Help in replying to a pro-abortion "classmate"

[vern_humphrey]

First of all, with proper management, the prognosis in unruptured ectopic pregnancy is not death.

The point was that when the prognosis is death (for both mother and child) if the process is allowed to continue untreated and there is no alternative, then the Principle of Double Effect applies.

Once rupture occurs there are often no longer any morality issues because the pregnancy has burst through the tube. As explained before, the doctor is ethically barred from waiting for rupture before proceeding with treatment, so what the prognosis is at that stage is immaterial to the discussion.

Hardly!

To understand that, let’s suppose the mother has a minor, easily treatable condition that does not threaten her life and that of her unborn child. That would not rise to the standard required for the Princoiple of Double Effect to apply.

He has no way of knowing before beginning treatment whether an individual patient will bleed massively or slowly after rupture but he does know the risk of death from rupture is high. Short version, he has limited room for individualizing treatment. Unless the pregnancy is caught at a stage where natural resolution seems to be occurring, the rule for ectopic pregnancies is to remove them - not wait to see if they will place the individual mother at imminent risk of death.

Well, duh!

What have I been saying all along?

 

[seekerz]

The point was that when the prognosis is death (for both mother and child) if the process is allowed to continue untreated and there is no alternative, then the Principle of Double Effect applies.

Hardly!

To understand that, let’s suppose the mother has a minor, easily treatable condition that does not threaten her life and that of her unborn child. That would not rise to the standard required for the Princoiple of Double Effect to apply.

Well, duh!

What have I been saying all along?

Sorry Vern, but there is no such thing as a minor, easily treatable ectopic pregnancy that does not threaten the life of mother or baby. Any treatment (medical or surgical) presents moral dilemmas for Catholics if the baby is alive.

There are some ectopic pregnancies where the woman and her doctor may choose the wait and see approach (rather than medical or surgical treatment) under careful supervision if it seems like the condition at the time of diagnosis is resolving on its own (no moral dilemma here).

There are some ectopic pregnancies which are already ruptured and/or where the baby is not alive at diagnosis (again no moral dilemma). Other than in these situations, any ectopic pregnancy that requires treatment presents moral issues for Catholics.

As I’ve said, you cannot use the risk to mother from rupture as a deciding factor in individual cases because it’s difficult (well nigh impossible) to determine how sick an individual patient will become if rupture were to occur. Some may have catastrophic bleeding, some considerably less.

The risk of death from rupture is calculated from statistical data. For any two previously healthy women with this diagnosis, the risk to life is essentially the same and is related to whether effective treatment is provided *before *rupture.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Sorry Vern, but there is no such thing as a minor, easily treatable ectopic pregnancy that does not threaten the life of mother or baby.

And I didn’t say there was. I said:

let’s suppose the mother has a minor, easily treatable condition that does not threaten her life and that of her unborn child.

Any treatment (medical or surgical) presents moral dilemmas for Catholics if the baby is alive.

If by “any treatment” we mean treatment likely to result in the death of the baby under conditions where the untreated condition is likely to result in the death of the mother, baby or both, I agree.

There are some ectopic pregnancies where the woman and her doctor may choose the wait and see approach (rather than medical or surgical treatment) under careful supervision if it seems like the condition at the time of diagnosis is resolving on its own (no moral dilemma here).

I believe I’ve pointed that out several times on this thread – which is why I emphasize diagnosis and prognosis.

There are some ectopic pregnancies which are already ruptured and/or where the baby is not alive at diagnosis (again no moral dilemma). Other than in these situations, any ectopic pregnancy that requires treatment presents moral issues for Catholics.

If by “requires treatment” you mean “will result in the death of the baby,” I agree.

As I’ve said, you cannot use the risk to mother from rupture as a deciding factor in individual cases because it’s difficult (well nigh impossible) to determine how sick an individual patient will become if rupture were to occur. Some may have catastrophic bleeding, some considerably less.

Seems to me like we’re picking the fly specks out of the pepper - if in the opinion of an experienced physician, the condition is likely to result in the death of mother and baby, then treatment is indicated

The risk of death from rupture is calculated from statistical data. For any two previously healthy women with this diagnosis, the risk to life is essentially the same and is related to whether effective treatment is provided *before *rupture.

Well, duh!

Note my comment immediately preceeding this.

Now how is it that I get accused of wanting black-and-white, cut-and-dried situations and of understanding that such situations don’t exist in real life?

 

[Eileen_T]

Did this thread get hijacked, or what? I see that the OP left at post #26.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Did this thread get hijacked, or what? I see that the OP left at post #26.

Yup. Seems a lot of people have an interest in showing that pro-abortion arguments are somehow irrefutable.

 

[seekerz]

Seems to me like we’re picking the fly specks out of the pepper - if in the opinion of an experienced physician, the condition is likely to result in the death of mother and baby, then treatment is indicated

All ectopic pregnancies, unless resolving naturally can result in death of baby or mother and must be treated surgically or medically; physician experience doesn’t change these facts.

Sound knowledge of Church doctrine may affect a woman’s decision to consent or not consent to what is advised.

Forget it though, we seem to be just talking past each other and I see from your last post the pro-abortion bogeyman is causing you grief again.

 

[vern_humphrey]

All ectopic pregnancies, unless resolving naturally can result in death of baby or mother and must be treated surgically or medically; physician experience doesn’t change these facts.

Why do you feel it necessary to split so many hairs?

Ectopic means “out of place.” In an ectopic pregnancy, a fertilized egg has implanted outside the uterus. The egg settles in the fallopian tubes more than 95% of the time. This is why ectopic pregnancies are commonly called “tubal pregnancies.” The egg can also implant in the ovary, abdomen, or the cervix, so you may see these referred to as cervical or abdominal pregnancies.

None of these areas has as much space or nurturing tissue as a uterus for a pregnancy to develop. As the fetus grows, it will eventually burst the organ that contains it. This can cause severe bleeding and endanger the mother’s life. A classical ectopic pregnancy never develops into a live birth.

(My emphasis)

From ectopicpregnancy.com/facts.htm

What Are The Maternal Risks Of Ectopic Pregnancies?

Ectopic pregnancies are the second leading cause of pregnancy-related deaths in the first trimester and account for 9% of all pregnancy-related deaths in this country.

If left untreated, an ectopic pregnancy may be potentially life-threatening, as there is a chance of the tube bursting, resulting in serious internal bleeding.

(My emphasis again)

Sound knowledge of Church doctrine may affect a woman’s decision to consent or not consent to what is advised.

Sound knowledge of Church doctrine should affect** any** Catholic’s decision in grave moral dilimmas.

Forget it though, we seem to be just talking past each other and I see from your last post the pro-abortion bogeyman is causing you grief again.

What pro-abortion bogeyman is that?

 

[SoCalRC]

Let me explain – neither you nor I provide medical treatment. That is reserved to licensed physicians and other duly qualified personnel.

Well, you would be slightly in error. In my youth I had two tours as a combat medic, so I most assuredly have treated intraperitoneal bleeding and shock. In addition, for volunteer work, I have maintained a current Wilderness EMT status for many years. If you are unfamiliar, Wilderness First Responder and Wilderness EMT (the more comprehensive rating) certifications require more training than their non wilderness counterparts, because the assumption is that surgical and hospital care are not immediately accessible. In advanced training, diagnosis and treatment for previously undetected ecoptic pregnancies has been covered.

But perhaps more relevant, I spent many years as a principal engineer/engineering manager for the advanced biomedical division of a large corporation. If you have been in the hospital, chances are very good you have encountered my team’s work.

But all this seems moot. The question had nothing to do with your medical knowledge, it had to do with your moral theory. See below.

It is the Church who espouses the Principle of Double Effect. It is the physician who estimates the probability of death, and who makes the recommendation.

Actually, no. The Church does not officially espouse Double Effect (try looking it up in Church documents or the Catholic encyclopedia). The Church has acknowledged that there can be cases where treatment may cause an indirect abortion and be moral, but it has specifically refrained from commenting on rather any of the common treatments for ectopic pregnancy would meet the conditions.

You seem to assume that the lack of objection is approval. But this seems unlikely. You note that “we” do not wait for rupture, but if we look to South America we can find countries where doctors must wait for the rupture to occur. When there have been attempts to change the secular laws regarding this, the Church, through its local ordinary authority, has strenuously objected. If the Church approves of the interpretation, why fight its use in other countries?

Another area where your knowledge seems limited is in the authority of double effect. Yes, you might hear of it in a bioethics class in high school, but it does not match medical practices or theories in use today. For example, contrary to what you stated before, tubal removal is not the only procedure used in Catholic hospitals. Some groups, like CHA, try to justify treatements like the abortion drug Methotrexate via double effect (as in, we don’t mean to destroy every one of the fetus’ cells, we are just treating the inflamed area of the tube).

However many groups believe that we have stretched the double effect argument to absurdity. So, if you look to a recent article, like THE LICIT USE OF METHOTREXATE
MANAGING EXTRA-UTERINE GESTATION by Eugene F. Diamond, M.D., published in 2006 by the National Catholic Bioethics Center you will not find a single reference to double effect or any of the general principles associated with it.

Although I point out when death by ruptured fallopian tube is imminent, the risk approaches 100%

I’m sorry, that is utterly false. Seekerz has it exactly right and repeating your assertion otherwise will not change reality. You don’t need to be a doctor, just have the research, reading, and comprehension skills of a ‘C’ junior high student. The prognosis for the fetus IS death (look it up on WebMD or something), but with modern treatment, the prognosis for the mother, even post rupture is much better.

I suppose you could argue that, untreated, the risk is very high. But the same could be said of a blood blister in the 100 mile wilderness in Maine. Which brings us back to my question. What percentage of risk makes your argument acceptable?

I’ve conceded nothing

Of course not. The time to gracefully concede would have been after I first corrected you and your own source confirmed my point. Now that you have partially taken my position as your own to argue with others? It will never happen.

That, of course, is why you are slinging insults and I continue to pull out documents and feel sorry for you.

Best Wishes

 

[SoCalRC]

Although I point out when death by ruptured fallopian tube is imminent, the risk approaches 100%

I thought it was worth re addressing this with your own quote:

“If left untreated, an ectopic pregnancy may be potentially life-threatening, as there is a chance of the tube bursting, resulting in serious internal bleeding.”

Notice that it talks about “serious internal bleeding”, not ‘near certain death’. So, chance of rupture. If rupture, chance of internal bleeding. If internal bleeding, chance of death…

Don’t believe me, try the top of the page YOU cited:

“Ectopic pregnancy is a very serious condition. When the pregnancy grows in these abnormal areas, it can easily cause massive, rapid bleeding, and even death” (emphasis added)

Is it risky? Yes, but is an untreated ectopic pregnancy deadly close to 100% of the time? No. So, yet again, how high does the risk have to be before prematurely ending the fetus’ life is morally acceptable to you?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Well, you would be slightly in error. In my youth I had two tours as a combat medic, so I most assuredly have treated intraperitoneal bleeding and shock.

And that qualifies you as a gynecologist? You can diagnose, prescribe and carry out surgery for an ectopic tubal pregnancy?

Actually, no. The Church does not officially espouse Double Effect (try looking it up in Church documents or the Catholic encyclopedia).

From the Catechism:

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a** double effect**: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

(My emphasis.)

The note (65) refers to Saint Thomas Acquinas’ discussion. See below:
From saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

This principle aims to provide specific guidelines for determining when it is morally permissible to perform an action in pursuit of a good end in full knowledge that the action will also bring about bad results. The principle has its historical roots in the medieval natural law tradition, especially in the thought of Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274), and has been refined both in its general formulation and in its application by generations of Catholic moral theologians.

You seem to assume that the lack of objection is approval.

Are you wearing your turban and gazing into your crystal ball?

When there have been attempts to change the secular laws regarding this, the Church, through its local ordinary authority, has strenuously objected. If the Church approves of the interpretation, why fight its use in other countries?

What’s your point? That some local bishops have a more stringent standard than others?

Yes, you might hear of it in a bioethics class in high school, but it does not match medical practices or theories in use today.

So what? The discussion is about morality, not about “medical practices.”

If “matching medical practices or theories in use today” is to be our standard, then we must accept abortion on demand, for any reason is morally acceptable!!:whacky:

For example, contrary to what you stated before, tubal removal is not the only procedure used in Catholic hospitals.

When did I say, “tubal removal is not the only procedure used in Catholic hospitals?”

Some groups, like CHA, try to justify treatements like the abortion drug Methotrexate via double effect (as in, we don’t mean to destroy every one of the fetus’ cells, we are just treating the inflamed area of the tube).

So what? Is CHA authorized to speak for the Church?

However many groups believe that we have stretched the double effect argument to absurdity.

So what?

I’m sorry, that is utterly false. Seekerz has it exactly right and repeating your assertion otherwise will not change reality. You don’t need to be a doctor, just have the research, reading, and comprehension skills of a ‘C’ junior high student. The prognosis for the fetus IS death (look it up on WebMD or something), but with modern treatment, the prognosis for the mother, even post rupture is much better.

The figures I have found run from about 95% to 97%. That “approaches 100%.”

I suppose you could argue that, untreated, the risk is very high. But the same could be said of a blood blister in the 100 mile wilderness in Maine. Which brings us back to my question. What percentage of risk makes your argument acceptable?

For a guy who accuses others of wanting everything black and white, you seem to put a lot of stress on having everything in black and white.

I repeat – neither you nor I are qualified to diagnose, advise or treat patients in this matter.

Of course not. The time to gracefully concede would have been after I first corrected you and your own source confirmed my point. Now that you have partially taken my position as your own to argue with others? It will never happen.

That, of course, is why you are slinging insults and I continue to pull out documents and feel sorry for you.

Best Wishes

Of course not. The time to gracefully concede would have been after I first corrected you and your own source confirmed my point. Now that you have partially taken my position as your own to argue with others? It will never happen.

That, of course, is why you are slinging insults and I continue to pull out documents and feel sorry for you.

Best Wishes

 

[seekerz]

The figures I have found run from about 95% to 97%. That “approaches 100%.”

Vern, please quote your source.

 

[SoCalRC]

Vern, please quote your source.

Do you really need to ask? Consider this little gem:

Yup. Seems a lot of people have an interest in showing that pro-abortion arguments are somehow irrefutable.

With a ‘smile’ no less. It seems to me that the ones aruging that there may be concerns about moral ambiguity fetal life are you and I. Yet, a hateful label like that flows easily from him, the same person who professes no moral self doubt when it comes to other life related issues, whatever popes say.

The one silver lining in his latest round of quotes is that they reminded me of something you asked earlier (a question he ignored). Namely, why was one surgical procedure ‘ok’, while another was not. What might help you at least undertand, if not agree, would be the context of history.

Remember, up until the very end of the 19th century, the Church had passed on the question of abortion to save the life of the mother. Then the question of, can we remove an ectopic fetus without harming it and let nature take its course, was asked. The Church answered in 1902, pretty much, absolutely not. Taking the fetus out of its natural environment was basically compared to drowning it (see Abortion in the Catholic Encyclopedia to find the references).

At the time, one of the classic examples of double effect was a surgeon rendering aid at a carriage accident. In ministering to a woman who is gravely injured, he causes a miscarriage.

Now, look at a typical ectopic pregnancy at the time - a woman comes to the doctor or hospital with the symptoms I’ve listed above, vaginal bleeding, blood pressure drops, extreme nausa, etc. There is no chemical treatment, so it is going to be surgery. Remember, plasma and antibiotics are in the future, so shock, infection, and internal bleeding are all pretty dire.

Now, you are peering into the woman’s body, and you see a deformed, inflamed tube, possibly bleeding. The DPE argument basically boiled down to, it’s like the carriage, if I just treat the tube - the cause of my patient’s life threatening distress, I didn’t kill the fetus. If I cut open the tube and start removing it with a blade, I did. It still wasn’t a very good fit for either the 1902 ruling or even the principles of double effect as understood at the time, but the Church did not say otherwise. And, from a treatment point of view there was little difference. In fact, there was some claims that tubal removal was superior to attemping repairs because th scaring of repairs could lead to additional ectopic pregnancies.

So, we’re talking about a leading cause of maternal death today (Vern got that right, about 9% in the US, as high as 25% in other countries), an unviable fetus (it was assumed that the fetus’ death was imminent by the time symptoms appeared, though we now know this isn’t always the case), and a pretty imminent life threat to the mother. On the flip side, we were talking about a relatively new Church teaching.

Things started getting more complicated with early detection and less intrussive procedures. Now, Catholic care givers in the US are kind of stuck. From a secular, insurance, point of view there is no justification for more intrussive procedures with poorer theraputic outcomes, particularly since the Church has specifically declined to throw its weight behind any of the three common treatments as ‘licit’.

I’m sorry, the article I just cited is for members only, though you might be able to find the publication at library. It poses the interesting proposition that a significant number of ectopic pregnancies are not pregnancies, but thwarted miscarriages, trapped by tubal scaring. Again, as mentioned a wholly different moral argument.

I am sorry to be bowing out. I don’t mind dissecting quotes and references, but personal vindictive and bile is just too much.

Best Regards and good luck in your search for answers.

 

[seekerz]

Do you really need to ask? Consider this little gem:

With a ‘smile’ no less. It seems to me that the ones aruging that there may be concerns about moral ambiguity fetal life are you and I. Yet, a hateful label like that flows easily from him, the same person who professes no moral self doubt when it comes to other life related issues, whatever popes say.

The one silver lining in his latest round of quotes is that they reminded me of something you asked earlier (a question he ignored). Namely, why was one surgical procedure ‘ok’, while another was not. What might help you at least undertand, if not agree, would be the context of history.

Remember, up until the very end of the 19th century, the Church had passed on the question of abortion to save the life of the mother. Then the question of, can we remove an ectopic fetus without harming it and let nature take its course, was asked. The Church answered in 1902, pretty much, absolutely not. Taking the fetus out of its natural environment was basically compared to drowning it (see Abortion in the Catholic Encyclopedia to find the references).

At the time, one of the classic examples of double effect was a surgeon rendering aid at a carriage accident. In ministering to a woman who is gravely injured, he causes a miscarriage.

Now, look at a typical ectopic pregnancy at the time - a woman comes to the doctor or hospital with the symptoms I’ve listed above, vaginal bleeding, blood pressure drops, extreme nausa, etc. There is no chemical treatment, so it is going to be surgery. Remember, plasma and antibiotics are in the future, so shock, infection, and internal bleeding are all pretty dire.

Now, you are peering into the woman’s body, and you see a deformed, inflamed tube, possibly bleeding. The DPE argument basically boiled down to, it’s like the carriage, if I just treat the tube - the cause of my patient’s life threatening distress, I didn’t kill the fetus. If I cut open the tube and start removing it with a blade, I did. It still wasn’t a very good fit for either the 1902 ruling or even the principles of double effect as understood at the time, but the Church did not say otherwise. And, from a treatment point of view there was little difference. In fact, there was some claims that tubal removal was superior to attemping repairs because th scaring of repairs could lead to additional ectopic pregnancies.

So, we’re talking about a leading cause of maternal death today (Vern got that right, about 9% in the US, as high as 25% in other countries), an unviable fetus (it was assumed that the fetus’ death was imminent by the time symptoms appeared, though we now know this isn’t always the case), and a pretty imminent life threat to the mother. On the flip side, we were talking about a relatively new Church teaching.

Things started getting more complicated with early detection and less intrussive procedures. Now, Catholic care givers in the US are kind of stuck. From a secular, insurance, point of view there is no justification for more intrussive procedures with poorer theraputic outcomes, particularly since the Church has specifically declined to throw its weight behind any of the three common treatments as ‘licit’.

I’m sorry, the article I just cited is for members only, though you might be able to find the publication at library. It poses the interesting proposition that a significant number of ectopic pregnancies are not pregnancies, but thwarted miscarriages, trapped by tubal scaring. Again, as mentioned a wholly different moral argument.

I am sorry to be bowing out. I don’t mind dissecting quotes and references, but personal vindictive and bile is just too much.

Best Regards and good luck in your search for answers.

Thank you so much for this post. My knowledge of ectopics had been initially secular (I didn’t even think there was a moral issue since the fetus was not able to develop to term in a tube).

When I became aware of the moral debate, I felt duty bound to come to terms with it, but it has been a difficult process for me. This bit of Church history has helped me understand that my difficulties are by no means unique.

God bless with wisdom all who struggle to do or to teach what the right course of action is.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Thank you so much for this post. My knowledge of ectopics had been initially secular (I didn’t even think there was a moral issue since the fetus was not able to develop to term in a tube).

When I became aware of the moral debate, I felt duty bound to come to terms with it, but it has been a difficult process for me. This bit of Church history has helped me understand that my difficulties are by no means unique.

God bless with wisdom all who struggle to do or to teach what the right course of action is.

And no one would disagree with that – except fot those who want to know the exact risk factors, deny the Church uses the Principle of Double Effect, and generally raise a smokescreen.

Here’s a good site for research on ectopic pregnancies:
ectopicpregnancy.com/

 

[seekerz]

And no one would disagree with that – except fot those who want to know the exact risk factors, deny the Church uses the Principle of Double Effect, and generally raise a smokescreen.

Here’s a good site for research on ectopic pregnancies:
ectopicpregnancy.com/

You still haven’t answered my previous question, Vern. I’m interested in discussing issues, not casting aspersions on posters’ intentions or beliefs. You quoted some figures, I asked for a source.

By the way, when you used the word Church above were you saying the Magesterium applies the principle of double effect to treatment of ectopic pregnancies?

 

[SoCalRC]

Here’s a good site for research on ectopic pregnancies:
ectopicpregnancy.com/

Sorry Vern, your statistic is not there. We’ve already been to the site, I’ve even highlighted quotes from it.

If you made the statistic up in the ‘heat of the moment’, now would be a good time to say so. Yes, it would be embarrassing, particularly since you forcefully reiterated it.

But, as I noted earlier in the thread, our Faith calls upon us to do what is right, not what is easy. You’ve attacked my faith, called me a pro abortionist, and sneered at my service to my country. But I would be the first to applaud you should you decide to take responsibility for what appears to be intentional false statements to fellow Catholics on a subject of morality.

 

[vern_humphrey]

You still haven’t answered my previous question, Vern. I’m interested in discussing issues, not casting aspersions on posters’ intentions or beliefs. You quoted some figures, I asked for a source.

Did I not give you one?
I will review – I see that the figure of 95% is for tubal ectopic pregnancies – mortality figures vary.

This study shows 50% or greater for untreated cases in the 19th Century…
medicinenet.com/ectopic_pregnancy/article.htm

But this study indicates

Sudden death was the presenting scenario in 75% of nonpreventable ectopic deaths, an increase from previous analyses.

greenjournal.org/cgi/content/abstract/103/6/1218

This study does not give overall percentages of death among cases of ectopic pregnancies but says:

Ruptured ectopic pregnancy is the leading cause of maternal mortality in the first trimester and accounts for 10 to 15 percent of all maternal deaths.

aafp.org/afp/20000215/1080.html

This study says

. . . the authors investigated all reported deaths from ectopic pregnancy in the United States occurring in 1979 and 1980, to determine characteristics of, and risk factors for, fatal ectopic pregnancy. Most women (85%) died from hemorrhage.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6462568&dopt=AbstractPlus

By the way, when you used the word Church above were you saying the Magesterium applies the principle of double effect to treatment of ectopic pregnancies?

The Principle of Double Effect is rarely applied by the Church – it is applied by the decision-makers. No bishop comes down in a case of ectopic pregnancy and says, “Everybody stand aside now. I’m going to apply the Principle of Double Effect.”

 

[seekerz]

Did I not give you one?
I will review – I see that the figure of 95% is for tubal ectopic pregnancies – mortality figures vary.

So this figure of 95% is the risk of death from tubal pregnancies?

The Principle of Double Effect is rarely applied by the Church – it is applied by the decision-makers. No bishop comes down in a case of ectopic pregnancy and says, “Everybody stand aside now. I’m going to apply the Principle of Double Effect.”

I’m asking whether the Magesterium directs us to use the principle of double effect in deciding on treatment of ectopic pregnancy. The reason I ask is that some articles I’ve read use it to declare chemical treatment illicit while at least one I’ve read uses the principle to declare the same treatment licit.

Notice that above-mentioned articles, written, I presume by those with the necessary knowledge (I could provide links if you desire), apply the principle to the condition as a whole - not leaving it to be decided on a case by case basis.

So I guess I’m puzzled as to whether there is an official directive to the whole Church that does the same: applies the principle to the condition rather than leave it to the individual and her doctor to choose which treatments they deem best.

I would be disappointed to find that different modes of treatment are deemed licit/illicit in different diocese. After all, we are talking about the same medical condition.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

seekerz:

You still haven’t answered my previous question, Vern.

Not answering questions is your tactic, seekerz. If you want other people to accord you the courtesy of answering your questions then set a good example by answering their questions too.

Answer this question for example – one that I asked you days ago and have been asking you numerous times: What is your understanding of the social contract in which you are a participant?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

I’m asking whether the Magesterium directs us to use the principle of double effect in deciding on treatment of ectopic pregnancy. The reason I ask is that some articles I’ve read…

What articles? Please name them. Thank you.