Hypothetical Question On Abortion

[mtnutt]

Lets start by acknowledging certain facts. Fact 1 - Abortion is intrinsically evil. Fact 2 - Abortion is not permitted to allow a medical procedure that is required to save the life of the mother (i.e. abortion so the mother can receive chemo or radiation treatment for cancer.)

Here is the hypothetical situation - I was watching an episode of House, MD and they had a case where a woman was pregnant and she was dying because her organs were shutting down one by one. They determined that the underlying cause of her condition was a congenital defect in her unborn child (20 weeks old). They identified and corrected a distended bladder caused by a blockage, but she continued to deteriorate. They decided that there was a defect in the baby’s lungs which could not be identified due to the lungs being underdeveloped. House decided the only practical course of treatment to save the mothers life was to do an abortion.

So, here are the 2 questions I have:

First, to anyone with medical knowledge, is such a medical condition possible, albeit very rare?

Second, if such a condition existed, would the church consider an abortion under these circumstances morally permissible?

Just looking for opinions to satisfy my curiosity. I don’t find House, MD to be a morally satisfying show, after all the title character is a drug addict who frequently recommends abortion and is condescending to those who choose not to on moral grounds. I do find the show to be entertaining though.

Thanks for the opinions.

 

[mtnutt]

Just in case anyone was wondering, the mother in the case refused the abortion and House’s boss agreed with her. They undertook a risky course of treatment to speed the development of the baby’s lungs, identified the issue and corrected it by performing a risky surgery on the baby. In the end both mother and baby survived. House told his boss that the outcome they achieved would not happen 9.9 times out of 10.

 

[hasikelee]

Is this the episode where the mom suffered a stroke and House refused to call her pre-born child a “baby”?

Also, here are some facts for you:

1. Receiving treatment for a sickness falls under the principle of double effect when the intent is to treat the illness and not to kill the child.
2. Some therapies (chemo/radiation) have been created to assist the mom w/o harming her in-utero child (or at the least, minimal harm/damage).

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Is this the episode where the mom suffered a stroke and House refused to call her pre-born child a “baby”?

Also, here are some facts for you:

1. Receiving treatment for a sickness falls under the principle of double effect when the intent is to treat the illness and not to kill the child.

2)** Some therapies (chemo/radiation) have been created to assist the mom w/o harming her in-utero child (or at the least, minimal harm/damage)**.

Sort of off-topic, but I read an interesting article on a nanotechnology company in Oklahoma that enables one such new treatment. They use nano-Iron and attach it to the chemo drugs. Using magnetic devices, they can then guide the chemo directly to the tumor. Very cool.

 

[puzzleannie]

Lets start by acknowledging certain facts. Fact 1 - Abortion is intrinsically evil. Fact 2 - Abortion is not permitted to allow a medical procedure that is required to save the life of the mother (i.e. abortion so the mother can receive chemo or radiation treatment for cancer.)

.

abortion is NOT required before the mother can begin cancer treatment. She has a choice (recall that it is the “pro-choice” people in this scenario who deny this). She can do as St. Gianna did, refuse treatment until her child is safely delivered, and take the risk, as she did, that the cancer would progress to her death. Or she can do as many brave women have done, including 2 in my own family, undergo the treatment and trusting the safety of the baby to God, and go on to: Case #1, deliver a health infant or Case #2, deliver an infant with problems that have been medically dealt with and raise him as a beloved child.

 

[1ke]

First, to anyone with medical knowledge, is such a medical condition possible, albeit very rare?

This made-up medical problem doesn’t even make sense. Babies don’t use their lungs in-utero. They don’t breathe. So, a “defect” in the lungs wouldn’t cause the mother’s organs to shut down. It sounds like silly Hollywood pro-abortion rhetoric to me.

Second, if such a condition existed, would the church consider an abortion under these circumstances morally permissible?

No.

Abortion is NEVER a moral option. Ever.

The moral course of treatment would be to do what they did in the show-- even though that’s made up drama. The alternative is to deliver the baby and treat the baby in a neo-natal unit.

Remember, the doctor’s duty is ALWAYS to attempt to save BOTH patients. The baby and the mother are each patients.

 

[Newbie2]

This made-up medical problem doesn’t even make sense. Babies don’t use their lungs in-utero. They don’t breathe. So, a “defect” in the lungs wouldn’t cause the mother’s organs to shut down. It sounds like silly Hollywood pro-abortion rhetoric to me.

Well, yeah it is. There’s a possibility that if there was some sort of neoplastic disorder in the baby’s lungs, mom’s immune system could react to it…wildly hypothetical, but theoretically possible.

I just started watching the show recently…interesting main character, very well acted by Hugh Lowrie.

Very Hollywood, as well. In real life if a narcotic-addicted physician made a mistake he’d be sued out of this world, as would the hospital and administrators who allowed him to continue to practice…regardless of how good a medical problem solver he is.

Entertaining show, though.

 

[1ke]

Well, yeah it is. There’s a possibility that if there was some sort of neoplastic disorder in the baby’s lungs, mom’s immune system could react to it…wildly hypothetical, but theoretically possible.

I just started watching the show recently…interesting main character, very well acted by Hugh Lowrie.

Very Hollywood, as well. In real life if a narcotic-addicted physician made a mistake he’d be sued out of this world, as would the hospital and administrators who allowed him to continue to practice…regardless of how good a medical problem solver he is.

Entertaining show, though.

Regardless of whether or not it’s “possible” the answer remains the same regarding abortion: it is never a moral option.

 

[hasikelee]

Sort of off-topic, but I read an interesting article on a nanotechnology company in Oklahoma that enables one such new treatment. They use nano-Iron and attach it to the chemo drugs. Using magnetic devices, they can then guide the chemo directly to the tumor. Very cool.

That is cool. I also know of some people who try natural treatments first. Whether they work or not can be debated, but I think in this case the idea is to do anything to slow it down. It’s 9 months, KWIM?

This reminds me of another House episode where the woman was diagnosed with stage V cancer in her lungs and they were all pushing her to delivery prematurely. It was really contrived…as if she couldn’t wait 1-2 more weeks to get a healthy baby and as if the injections for lung development didn’t exist.

I still enjoy the series, though. It’s entertainment, KWIM?

 

[CuriousInIL]

Sounds like a very strange show.

 

[benedictus2]

Lets start by acknowledging certain facts. Fact 1 - Abortion is intrinsically evil. Fact 2 - Abortion is not permitted to allow a medical procedure that is required to save the life of the mother (i.e. abortion so the mother can receive chemo or radiation treatment for cancer.)

Here is the hypothetical situation - I was watching an episode of House, MD and they had a case where a woman was pregnant and she was dying because her organs were shutting down one by one. They determined that the underlying cause of her condition was a congenital defect in her unborn child (20 weeks old). They identified and corrected a distended bladder caused by a blockage, but she continued to deteriorate. They decided that there was a defect in the baby’s lungs which could not be identified due to the lungs being underdeveloped. House decided the only practical course of treatment to save the mothers life was to do an abortion.

So, here are the 2 questions I have:

First, to anyone with medical knowledge, is such a medical condition possible, albeit very rare?

Second, if such a condition existed, would the church consider an abortion under these circumstances morally permissible?

Just looking for opinions to satisfy my curiosity. I don’t find House, MD to be a morally satisfying show, after all the title character is a drug addict who frequently recommends abortion and is condescending to those who choose not to on moral grounds. I do find the show to be entertaining though.

Thanks for the opinions.

I loooooveed that episode. Especially that part when the baby grasped House’s finger. House changed from calling it a fetus to a baby.

I think abortion is still not permissible because you are intentionally killing the child.

However, should there be a medicine that is meant to cure the mother but with the side effect of killing the child then that medicine can be administered because the prime intention is to save the mother not kill the child.

 

[Ron_Conte]

direct abortion is intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.

but indirect abortion is sometimes moral and is permitted under Church teaching (the principle of double effect).

If a woman has cancer and needs treatment, the treatment will often kill the prenatal. If the prenatal is viable outside the womb, the child can be delivered and then the cancer treatment can begin. If the prenatal is close to viability, they can wait, and then deliver the child, and then begin treatment.

But in the case of a pregnant woman with cancer, whose prenatal is in the earlier stages of development, if the cancer is advancing too rapidly, so that there is no way to save the life of the prenatal (waiting will kill both mother and child), the cancer treatment can morally be given. The treatment directly treats the grave illness of the mother, and the death of the prenatal is morally indirect, and is an unintended consequence.

However, direct abortion cannot be done even to save the life of the mother.

 

[Newbie2]

Regardless of whether or not it’s “possible” the answer remains the same regarding abortion: it is never a moral option.

Yes, quite true.

I did catch part of that House episode last night on the House “marathon” on TV. Didn’t get a chance to see the end, though.

It was interesting to see the physicians doing the ultrasounds in that episode…pretty much hollywood…I’d much rather have an ultrasound tech doing one on me that a physician…same for having a catheter placed, etc. Let the physicians do the diagnosing (or the surgery, in case of surgeons) and let the other medical professionals do their jobs.

 

[mtnutt]

Is this the episode where the mom suffered a stroke and House refused to call her pre-born child a “baby”?

Yes, that it is the episode I was talking about.

abortion is NOT required before the mother can begin cancer treatment. She has a choice (recall that it is the “pro-choice” people in this scenario who deny this). She can do as St. Gianna did, refuse treatment until her child is safely delivered, and take the risk, as she did, that the cancer would progress to her death. Or she can do as many brave women have done, including 2 in my own family, undergo the treatment and trusting the safety of the baby to God, and go on to: Case #1, deliver a health infant or Case #2, deliver an infant with problems that have been medically dealt with and raise him as a beloved child.

Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear, I know that the mother has a choice. What I meant was that doctors may push for an abortion before doing the treatment to improve the mothers chances, I agree this is intrinsically evil and not allowed.

The reason I posted this question is because the pro-choice crowd is always talking about abortion being necessary in some cases to save the life of the mother. I personally have never beleived that scenario to be valid, most especially in the case of partial birth abortion, which is about as evil as one can get. This episode of a TV series presented an interesting hypothetical case. It seems to present that one in ten million or so chance that there might actually be such a case.

I gave this issue quite a bit of thought both before and after posting the question, and I have reached the conclusion that it is still evil.

Thanks for all the responses, especially since they were all reasonable and well thought out.

To all who said they enjoy the show, as I said earlier, I wouldn’t use it as a moral compass, but it is entertaining, although I suspect that the majority of the medical conditions and outcomes exist only in the minds of the writers.

 

[Corki]

If a woman has cancer and needs treatment, the treatment will often kill the prenatal.

That’s a really offensive way to refer to an unborn child. Not only is is cold and impersona, even worse than just calling a baby a fetus, but ‘prenatal’ is an adjective.

 

[benedictus2]

That’s a really offensive way to refer to an unborn child. Not only is is cold and impersona, even worse than just calling a baby a fetus, but ‘prenatal’ is an adjective.

I thought the same thing. It loses the harshness when you have it in English: the unborn. It is still preferable to say baby. Words carry weight so we have to be careful with terminologies.