Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[RobbyS]

Yes indeed.

People think of pharmacists as pill dispensors. But they have a lot more knowledge of drugs than doctors. Just on the medical side, the “morning after” pill is pretty strong medicine. In Germany, you can go to the pharmacist and if you have a specific complaint, he can give advise on a whole range of nonperscription drugs that are helpful. And bring a perscription for a strong drug to him from a doctor, and he, as often as not, will call the doctor to talk to him about using it. In theory, American pharmacists have the same right, and go to the right store, and you can get darn good advise. IAC, tell a pharmcist he MUST dispense a drug is like telling a doctor what he must do.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

People think of pharmacists as pill dispensors.

…

IAC, tell a pharmcist he MUST dispense a drug is like telling a doctor what he must do.

LOL, that’s true. A lot of people don’t realize the training, the responsibility, and the ethical side of a pharmacist’s job. Let’s take this: Washington and Oregon states already legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide. The governor of Washington state is already attacking pharmacists, trying to force them to dispense Plan B pills, just like Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich did. Now, let’s imagine that WA goes one step further, forcing pharmacists by law to also dispense lethal drug for euthanasia/assisted suicide, in addition to Plan B.

And then, let’s ask this. Let’s suppose you are not a pharmacist, but rather a car mechanic, or a sushi chef. And the Governor of Washington state passes a new law, forcing you the car mechanic to give deadly sulfuric acid to someone who wants to commit suicide. Or forcing you, the sushi chef, by law, to prepare a deadly meal from pufferfish to someone who wants to commit suicide.

Would you agree to kill someone, by law, if you were a car mechanic, or a sushi chef? Just because your state’s governor passed a law that tramples your professional ethics as a car mechanic, or as a sushi chef?

Or, what if you were a policeman, and that ***** Rod Blagojevich (IL) or Christine Gregoire (WA) passed a law forcing you that you had to pull your pistol and dispatch anyone with a bullet to the head, if they requested to be killed by “assisted suicide”? Wouldn’t you be outraged, as a policeman? Wouldn’t you refuse to kill a senior citizen, if he/she or family members requested that you kill him/her? Don’t you have your own profession’s rules of conduct, your own professional ethics, that you will refuse to trespass, even if some nuthead governor wanted to force you to do so?

So then, if you as a car mechanic, sushi chef, or policeman, have your own professional ethical standards that you follow, how come I as a pharmacist am expected to break my own professional-ethical standards? Shall I kill seniors because the governor thinks so, because he passed a law telling me that I should do it? Shall I kill babies by dispensing the abortive drug Plan B, just because a governor thinks that he can force me by law to go against the 2000+ year old ethical standards of my profession as a pharmacist?

And that kind of thinking which imagines that the person coming into my pharmacy and requesting an abortive drug somehow has “rights” to get them, is just plain ridiculous. That person requesting Plan B is not a patient, and he/she is not requesting a treatment, because killing babies does not qualify as treatment, according to the ethical standards of my profession. By the same logic, do I have a right to enter the Kosher restaurant, and demand pork? Do I have a right to enter the Halal/Muslim restaurant, and demand a beer? Do I have a right to enter the car mechanic’s shop, and demand a gallon of sulfuric acid? Can I demand the sushi chef to leave in the poisonous part of the puffer fish, and prepare some sushi that will kill me? Do I have a right to force the policeman to shoot me in the head and kill me, if I’m fed up with my life?

**I really think our college kids are out of their minds when they imagine that they have a “right” to force me to provide them with their birth control pills and Plan B, so that they can go and hook up, fornicate and have their one-night stands without consequences.

And the same goes for the married woman. Sorry, I’m not going to help you kill your child. **

 

[LemonAndLime]

Fine, rence, name some.
As many as possible.

I’ve been quietly researching a few examples for you catherina. Of course, as you are so sure that there are no situations in which the treatment of the mother leads to the death of the foetus apart from in ectopic pregnancies, I must assume you a medical/surgical professional who has worked for many years at an A&E, so you surely should know this already.

---

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.

Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. ** The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child**, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.

---

As the quoted paragraphs say - many doctors would recommend an abortion in this case but it is not necessary, however the much needed medication may lead to the death of the unborn - but it is permissable as the doctor is seeking to try and save both by saving the mother, taking the risk that the unborn may die. These situations include treatment for cancer, strong medication used to control seizures…

The human body is a very complicated thing. If the mother’s health is rapidly deteriorating, the body may spontaneously abort the unborn in order to preserve more energy to keep the mother alive. This may happen say after the mother has suffered extreme trauma - e.g. a car accident. That could trigger either labour or a miscarriage. It’s the same with medical treatment. If let’s say the mother was in a car accident and brought back to the hospital to be treated, during the process of surgery/the treatment of the mother the body may be under so much stress and pressure the foetus is aborted naturally or as a result of the treatment.

catherina, unless you are a medical professional yourself you cannot for certain say it is impossible for such situations to happen because you do not have first-hand experience.

 

[catharina]

I’ve been quietly researching a few examples for you catherina. Of course, as you are so sure that there are no situations in which the treatment of the mother leads to the death of the foetus apart from in ectopic pregnancies, I must assume you a medical/surgical professional who has worked for many years at an A&E, so you surely should know this already.

---

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. **If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary. **Yes - and you should stop right there.

Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. ** The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child**, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.

---

As the quoted paragraphs say - many doctors would recommend an abortion in this case but it is not necessary, however the much needed medication may lead to the death of the unborn - but it is permissable as the doctor is seeking to try and save both by saving the mother, taking the risk that the unborn may die. These situations include treatment for cancer, strong medication used to control seizures…

The human body is a very complicated thing. If the mother’s health is rapidly deteriorating, the body may spontaneously abort the unborn in order to preserve more energy to keep the mother alive. This may happen say after the mother has suffered extreme trauma - e.g. a car accident. That could trigger either labour or a miscarriage. It’s the same with medical treatment. If let’s say the mother was in a car accident and brought back to the hospital to be treated, during the process of surgery/the treatment of the mother the body may be under so much stress and pressure the foetus is aborted naturally or as a result of the treatment.

catherina, unless you are a medical professional yourself you cannot for certain say it is impossible for such situations to happen because you do not have first-hand experience.

**Here is a doctor who lived ** her first-hand experience. She is a canonized saint.

re Gianna Beretta Molla

**In September 1961, towards the end of the second month of pregnancy with her fourth child, Gianna had to make a heroic decision. Physicians diagnosed a serious fibroma in the uterus that required surgery. The surgeon suggested that Gianna undergo an abortion in order to save her own life. A few days before the child was due, she was ready to give her life in order to save that of her child: “If you must decide between me and the child, do not hesitate. Choose the child - I insist on it. Save the baby.”

On the morning of April 21, 1962, her daughter Gianna Emanuela was born. Despite all efforts and treatments to save both of them, on the morning of April 28, amid unspeakable pain and after repeated exclamations of “Jesus, I love you. Jesus, I love you,” the mother died. She was 39 years old. Her husband Pietro has described Gianna’s life as “an act and a perennial action of faith and charity; it was a non-stop search for the will of God for every decision and for every work, with prayer and meditation, Holy Mass and the Eucharist.”

On April 24, 1994, Pope John Paul II beatified Gianna Beretta Molla, mother of a family, in St. Peter’s Square in Rome. The Pope said that her witness was a hymn to life. At the beatification ceremony, the Holy Father said that Gianna’s action for life was possible only after a life of preparation.**

catholicinsight.com/online/saints/stmolla.shtml

That is the informed action expected of all Catholics.
Even doctors and nurses are expected to embrace this morality.
Even you. You have a lot to learn regarding pro-life action.

 

[LemonAndLime]

**Here is a doctor who lived ** her first-hand experience. She is a canonized saint.

re Gianna Beretta Molla

**In September 1961, towards the end of the second month of pregnancy with her fourth child, Gianna had to make a heroic decision. Physicians diagnosed a serious fibroma in the uterus that required surgery. The surgeon suggested that Gianna undergo an abortion in order to save her own life. A few days before the child was due, she was ready to give her life in order to save that of her child: “If you must decide between me and the child, do not hesitate. Choose the child - I insist on it. Save the baby.”

On the morning of April 21, 1962, her daughter Gianna Emanuela was born. Despite all efforts and treatments to save both of them, on the morning of April 28, amid unspeakable pain and after repeated exclamations of “Jesus, I love you. Jesus, I love you,” the mother died. She was 39 years old. Her husband Pietro has described Gianna’s life as “an act and a perennial action of faith and charity; it was a non-stop search for the will of God for every decision and for every work, with prayer and meditation, Holy Mass and the Eucharist.”

On April 24, 1994, Pope John Paul II beatified Gianna Beretta Molla, mother of a family, in St. Peter’s Square in Rome. The Pope said that her witness was a hymn to life. At the beatification ceremony, the Holy Father said that Gianna’s action for life was possible only after a life of preparation.**

catholicinsight.com/online/saints/stmolla.shtml

That is the informed action expected of all Catholics.
Even doctors and nurses are expected to embrace this morality.
Even you. You have a lot to learn regarding pro-life action.

Could you quote the part of the Catechism which requires me to refuse treatment, leading to my death so that my unborn child will live instead of me?

No Catholic woman is required to refuse life-saving treatment for herself so that the child may live but she may die. We may take treatment that may damage an unborn child if it is the only treatment possible and we will die otherwise, that is a fact as illistrated above.

In 1961, Gianna was once again expecting. During the second month, Gianna developed a fibroma on her uterus. After examination, the doctors gave her three choices: an abortion, a complete hysterectomy, or removal of only the fibroma. Though the Catholic Church forbids all direct abortion even when the woman’s life is in danger, Catholic teaching would have allowed her to undergo a hysterectomy, which would have resulted in her unborn child’s death as an unintended side-effect.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla

So no catherina, it is not required for all Catholics to make her choice.

 

[Suudy]

When the life of the mother is truly threatened by her pregnancy, if both lives cannot simultaneously be saved, then saving the mother’s life must be the primary aim. If through our careful treatment of the mother’s illness the pre-born patient inadvertently dies or is injured, this is tragic and, if unintentional, is not unethical and is consistent with the pro-life ethic. But the intentional killing of an unborn baby by abortion is never necessary.

Right. This is important. Yet this is what seems to be missing in the conversation in the discussion with Rence. Plan B, unless certain that ovulation has not occurred, is potentially putting an innocent human life in grave danger. Peter Kreeft, in his great talk on pro-life philosophy, presents a quadrilemma with regard to abortion. We can extend that to talk on Plan B.

Now, let’s take an objective premise: ovulation has occurred. Couple that with a subjective premise: we know that ovulation has occurred. With these two, there are four possibilites:

1. 
   *]Ovulation has occurred, and it is known.
   *]Ovulation has occurred, and it is not known.
   *]Ovulation has not occurred, and it is known.
   *]Ovulation has not occurred, and it is not known.
   
   Now, what is administering Plan B in each of these cases?
   1. 
      *]This is a potential abortion, and is contrary to the USCCB clarification on Plan B.
      *]This is also a potential abortion. At best, it is negligence. One might get lucky that conception never occurs
      *]This is the only permissible use of Plan B. There is no risk of an abortion.
      *]This is like #2. Since one doesn’t know whether ovulation has occurred, one cannot be sure that conception did not or will not occur. Again, at best this is negligence.
      
      Note that in #1, #2, and #4, the intended end is the prevention of pregnancy, regardless of the potential for conception. In #1, it is reckless. One sees the danger of the potential abortion and proceeds anyways. In #2 and #4, it is negligent.
      

      Most of what passes as a therapeutic, or medically-necessary abortion, is not necessary at all to save the mother’s life. For example, if a mother has breast cancer and requires immediate chemotherapy to survive that can kill the baby, the physician will frequently recommend a therapeutic abortion. Another example: if a mother has life-threatening seizures that can only be controlled by medication that will kill or severely deform her unborn child, the physician will frequently prescribe a therapeutic abortion. In both of these cases, the abortion is not necessary to protect the mother’s health. ** The necessary medication may injure or kill the pre-born child**, but this is no justification for intentionally killing the child. If the child is injured or dies from the medication prescribed to the mother to save her life, the injury was unintentional and, if truly medically necessary, not unethical.

      This is true. But this is all via the doctrine of double effect. Wikipedia has a decent writeup: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_effect.
      
      What is important to note is the follow conditions must hold:
      1. 
         *]The nature of the act must be good or at least morally neutral.
         *]The (known or predicted) bad end must not be the means to achieve the good end.
         *]The intended end must be the good end, and the bad end must be unintended.
         *]The good end must be proportional to the bad end.
         
         In the cases you listed, all had 1) good or morally neutral acts (chemo, medication, etc), 2) the bad end was not a means to achieve the good end (the predicted death of the child was not the means by which the mother was treated), 3) the intended end was a good end (chemo, medication to treat the mother) and the bad end was unintended (the harm to the child was not intended), and 4) the good end was proportional (saving the life of the mother is proportional to saving the life of the child).
         
         The problem with the Arizona hospital’s choice was that it directly violated #2 and #3 on the list. It was a bad (indeed, evil) end, and was the means to achieve the good end of saving the mothers life. And the bad end was intended. Apparently the ethics committee didn’t apply the principles taught as part of DDE, and instead “went with their guts” on the issue.
         

         catherina, unless you are a medical professional yourself you cannot for certain say it is impossible for such situations to happen because you do not have first-hand experience.

         As I understod her, she was saying there is never a situation that requires a direct, intended death to an unborn child.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Suudy:

As I understod her, she was saying there is never a situation that requires a direct, intended death to an unborn child.

She said earlier on in the thread that there was no situation in which the unborn child had to die to save the mother. I suggested ectopic pregnancies. She then said there was no other situation, and challenged us to list some more. I have. She has stopped responding to that point. But maybe that’s what she meant.

I found your post interesting by the way, we had a session in RCIA about this.

 

[estesbob]

Aha…a bit different story.

It was rather a stunning statement. You get used to Catholics telling you they voted fora pro-abortion politician because they think they are better on the other issues or the Republicans don’t care yada yada yada. But when one tells you they voted for the most pro-abortion president in history because they didn’t like Sarah Palin it literally takes your breath away.

 

[estesbob]

She said earlier on in the thread that there was no situation in which the unborn child had to die to save the mother. I suggested ectopic pregnancies. She then said there was no other situation, and challenged us to list some more. I have. She has stopped responding to that point. But maybe that’s what she meant.

I found your post interesting by the way, we had a session in RCIA about this.

Can you list some other situations? And in the case of ectopic pregnancy it is not a direct abortion. It is a surgical procedure that has a byproduct of killing the child. It is covered in Catholic teaching under the principle of double effect.

By the way-a week from today you will have completed your swim across Tiber . WELCOME WELCOME to the one true church!

 

[kimmielittle]

It was rather a stunning statement. You get used to Catholics telling you they voted fora pro-abortion politician because they think they are better on the other issues or the Republicans don’t care yada yada yada. But when one tells you they voted for the most pro-abortion president in history because they didn’t like Sarah Palin it literally takes your breath away.

Gotchas!! Thank you

 

[LemonAndLime]

Can you list some other situations? And in the case of ectopic pregnancy it is not a direct abortion. It is a surgical procedure that has a byproduct of killing the child. It is covered in Catholic teaching under the principle of double effect.

By the way-a week from today you will have completed your swim across Tiber . WELCOME WELCOME to the one true church!

I have already listed some - chemotherapy treatment, drugs commonly given to treat life-threatening epileptic seizures, trauma after a car accident may cause the woman to miscarry, go into labour or the stress of the treatment/drugs/surgery needed to save the mother may harm the unborn.

The Church may well be the authority on moral matters as far as I am concerned, but it is not the authority on medical nor are its followers unless they also have a medical background. There are situations in which a procedure intended to save the mother may damage the unborn other than ectopic pregnancies, it’s just that ectopic pregnancies are very common so that is the one most often used as an example.

Thank you very much! I am very excited, I can’t believe it’s next week the time has gone so quickly!

 

[kimmielittle]

I have already listed some - chemotherapy treatment, drugs commonly given to treat life-threatening epileptic seizures, trauma after a car accident may cause the woman to miscarry, go into labour or the stress of the treatment/drugs/surgery needed to save the mother may harm the unborn.

The Church may well be the authority on moral matters as far as I am concerned, but it is not the authority on medical nor are its followers unless they also have a medical background. There are situations in which a procedure intended to save the mother may damage the unborn other than ectopic pregnancies, it’s just that ectopic pregnancies are very common so that is the one most often used as an example.

You are studying to become a nurse - and you don’t understand the difference from direct and indirect?

Chemo may cause a miscarriage - but the intent is not to kill indirect ]. You don’t abort direct ] a baby so as to give chemo.

Ectopic Pregnancy are some times treated by removal of the fallopian tube and ovary may be damaged and will have to be removed…

Not a directed abortion

 

[Rence]

You are studying to become a nurse - and you don’t understand the difference from direct and indirect?

Why 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.

 

[catharina]

You are studying to become a nurse - and you don’t understand the difference from direct and indirect?

Chemo may cause a miscarriage - but the intent is not to kill indirect ]. You don’t abort direct ] a baby so as to give chemo.

Ectopic Pregnancy are some times treated by removal of the fallopian tube and ovary may be damaged and will have to be removed…

Not a directed abortion

I agree and that’s my point.
It is frightening to think that L&L does not seem to grasp the
difference between direct and indirect abortion. As for St. Gianna,
yes we are called to that level of self-sacrifice. Christianity is
all about self-sacrifice. Maybe one must be a mother to grasp that.

There is no way that one must be in medicine to grasp the fact
that ALL direct abortion is forbidden to every Catholic, (by any Catholic).

 

[catharina]

Why 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?

Because she claims to do so.
Yet it’s obvious she doesn’t.

That’s why posters continue to point out the difference to her!

 

[Rence]

I have already listed some - chemotherapy treatment, drugs commonly given to treat life-threatening epileptic seizures, trauma after a car accident may cause the woman to miscarry, go into labour or the stress of the treatment/drugs/surgery needed to save the mother may harm the unborn.

The Church may well be the authority on moral matters as far as I am concerned, but it is not the authority on medical nor are its followers unless they also have a medical background. There are situations in which a procedure intended to save the mother may damage the unborn other than ectopic pregnancies, it’s just that ectopic pregnancies are very common so that is the one most often used as an example.

Thank you very much! I am very excited, I can’t believe it’s next week the time has gone so quickly!

Absolutely!!! There are many misconceptions amoung Catholic laypeople about what is allowed and what is not allowed. Just seeing people banter back and forth bickering here about what is allowed and what is not allowed shows the lack of knowledge of the teachings of the Church amoung laypeople. In real life people have claimed to me that you can’t have chemo while pregnant, or you can’t take certain drugs while pregnant. I’ve had people tell me that they had to stop taking their category X blood pressure medications when pregnant and that they must switch to a non category X BP medication. My grandmother’s peers thought that treating a woman for ectopic pregnancy was against the rules of the Church for heaven’s sake! Look at here on this forum and you’ll find some people claim with absolute certainty that if you take contraception for medical reasons you have to abstain from having sex with your spouse, which is complete nonsense and is not a teaching of the Church.

I think that’s why Catholic hospitals used to have a priest on staff. Now some don’t have a priest there full time, or have non-Catholic chaplains there. And then of course, in a crisis situation, there may not be the time to call and consult your priest. I know that when my mom had a massive stroke in 2004, my priest was the furthest from my mind in the ER, and while she was being wheeled into surgery. The chaplain who was summoned to the ER by the nurses wasn’t even Catholic. I did have the clarity of mind to ask though…

Lay people are not all going to know all the rules, regulations and laws. And are not always going to be able to apply them in a crisis. That’s just life…

 

[catharina]

I have already listed some - chemotherapy treatment, drugs commonly given to treat life-threatening epileptic seizures, trauma after a car accident may cause the woman to miscarry, go into labour or the stress of the treatment/drugs/surgery needed to save the mother may harm the unborn.

The Church may well be the authority on moral matters as far as I am concerned, but it is not the authority on medical nor are its followers unless they also have a medical background. There are situations in which a procedure intended to save the mother may damage the unborn other than ectopic pregnancies, it’s just that ectopic pregnancies are very common so that is the one most often used as an example.

…

You still don’t grasp the difference between direct and indirect abortion.
Yet children are taught this, learn it and accept it.
Before you pitch a post that insists you are CORRECT, because you are ’
a nursing student, salute the flag of reality. Morality IS morality in any
and every profession. It’s that simple.

 

[catharina]

Lay people are not all going to know all the rules, regulations and laws. And are not always going to be able to apply them in a crisis. That’s just life……

Excuse me, rence, but that’s quite a diversion.
All Catholics are expected to know this “rule:”
NO direct abortions.

 

[kimmielittle]

Why 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.

I’m not a nursing student - I KNEW I’m just a kid that knows Catholic Teaching

 

[Rence]

Could you quote the part of the Catechism which requires me to refuse treatment, leading to my death so that my unborn child will live instead of me?

No Catholic woman is required to refuse life-saving treatment for herself so that the child may live but she may die. We may take treatment that may damage an unborn child if it is the only treatment possible and we will die otherwise, that is a fact as illistrated above.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla

So no catherina, it is not required for all Catholics to make her choice.

That is correct LemenAndLime: no Catholic woman is required by the Church to refuse life-saving treatment for herself, even while pregnant. She can wait, if she chooses to wait. However, the Church does not require that the woman wait for treatment if her doctor determines she cannot wait.

For example, having a cancerous/diseased/damaged uterus removed, even while pregnant, falls under the principle of double effect. This is because the removal of the cancerous/diseased/damaged uterus is the primary intervention and is an indirect abortion according to Church teaching. She can wait, if she chooses. But the Church doesn’t not require her to wait. She can go ahead and get that needed treatment to treat her disorder.
However, If they were to only remove the fetus and then otherwise treat the uterus, this is forbidden by the Church, because the primary intervention would be removal of the fetus, and this is a “direct” abortion by the Church’s teachings.

For tubal pregancy, the principle of double effect allows for removal of the affected fallopian tube. The removal of the tube is primary. The fact that there is a fetus in the tube is secondary. Therefore removal of the tube is an ‘indirect’ abortion according to the teachings of the Church. We are not required by the Church to wait until the woman is bleeding out on the floor of the ER to give this intervention either. Once a diagnosis is confirmed, she can receive treatment.

However, the use of methotrexate to flush a fetus out from the tube is not permissible according to the rules of the Church because the primary action in this case would be on the fetus iteself. Therefore this would be a “direct” abortion according to the teachings of the Church. The Church also forbids cutting the fetus out of the tube, and attempting to repair the tube. Again, this is considered a “direct” abortion according to the rules of the Church because the primary intervention is removing the fetus. Removing the fetus itself cannot be a primary intervention according to the rules of the Church.