Ill. judge throws out rule on contraception

[Rence]

I’m not a nursing student - I KNEW

You knew because you read it here, not because of your exceptional nursing capabilities. That’s no reason to criticize the nursing competency of a nursing student as if it was expected that she know about it. The principle of double effect, and the teachings about direct and indirect abortion are exclusively Catholic teachings. It’s not reasonable to expect secular schools to teach about it. And they don’t teach about it. I doubt Catholic nursing schools are teaching about it as well.

 

[catharina]

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.

Perhaps this statement will make it clear enough.

 

[kimmielittle]

You knew because you read it here, not because of your exceptional nursing capabilities. That’s no reason to criticize the nursing competency of a nursing student as if it was expected that she know about it. The principle of double effect, and the teachings about direct and indirect abortion are exclusively Catholic teachings. It’s not reasonable to expect secular schools to teach about it. And they don’t teach about it. I doubt Catholic nursing schools are teaching about it as well.

Actually, Rence…it wouldn’t make a difference if I were Atheist.

Someplace along the line - a moral compass exists.

Please step down off your horse.

 

[catharina]

**You knew because you read it here, not because of your exceptional nursing capabilities. **

Really, rence, an IMPOSSIBLE conclusion!
Could you be more minimizing of another or more offensive?

My guess is kimmie knows because she is CATHOLIC.

 

[catharina]

Actually, Rence…it wouldn’t make a difference if I were Atheist.

Someplace along the line - a moral compass exists.

Please step off your horse.

Correct. Many athiests reach the same conclusion.
If rence believes that CA is the Holy Grail … well …

 

[Rence]

You just made my point: Your example is: A doctor who gives instruction to trainee nurses in a Catholic hospice. I would expect no less in a Catholic hospice. There was no such teaching about “double effect” and “indirect or direct abortion”, or other “in accordance to the Catholic Church” teachings in any of my classes or any of my text books. My text books are not just used in my particular school, but in random schools across the country.

 

[Rence]

Actually, Rence…it wouldn’t make a difference if I were Atheist.

Someplace along the line - a moral compass exists.

Well of course it wouldn’t have made a difference if you were an Atheist You don’t need to be pro-life to be Catholic. But the fact is, secular nursing schools don’t teach Catholic canon as part of their curriculum, and I’m doubting many Catholic nursing schools do as well. So L&L wouldn’t be taught in nursing school about the principles of double effect or about ‘indirect’ vs ‘direct’ abortion as taught according to the rules of the Catholic Church. So calling her nursing competency to question because of her lack of knowledge regarding these Church teachings is a bit unfair due to the very fact that it’s not part of the standard curriculim. IMOHO, I think it would be more positive and definitely more constructive, to just teach her about them so she knows

 

[Rence]

Well that would be a really good research project for you, and an act of mercy: to find out how many Catholic nursing schools are teaching the principles of double effect, the differences about direct and direct abortion as taught by the Church, and of course, NFP. I think that would be a very important part of their curriculum, and I’m sure many Catholics would agree

The reason why I know that these teachings aren’t taught in my area at all is because of conversations with other nurses about these teachings. None of them know these teachings regardless of which school they attended and when they graduated

 

[kimmielittle]

You just made my point: Your example is: A doctor who gives instruction to trainee nurses in a Catholic hospice. I would expect no less in a Catholic hospice. There was no such teaching about “double effect” and “indirect or direct abortion”, or other “in accordance to the Catholic Church” teachings in any of my classes or any of my text books. My text books are not just used in my particular school, but in random schools across the country.

Did you look under medical ethics? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics

Surely, you were taught these?

One is the Principle of Double Effect…

 

[kimmielittle]

Well of course it wouldn’t have made a difference if you were an Atheist You don’t need to be pro-life to be Catholic. But the fact is, secular nursing schools don’t teach Catholic canon as part of their curriculum, and I’m doubting many Catholic nursing schools do as well. So L&L wouldn’t be taught in nursing school about the principles of double effect or about ‘indirect’ vs ‘direct’ abortion as taught according to the rules of the Catholic Church. So calling her nursing competency to question because of her lack of knowledge regarding these Church teachings is a bit unfair due to the very fact that it’s not part of the standard curriculim. IMOHO, I think it would be more positive and definitely more constructive, to just teach her about them so she knows

They DO teach Medical Ethics at secular universities.

One is the Principle of Double Effect.

Makes me wonder: How much more have you gotten wrong?

 

[Rence]

Did you look under medical ethics? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_ethics

Surely, you were taught these?

One is the Double Effect…

Of course, but according to the civil LAW — not according to Catholic teaching. Believe it or not, there is a vast difference. We of course learned about medications and their use in terminally ill patients. That’s standard. Applying Double Effect to Catholic teachings is not taught in secular nursing schools.

Another example, if a patient is competent, and refuses treatment, such as refusing a feeding tube, or refusing a ventilator, or a blood transfusion, the patient’s rights are paramount, and the nurse or doctor may not force such “required” treatment on the patient, regardless of their religious views. It is unlawful to force a treatment on a competent patient who refuses treatment. It doesn’t matter what the Church teaches. Catholic or not, you can’t force a feeding tube, ventilator or any other treament, on a patient who declines it.

 

[LemonAndLime]

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.

I do know the difference between direct and indirect abortion, it is you who seems to be struggling - with the knowledge that indirect abortions as a result of the treatment of the mother can happen.

Also, you seem to ignore a lot of my posts. Our conversation seems to be a back-and-forth where you make an accusation/challenge, I answer it, and then you ignore it and move onto something else you disagree with. It would be nice if you recognised the entirety of my post. I can only assume that my posts have been satisfactory in proving my point/answering your questions e.g. whether situations in which indirect abortions can happen to save the mother - you never responded to my examples. Can I assume from that that I was correct so you decided to move on?

 

[Rence]

They DO teach Medical Ethics at secular universities.

One is the Principle of Double Effect.

Makes me wonder: How much more have you gotten wrong?

Yes, they teach medical ethics at secular universities…but NOT as they apply to Catholic teachings. The Principle of Double Effect as applied to Catholc teachings is not taught. Otherwise, contraceptives and abortions wouldn’t be legal

 

[LemonAndLime]

They DO teach Medical Ethics at secular universities.

One is the Principle of Double Effect.

Makes me wonder: How much more have you gotten wrong?

I’m a nursing student and we do learn medical ethics, including double effect.

 

[catharina]

IMOHO, I think it would be more positive and definitely more constructive, to just teach her about them so she knows

Right and you could have done so about 200 posts ago.
I have done so without ceasing.

 

[kimmielittle]

I’m a nursing student and we do learn medical ethics, including double effect.

Yeppers!!! I knew it was

 

[catharina]

I do know the difference between direct and indirect abortion, it is you who seems to be struggling - with the knowledge that indirect abortions as a result of the treatment of the mother can happen.

Also, you seem to ignore a lot of my posts. Our conversation seems to be a back-and-forth where you make an accusation/challenge, I answer it, and then you ignore it and move onto something else you disagree with. It would be nice if you recognised the entirety of my post. I can only assume that my posts have been satisfactory in proving my point/answering your questions e.g. whether situations in which indirect abortions can happen to save the mother - you never responded to my examples. Can I assume from that that I was correct so you decided to move on?

Ignore your posts? No - but why should I respond to
every single one wherein you contradict yourself?

So you grasp the difference between direct and indirect abortion? Yippee.
You could have said so about 200 posts ago! Why didn’t you?

You think you’re qualified to teach Catholic morality to the Catholics here?
I think not.

 

[Rence]

I’m a nursing student and we do learn medical ethics, including double effect.

Wow, what school do you attend? I’m surprised they teach medical ethics and double effect according to Catholic Church teachings. Most schools exclusively teach medical ethics and double effect according to civil law.

 

[catharina]

Agreed - all the more reason why
she should seem willing to learn, not to TEACH.

YET
the truly merciless thing would be to
allow her confusion and errors to stand

 

[LemonAndLime]

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

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: