a pain pill to eating too much tuna fish.Nicaraguan authorities have withheld life-saving treatment from a pregnant cancer patient because it could harm the foetus and violate a total ban on abortion.
The anti-Catholic bias of this article is over the top. The whole article is about why a direct abortion should be allowed even though the other treatments such as chemo or radiation were supposedly withheld and which could be administered, even under strictly interpreted Catholic moral teaching.
C
chosen_people
Guest
My presumption is based on the non treatment of the mother. For arguments sake, if the required cancer treatment for the mother would definitely cause the fetus to abort and non treatment of the mother would definitely cause the mother to die swiftly from cancer, what would be the Catholic position from a theological point of view and why?First of all, where are you getting the idea that the treatment will definitively kill the unborn child? The linked article states:
Nicaraguan authorities have withheld life-saving treatment from a pregnant cancer patient because it could harm the foetus and violate a total ban on abortion.
Second, treatments such as those listed in the article (chemotherapy or radiotherapy) are not abortions. Only the third choice, the so-called “theraputic” abortion would directly be prohibited by Catholic moral teaching. Since the article states that the cancer is in the womans lungs, brain and breasts, it is unlikely that direct “therputic” abortion would be a direct treatment for the cancer anyway.
You are correct that Catholicism does not separate human life into categories of those deserving full protection and respect vs. those who do not.
As has been stated before, the goal is always to save both. For example, certain chemo drugs might be less toxic to the unborn child and could be chosen to increase the chance the child will survive at least until he/she could be delivered early. Or, shielding, even if imperfect, could be provided when delivering radiation treatment. All efforts to save the mother and give her the best chance to beat this cancer should be taken. Direct abortion should not.
This is not to say that I agree with the doctors’ decision. As often happens, law does not equal Catholic moral teaching (such as the article’s claim about ectopic pregnancy). The doctors have either misinterpreted the law or the law is poorly written.
Not everything that could “harm the foetus” would be abortion. I doubt that any treatment that can cause any harm to an unborn child is actually illegal. There are just too many things that a pregnant woman can do that have the possibilty of affecting the unborn child - everything from taking a pain pill to eating too much tuna fish.
The anti-Catholic bias of this article is over the top. The whole article is about why a direct abortion should be allowed even though the other treatments such as chemo or radiation were supposedly withheld and which could be administered, even under strictly interpreted Catholic moral teaching.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
It’s not semantics. The Catholic Church distinguishes the intentionally killing of a child from the unintentional consequence of death that may sometimes be an unwanted side effect for some medical treatments on pregnant women. The point is that actively attempting to kill a child inside the womb is immoral.…On the other hand, it is a medical given that the required treatments for cancer will kill the fetus. It would therefore seem to be playing at semantics to state that the cancer treatment does not include the aborting of the fetus. …
Sometimes drugs developed for treating cancer are given to* intentionally induce abortions in women who do not have cancer.* As to the hospital not starting cancer treatment, I don’t know if they are right to be concerned about prosecution under the Nicaraguan law or not. The fear of prosecution may arise because abortionists sometimes try to skirt around laws designed to prevent the intentional killing of children within the womb.
N
NPC
Guest
I must apologise about a point I made in my last post about the article not saying how advanced the pregnancy is. As others have pointed out, it does say that she is 10 weeks pregnant - I overlooked that.
However, it is quite worrying knowing that she is about 2 months pregnant. It increases the urgency of this case because of her deteriorating condition. The cost of doing nothing will likely be two lives - if treatment is delayed and the mother dies in these early stages of pregnancy, the baby will most likely not survive. It seems to me that treating the mother while doing their best to save the child is the only option. As already stated, the intentional killing of the child will never be justifiable, but it may be an unfortunate, unavoidable consequence of treatment for the mother.
However, it is quite worrying knowing that she is about 2 months pregnant. It increases the urgency of this case because of her deteriorating condition. The cost of doing nothing will likely be two lives - if treatment is delayed and the mother dies in these early stages of pregnancy, the baby will most likely not survive. It seems to me that treating the mother while doing their best to save the child is the only option. As already stated, the intentional killing of the child will never be justifiable, but it may be an unfortunate, unavoidable consequence of treatment for the mother.
C
Corki
Guest
In such a case, any treatment that is not a direct assault on the child would be morally licit. Chemo, radiation, even surgery could be moral choices. The reason is the principle of double effect. The actions are directed at the cancer, not at the child.My presumption is based on the non treatment of the mother. For arguments sake, if the required cancer treatment for the mother would definitely cause the fetus to abort and non treatment of the mother would definitely cause the mother to die swiftly from cancer, what would be the Catholic position from a theological point of view and why?
This would be similar to the often cited case of a mother who has a uterine tumor and is pregnant. Surgery to remove the tumor is moral, even though the death of the child will be almost a virtual certainty.
A less “life and death” application of this principle is when a woman or man is prescribed drugs to treat a medical condition that has a side effect of surpressing ovulation or causing sterility. The treatment is licit as long as any anti-life giving effects are side effects and not the goal.
One of the key elements in appllying the principle of double effect is the object of the action. It is more than just having a good intent and/or a good goal. The intervening actions must themselves be good or at least morally neutral **and **the object of the action must not be deliberately harmed.
In the original case, any good or neutral action directed **at the cancer **rather than at the child would be morally licit. Acting against the child as a way to indirectly act against the cancer would not.
C
chosen_people
Guest
No legal system makes the distinction of being able to shut your eyes to the natural consequences of your actions. A doctor administering drugs for cancer treatment with the knowledge that such treatment will abort the fetus, cannot claim as a legal defense that he/she was not intending to achieve that result. If the fetus is protected under law as a human being, than we are in the legal realm of voluntary manslaughter. Morally the same outlook should apply. One can morally justify the preference of the Mother’s life over the unborn fetus, or morally justify the preference of the unborn fetus over the mother’s life. However, administering anti cancer drugs to the mother is a decision to abort the fetus. The administration of such drugs with knowledge as to their effect and result, can not be deemed “an unintentional consequence of death” or an “unwanted side effect”- at least not in any western legal system.It’s not semantics. The Catholic Church distinguishes the intentionally killing of a child from the unintentional consequence of death that may sometimes be an unwanted side effect for some medical treatments on pregnant women. The point is that actively attempting to kill a child inside the womb is immoral.
Sometimes drugs developed for treating cancer are given to* intentionally induce abortions in women who do not have cancer.* As to the hospital not starting cancer treatment, I don’t know if they are right to be concerned about prosecution under the Nicaraguan law or not. The fear of prosecution may arise because abortionists sometimes try to skirt around laws designed to prevent the intentional killing of children within the womb.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
I’m not a lawyer, but as you note laws do distinguish the difference between murder verses manslaughter, (both voluntary and involuntary.) The legal systems recognize and often make judgments of culpability depending on the facts surrounding a death. Not everyone whose action results in the death of another human being is prosecuted for that death. Even when laws are broken, prosecutors often have some latitude to decide which cases they will prosecute and which they won’t.No legal system makes the distinction of being able to shut your eyes to the natural consequences of your actions. A doctor administering drugs for cancer treatment with the knowledge that such treatment will abort the fetus, cannot claim as a legal defense that he/she was not intending to achieve that result. If the fetus is protected under law as a human being, than we are in the legal realm of voluntary manslaughter. Morally the same outlook should apply. One can morally justify the preference of the Mother’s life over the unborn fetus, or morally justify the preference of the unborn fetus over the mother’s life. However, administering anti cancer drugs to the mother is a decision to abort the fetus. The administration of such drugs with knowledge as to their effect and result, can not be deemed “an unintentional consequence of death” or an “unwanted side effect”- at least not in any western legal system.
The Catholic Church recognizes there’s a vast moral difference between giving drugs to a pregnant woman while trying to save her life verses giving drugs to a pregnant woman with the intent to kill her unborn child. Sadly, some people might refuse to distinguish the difference because they want to pass laws that allow the intentionally kill humans in the womb.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.