L
LemonAndLime
Guest
WHICH errors catherina? Can you please start responding and quoting my posts, or I shall block you if you are unable to take part in a fair discussion with me, thank you.
- Status
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Where do you think it came from?
Double Effect
Thomas Aquinas
The principle of double effect; also known as the rule of double effect; the doctrine of double effect, abbreviated to DDE; double-effect reasoning; or simply double effect, is a set of ethical criteria for evaluating the permissibility of acting when one’s otherwise legitimate act (for example, relieving a terminally ill patient’s pain) will also cause an effect one would normally be obliged to avoid (for example, the patient’s death.) Double-effect originates in Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of homicidal self-defense (Summa Theologiae, IIa-IIae Q. 64, art. 7).
This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:
the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.
(Double-Effect Reasoning: Doing Good and Avoiding Evil, p.36, Oxford: Clarendon Press, T. A. Cavanaugh)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
It isn’t about civil laws - It governs Moral Ethics
C
catharina
Guest
As a Catholic social worker, I served on the Ethics Committee of a Catholic
Medical Center. I could pretend otherwise, but I won’t. To hear people shilly-shally
about the truth of Catholic moral teachings, Catholic ethics, most definitely riles
me up and for that reason alone, I shall exit this thread. God bless all.
Medical Center. I could pretend otherwise, but I won’t. To hear people shilly-shally
about the truth of Catholic moral teachings, Catholic ethics, most definitely riles
me up and for that reason alone, I shall exit this thread. God bless all.
C
catharina
Guest
No, my dear, you NEVER said “indirect abortion.”Oh for Heaven’s sake.
catherina told me there were no situations in which an indirect abortion would have to be carried out to save the mother. I have spent the greater part of this thread convincing her that there is such a thing - to which she has not responding, and instead has decided to find something else to have a go at me about.
How on Earth have you managed to come to the conclusion, from me and catherina’s “debate” that I do not know the difference between an indirect and a direct abortion?
I know what a direct abortion is. I know what an indirect abortion is. I know that an indirect abortion is OK in some circumstances if it’s as a result of life-saving treatment of the mother. I know that catherina didn’t think that ever happened, so I had to provide examples of when it happened.
I know also that I am beginning to get angry, upset to tears and fed up of this forum at times. I’m trying to be a good Catholic along with all the struggles and difficulties that come along with it, I’m pro-life at heart, and then I come onto this forum with militant pro-lifers who accuse you of not being pro-life enough if you disagree with them personally. I’ve now even had my competency called into question, because I’ve been accused of not understanding medical ethics and not knowing the difference between indirect and direct abortion! I AM NOT THE ENEMY!
:crying:
You know it and so do I. Only now is it your favorite phrase.
As I said - g’bye. God bless you.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Where am I contradicting myself? Quote me.
Where are my errors? Quote me.
Where have I shown that I do not understand the difference? Quote me.
If you cannot do that, I have nothing more to say to you - you seem to be unable to take part in a fair discussion.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Since when did I have to use buzz words/phrases for you to understand what I was saying? Everyone else understood what I was saying.
C
catharina
Guest
Again - you believe you KNOW what everyone else understood?
PLEASE. Be realistic. “Indirect abortion” is a BUZZ word/phrase? No.
Now stop addressing me, please.
God bless you in all circumstances.
R
Rence
Guest
KimmieLittle, the fact of the matter is, Moral Ethics as taught by the Catholic Church is not a standard teaching at nursing schools and you know it. To pretend that it is something that it’s not is pointless and futile. And obvious. Moral Ethics in secular schools is taught from a secular civil law perspective and it’s a different world from the Catholic Church’s teachings, and you know it. And you know it due to the fact that abortion, contraceptives, elective sterilizations, removing feeding tubes, patients refusing all sorts of treatments, etc. is being done legally and rampantly and NOT in conflict with any civil moral ethics is proof that even you can’t deny, no matter how hard you try.
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Well of course they’re not going to say “Here is what the Catholics think!”
Instead, they teach medical ethics which are based on the same philosophy Catholic ethics is based on. Do no harm to others, does the means justify the ends… all of that we ARE taught at nursing schools, but just because they’re not taught by a Catholic priest does not mean they are radically different or not taught at all.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
But you aren’t bound by civil morality only - You are Catholic
K
kimmielittle
Guest
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
You do not take part in a debate on an online forum and then refuse to respond directly to the person you are talking to. You do not accuse them of saying something and then fail to back yourself up. That is incredibly unfair. I was talking about indirect abortions, but because I did not use that exact phrase I wasn’t talking about them?
You do not treat a catchumen like the enemy, either.
E
estesbob
Guest
And the scary part for the child is when even Catholics hem and haw about why it is ok to kill themWhy on earth would she know the difference between a direct and indirect abortion as applicable to the rules of the Catholic Church just because she’s a nursing student? Seriously.Is she even attending a Catholic nursing school? That’s not something they teach in nursing school. They don’t teach NFP in nursing school either.
If someone lacks the knowledge required by the Catholic Church, then it’s the Catholic Church’s responsibility to make sure that Catholics have that information. A secular institution is not going to teach Catholic canon. I didn’t know about the principle of “double effect” until reading about it on this forum. There is no such nursing school teaching about direct and indirect abortions in any of my nursing books. Even in the cultural competancy parts.
That’s the scary part for patients: the thought of someone hemming and hawing over you while you are in a medical crisis as they are trying to figure out if a particular treatment is “acceptable” to their religion. This is why I will never go to a facility that pushes their religious values over today’s sanctioned medical treatments.
R
Rence
Guest
Of course, all Catholics are bound by Catholic rules, and civil morality follows after that. However, that’s not what this particular exchange is about. Let’s not change the subject. You were questioning a nurse’s competency because you claimed that Catholic rules, laws and teachings were taught in our medical ethics class and that is untrue. Nursing schools teach standard medical ethics, which emphasize secular laws. They don’t teach medical ethics as applied to Catholic theology as you claimed. That is why abortion, contraception, elective sterilizations, the right to refuse life-saving treatment, are all legal and all fit within the teachings of moral ethics taught in secular nursing schoools. The point is, Catholic canon is NOT taught in secular schools, and yes, it’s very different from civil law. Catholics have to learn it from Catholic sources, not secular ones. That’s the point. The fact that Catholics are bound by Catholic rules was not the point, that is a given.
E
estesbob
Guest
I agee. I think she has made it clear she understands the teachings of the Church and will abide by them I think there is. Lot of unintentional misunderstanding of what she is saying
R
Rence
Guest
I have to disagree with you here LemonAndLime, and here’s why: in our classes we are taught that it is an individual, and quite moral, choice to be sterilized. Whereas the Catholic Church forbids it. The judgement between what the secular world views as “the means justifying the ends” and “do not harm” is different in this case from the perspective of the Church. In our classes, abortion is taught as neutral and the right to have one rests on the woman. In contrast, the Church forbids it in all cases. In our classes we are taught that an individual has the right to have a feeding tube inserted, or even removed, but the Catholic Church forbids removal of feeding tubes on all but actively dying patients.
Civil law is different than Catholic law. If someone is to learn Catholic law, they should not rely on secular schools to teach it unless it is a specialized class - and I don’t have such a class offered at my school…do you?
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
Thank you both for sticking up for me
, I have felt quite upset because of this discussion and agree it is becoming close to bullying. I am tempted to ask for mod intervention but it seems as if it may be coming to a close now anyway. :aok:
L
LemonAndLime
Guest
At mine we are not taught that sterilisation is “moral” but that a patient has the legal right to have it as a treatment. I think you are confusing what we are taught is legal for a patient to choose, and medical ethics as a topic. Same for abortion I think - woman’s choice. That however is much more like passing the buck to someone else to decide the morality, rather than teaching ethics about it - which is what a good non-Catholic nursing school should do. Medical ethics is meant to be taught as a guide to conscience, not to pass judgement on legally approved procedures that we may disagree with as a person.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
First off: I wasn’t “questioning her competency” I questioned if she knew about direct and indirect.
A couple of posts later she said she did - it answered me.
I pointed it out to you…
Medical Ethics is not canon law - I never made that claim.
I claimed Medical Ethics was taught in secular universities - Part of Medical Ethics is Thomas Aquinas’ Double Effect - JUST as he said it back in the 1200’s…
The Principle of Double Effect HAS NOTHING to do with civil law…It is Moral Ethics.
Meaning if civil law says you can legally kill the next patient that comes in to ER - Your Moral Ethics says no.
Much like the Hippocratic Oath says “Do no Harm”.
R
Rence
Guest
Actually, we were taught that sterilization itself is neutral. Sterilization can be moral in the right circumstances according to the medical ethics we were taught. We definitely weren’t taught Catholic laws about it. The “morality” is different from a secular perspective than it is from a Catholic perspective. It’s not just a right, it’s a sound practice according to secular medical ethics.
Medical ethics in our class covered abortion when the health of the woman was at risk, and that fit into the medical ethics we were taught as a necessary but unfortunate senario, and neutral. It wasn’t just about choice. Which of course, regardless of the health of the woman, the Church forbids direct abortion in all cases.
Yes, medical ethics as taught in secular nursing schools very much goes above and beyond to teach not to pass judgment on legally approved procedures, as well as the patient, regardless of how we, as nurses feel about it. This is in stark contrast to the medical ethics taught from the perspective of the Catholic Church’s teachings.
It’s unreasonable to expect a nursing student to understand the principles of double effect, and the differences between direct and indirect abortion, from the perspective of the Catholic Church. For example, in the case of the use of methotrexate for tubal pregnancies, the medical community is quite convinced of the efficacy, and the ethical morality of it’s usage. It’s not viewed as “immoral” but viewed as quite “moral” and a beneficial treatment. Do no harm fits and the end justifies the means. However, this same senario as taught by the Church is NOT viewed as the same. This particular Church teaching is not by taught in secular schools. So we really can’t say that medical ethics is the same across the board for the Church as it is from a secular standpoint.
- Status