Induced delivery for placental abruption morally licit?

[HomeschoolDad]

If the placenta abrupts, either totally or partially, such that no remedy is possible (assuming placentas cannot be reattached), may the unborn child (along with the placenta) be delivered alive via induced labor, even though it can be foreseen that the child is not viable and will die immediately after being delivered?

And what would be the alternatives?

I read of a tragic case of this in the news, though out of deference to the family’s loss — a loss my wife and I shared, though much earlier in the pregnancy — I will not identify them, and I think it would only be a kindness and a courtesy for nobody else to identify them either. We are discussing moral principles, not personalities.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

My understanding, as a layman with no medical training, is that in this case the child is almost certain to die in either case. If labor is not induced, the mother may well also die.

Given that, it seems morally licit, since the intention is not to kill the child. If the child somehow survived, that would be a win, although everyone understands it’s incredibly unlikely.

Basically, double effect.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

My understanding, as a layman with no medical training, is that in this case the child is almost certain to die in either case. If labor is not induced, the mother may well also die.

Given that, it seems morally licit, since the intention is not to kill the child. If the child somehow survived, that would be a win, although everyone understands it’s incredibly unlikely.

Basically, double effect.

I would think the same thing, however, I have to wonder if there are those who would say “no, inducing labor would be a direct abortion because the child is still alive, even though the placenta is basically destroyed, you have to let nature take its course, let the child die in utero, then induce a miscarriage — if the mother is dying in the meantime, well, let’s cross that bridge when we get to it”.

This is hairsplitting that no one except faithful, orthodox Catholics would engage in. Nonetheless, we are the one true Church, our doctrines are the only sure moral guide for all things — I’m not being sarcastic, I live a dry martyrdom trying to live those teachings, when cutting corners could make my life so much easier, if you don’t count that hard stop at the end — and if we make distinctions that the rest of the world doesn’t make, it’s up to them to conform to the truth, it’s not up to us to change to suit them.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I’d defer to someone with more specialized knowledge than myself, but given that the intent is not to kill the baby, I don’t see how double effect wouldn’t apply.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I’d defer to someone with more specialized knowledge than myself, but given that the intent is not to kill the baby, I don’t see how double effect wouldn’t apply.

I would welcome someone else’s (name removed by moderator)ut as well, not that I don’t value yours, I just question mine.

The only problem here seems to be, that as long as the child is not directly killed, you could justify any sort of early delivery, whether viable or not, under the rubric of “we hope the baby lives, even though we know it probably won’t, but this is not a direct abortion, because we’re trying to deliver it alive, instead of assaulting its body in the ways an abortion is usually carried out”.

I’m probably entirely wrong to think this, but that could then open the door for any non-assaulting termination of pregnancy, regardless of stage of that pregnancy, by saying “our goal is to preserve the life or health of the mother which is under assault itself by the pregnancy — if the child dies as a result of being delivered, that’s tragic, but it’s a case of double effect”.

 

[Horton]

If the placenta abrupts, either totally or partially, such that no remedy is possible (assuming placentas cannot be reattached), may the unborn child (along with the placenta) be delivered alive via induced labor, even though it can be foreseen that the child is not viable and will die immediately after being delivered?

And what would be the alternatives?

This happened to my daughter-in-law with one of my grandsons. She was placed on strict bed rest for the rest of her pregnancy and at one point they wanted to hospitalize her for the rest of her pregnancy just so they could work quickly to save both her and the baby.

I moved in with them to take care of her, my son, my older grandson, and house. She was able to go to 36 weeks and delivered a healthy baby boy who is seven years old now.

It was a scary time, my older grandson was a micro preemie and the thought of going through that again was difficult to think about. Of course we would have done whatever God willed, but God was good.

 

[F_Marturana]

I had a partial placental abruption with my last child. It was very scary. My doctor explained there isn’t anything that can be done other than delivery of the baby.

It could be fatal for both mother and child.

My son was 3 months premature. He ended up in the NICU for almost three month. In his first few days he had 4 transfusions.

 

[F_Marturana]

no, inducing labor would be a direct abortion because the child is still alive, even though the placenta is basically destroyed, you have to let nature take its course, let the child die in utero , then induce a miscarriage

No. Inducing labor isn’t an abortion. There is the possibility the baby survives.

An abortion is a direct attack on the baby. Labor induction isn’t a direct attack.