F
FCEGM
Guest
When the tube is also removed, the direct intent is not to kill the baby (even though it will die); when the baby only is removed, then the direct intent is to kill the baby, i.e., an abortion.
- Status
L
Linnyo
Guest
Nobody was suggesting that Anni was pro-abortion. Most people think that church doctrine is failing to take into account that medical science has developed. Therefore we are not criticising Anni but rather the rules of the Church. I totally agree that she had no choice but if I was in the same situation, I would do exactly as she did.
L
Linnyo
Guest
No the direct intent is still to keep the mother alive!
T
TAS2000
Guest
Annibc, first of all, no one is guaranteed that they will have any children, even with 2 perfect tubes. You may have some, you may not. The point you seem to be missing is that continued fertility in any way has NOTHING to do with the moral arguement. For the morality of the action has nothing to do with fertility being destroyed or saved. It has to do with the life of the child.
I will try to present some more details of why this is considered so. What we are talking about is Double-Effect. That is a theological position that states a good act can have a bad side effect, but that doesn’t make the act bad. The part that gets tricky is that people tend to reverse this so that a BAD act that has a good effect becomes good. That is against church teaching. Bad acts can never be done, even for good to come of them. The short version is that directly killing the child by removing it alone is inherently a bad act. There is nothing wrong with the child itself so removing it to leave it to die is a bad thing. If they could remove it and put it where it belongs, or in a incubator until is grows up, then that would be good.
So why is removing the tube considered good? Well the difference is first that the tube is not a person, and doesn’t have any sort of inherent rights. It is a part of the mother. In an ectopic pregnancy the child has usually gotten attached someplace in the tube. The tube was not designed for this, so it starts to bleed and break open. This is what threatens the mothers life. Here is where it gets a bit tricky. With current medical limitations, all ectopics will end in the death of the baby, but as mapleoak has pointed out, many would also resolve themselves naturally, with no real danger to the mother. However, it is also very possible that people are unaware of the ectopic until it has reached a time critical stage (rush to the hospital, the mother is in danger). Thus, many doctors will pre-emptively try to avoid the possibility, before it even exists, simply because they know the child has no chance anyway. This is what is wrong. Hastening or even directly casuing the child’s death in order to avoid the mere possibility of danger to the mother is wrong. In most cases where the tube has started bleeding and begun to rupture the child is still alive and growing, which is what is causing the rupture. Thus you are directly killing the child by removing it, even if you are doing it for a good reason, namely to save the mother. Bad act with good end does not equal good act.
So again, why is it ok then if you remove the tube? Well, removing a bleeding, broken tube is not in anyway a bad act; it is a good act. But by doing so you will certainly kill the child, which is attached to that tube. Everyone knows this, it isn’t like surprise! you happened to kill the baby too. But we do not have any option that will save the baby. If we did, we would be morally obligated to take it. Since we can not either sit by and just let the mother die, we have to do SOMETHING to treat her. And simply, there are no other options that anyone knows of that will save her, and you simply must stop the bleeding, so you either remove the ruptured part of the tube, or the enitre tube, depending on your choice and that of the physician. I don’t know of any other way to repair the damaged tube and not hurt the baby, because the baby is always right where the rupture is and so small that any treatment will kill it along with accomplishing the treatment. Thus treating the wounded tube is a medical therapy (good act), even though it has a bad effect (killing the baby), even though everyone knew that it would happen. Again, if there were ANY option where the life of the child and the mother could be saved, we would be morally obligated to take it, and then removing the tube and baby would become morally wrong.
Personnaly, I would opt for removing the entire tube rather then sewing it back together, but that is a personnal choice. Research has shown that having had an ectopic greatly increases chances of future ectopics. It is only logical; there was a small flaw in the tube that the baby caught on in the first place. By attaching and growing there, it made the flaw/scar tissue/irreguality even larger so that next time around the baby has an even greater chance of getting caught again. Thus you end up going through more painful episodes of having the surgery, or knowingly talking drugs to directly abort the child. That is too high a risk for me. But for others, they might choose to try to repair the tube, and there is nothign wrong with that.
I will try to present some more details of why this is considered so. What we are talking about is Double-Effect. That is a theological position that states a good act can have a bad side effect, but that doesn’t make the act bad. The part that gets tricky is that people tend to reverse this so that a BAD act that has a good effect becomes good. That is against church teaching. Bad acts can never be done, even for good to come of them. The short version is that directly killing the child by removing it alone is inherently a bad act. There is nothing wrong with the child itself so removing it to leave it to die is a bad thing. If they could remove it and put it where it belongs, or in a incubator until is grows up, then that would be good.
So why is removing the tube considered good? Well the difference is first that the tube is not a person, and doesn’t have any sort of inherent rights. It is a part of the mother. In an ectopic pregnancy the child has usually gotten attached someplace in the tube. The tube was not designed for this, so it starts to bleed and break open. This is what threatens the mothers life. Here is where it gets a bit tricky. With current medical limitations, all ectopics will end in the death of the baby, but as mapleoak has pointed out, many would also resolve themselves naturally, with no real danger to the mother. However, it is also very possible that people are unaware of the ectopic until it has reached a time critical stage (rush to the hospital, the mother is in danger). Thus, many doctors will pre-emptively try to avoid the possibility, before it even exists, simply because they know the child has no chance anyway. This is what is wrong. Hastening or even directly casuing the child’s death in order to avoid the mere possibility of danger to the mother is wrong. In most cases where the tube has started bleeding and begun to rupture the child is still alive and growing, which is what is causing the rupture. Thus you are directly killing the child by removing it, even if you are doing it for a good reason, namely to save the mother. Bad act with good end does not equal good act.
So again, why is it ok then if you remove the tube? Well, removing a bleeding, broken tube is not in anyway a bad act; it is a good act. But by doing so you will certainly kill the child, which is attached to that tube. Everyone knows this, it isn’t like surprise! you happened to kill the baby too. But we do not have any option that will save the baby. If we did, we would be morally obligated to take it. Since we can not either sit by and just let the mother die, we have to do SOMETHING to treat her. And simply, there are no other options that anyone knows of that will save her, and you simply must stop the bleeding, so you either remove the ruptured part of the tube, or the enitre tube, depending on your choice and that of the physician. I don’t know of any other way to repair the damaged tube and not hurt the baby, because the baby is always right where the rupture is and so small that any treatment will kill it along with accomplishing the treatment. Thus treating the wounded tube is a medical therapy (good act), even though it has a bad effect (killing the baby), even though everyone knew that it would happen. Again, if there were ANY option where the life of the child and the mother could be saved, we would be morally obligated to take it, and then removing the tube and baby would become morally wrong.
Personnaly, I would opt for removing the entire tube rather then sewing it back together, but that is a personnal choice. Research has shown that having had an ectopic greatly increases chances of future ectopics. It is only logical; there was a small flaw in the tube that the baby caught on in the first place. By attaching and growing there, it made the flaw/scar tissue/irreguality even larger so that next time around the baby has an even greater chance of getting caught again. Thus you end up going through more painful episodes of having the surgery, or knowingly talking drugs to directly abort the child. That is too high a risk for me. But for others, they might choose to try to repair the tube, and there is nothign wrong with that.
J
jc-servant
Guest
A fallopian tube is not made to carry a baby to term. Period. I don’t see how anyone can try to use the same arguments as those applied when a fetus in in the uterus where it might have some chance at birth, even a billion to one. In a tube the inevitable outcome is that the tube will burst if the doctor waits long enough and no one survives. I would love to find info that even one child made it to term in a tube, but I know that it is not likely.
I think that well-meaning people have tried to extrapolate their positions from the official church documents on the subject, but in reality these articles are still just sincerely reasoned opinions. If the Pope tells me I’m wrong then I will jump in line. In the meantime, I am not going to label a surgeon an abortionist for removing a fetus from a fallopian tube where it had zero chance at being born. Removing the otherwise healthy tube just to have a chance at arguing that removing the fetus was not the goal is ridiculous.
I think that well-meaning people have tried to extrapolate their positions from the official church documents on the subject, but in reality these articles are still just sincerely reasoned opinions. If the Pope tells me I’m wrong then I will jump in line. In the meantime, I am not going to label a surgeon an abortionist for removing a fetus from a fallopian tube where it had zero chance at being born. Removing the otherwise healthy tube just to have a chance at arguing that removing the fetus was not the goal is ridiculous.
S
Socio_Momma
Guest
I am wondering if really Annibc had a ruptured tube (bleeding in the stomach is a classic sign & fits her description) and in these cases the options are to remove either the entire tube with embryo (salpingectomy ) or only the portion of tube damaged with embryo (segmental resection). Both are morally acceptable and save the mother’s life, neither has the direct intent of ending the embryo’s life in order to perserve mother’s fertility in addition to her life.
The segmental resection during a rupture seems to be what Annibc might be describing in her OP (with the bleeding and possibility of repair to the fallopian tube with the ectopic pregnancy present). If the tube has already ruptured then a laparotomy (bigger incision) is also done.
Procedues that are also used to treat ectopic pregnancy: “squeezing” it out the tube (fimbrial expression) giving medication known as methotrexate to directly cause the embryo’s death, or simply cutting into the tube in order to remove the embryo (salpingotomy). These are all directly ending the embryo’s life & this is what is not permissible because the intent is not just saving mother’s life,but directly ending the embryo’s life to perserve fertility (unless in the cases of fimbrial expression or salpingotomy the embryo died already in the fallopian tube).
As for cases where ectopic pregnancies have survived to term, there are a few but they are extremely rare. Discovery health actually did feature a show with one of these cases & the baby did survive (extremely rare). Some ectopic pregnancies also need no treatment as they resolve themselves, the mother’s body reasorbs after a miscarriage.
There is some research being done that may allow for transplanting the embryo alive from the tube to the uterus. One can only pray this will be a success sooner than later for all those who are suffer this diagnosis
All in all this is why I believe seeking counsel from a Priest is best in any of these cases since he can help Annibc (or any woman in this situation) to move forward with Christ. I don’t think we on an internet forum can really offer all that is necessary, kwim? It may also be that for you (Annibc) there is really nothing to worry about with the medical procedure that was used. Yet, still there is equally a great deal of pain to heal from & a Priest can offer that counsel to help you heal in Christ.
**disclaimer: While I spend a great deal of time in academic research on women’s reproductive health (in my profession) I am not an MD. I am also not a thelogian. If I have made an error in the medical or theological explanations of the procedures please correct/clarify.
The segmental resection during a rupture seems to be what Annibc might be describing in her OP (with the bleeding and possibility of repair to the fallopian tube with the ectopic pregnancy present). If the tube has already ruptured then a laparotomy (bigger incision) is also done.
Procedues that are also used to treat ectopic pregnancy: “squeezing” it out the tube (fimbrial expression) giving medication known as methotrexate to directly cause the embryo’s death, or simply cutting into the tube in order to remove the embryo (salpingotomy). These are all directly ending the embryo’s life & this is what is not permissible because the intent is not just saving mother’s life,but directly ending the embryo’s life to perserve fertility (unless in the cases of fimbrial expression or salpingotomy the embryo died already in the fallopian tube).
As for cases where ectopic pregnancies have survived to term, there are a few but they are extremely rare. Discovery health actually did feature a show with one of these cases & the baby did survive (extremely rare). Some ectopic pregnancies also need no treatment as they resolve themselves, the mother’s body reasorbs after a miscarriage.
There is some research being done that may allow for transplanting the embryo alive from the tube to the uterus. One can only pray this will be a success sooner than later for all those who are suffer this diagnosis
All in all this is why I believe seeking counsel from a Priest is best in any of these cases since he can help Annibc (or any woman in this situation) to move forward with Christ. I don’t think we on an internet forum can really offer all that is necessary, kwim? It may also be that for you (Annibc) there is really nothing to worry about with the medical procedure that was used. Yet, still there is equally a great deal of pain to heal from & a Priest can offer that counsel to help you heal in Christ.
**disclaimer: While I spend a great deal of time in academic research on women’s reproductive health (in my profession) I am not an MD. I am also not a thelogian. If I have made an error in the medical or theological explanations of the procedures please correct/clarify.
F
FCEGM
Guest
There are two direct intents:No the direct intent is still to keep the mother alive!
- To save the mother.
- To directly remove the baby to do so. (An immoral intent) The intent is NOT to save the mother by removing the tube with the loss of the baby as a consequence. (A moral intent).
T
TAS2000
Guest
But again, a pssionate feeling is interfering with reasoned thought.
This is not correct. There is a very good chance that it will resolve itself naturally without bursting if the doctor waits, and I speak from experience that even if the tube does burst, you STILL have a good chance at survival, as long as you get good care in a timely manner. This is one reason why it is wrong to remove the baby before its natural time to die, just as it is wrong to kill a terminally ill person to spare them suffering.
Absoluetly agrreed! But the problem is that you shouldn’t be removing a healthy tube! If the tube is not damged and is in fact perfectly healthy, then to remove it is wrong too. However, it is morally acceptable to remove a damaged tube to save the mother. And the finer points of the argument would say that the tube was damaged or flawed in the first place or the ectopic would not have occured. This is where it is open for some interpretation in the absence of definitive medical truth. If the tube is damaged, casuing the ectopic, but not completely ruptured, some would say it was still ok to remove the tube ahead of time. Others would argue that until it becomes actually imminent (starting to bleed, etc), you shouldn’t act. We are limited by our current knowledge, so this is somewhat open. Personnally, I would NOT advocate waiting as long as I did, (till you are close to death) but I didn’t do that on purpose, it just happened. Which is again, why some doctors want to “take care of it” as soon as they discover it, rather than wait and see. But we do know that no matter what, we are not allowed to directly kill another living innocnet person. Removing just the baby is an act that is directly upon the baby, which makes it wrong. Even if the end is good for the mother, it isn’t allowed.
A
Annibc
Guest
Thanx Peri, I could not agree with you more. However, there seem to be dissagreement on how binding the Church opinion is on this subject.
To Tas2000.
I have to tell you that I am completely grateful that MY tube was saved. The doctor told me that the way it is now there is only a minimal chance that a sperm cell could ever come in there. But he chose to save it because 1) If there should be a worse complication with the other tube, the first tube, though operated on once, actually could be restored to perfect function later on, through plastic surgery. 2) The doctor made me aware that two eggleaders are important for every woman’s hormone balance.
To Tas2000.
I have to tell you that I am completely grateful that MY tube was saved. The doctor told me that the way it is now there is only a minimal chance that a sperm cell could ever come in there. But he chose to save it because 1) If there should be a worse complication with the other tube, the first tube, though operated on once, actually could be restored to perfect function later on, through plastic surgery. 2) The doctor made me aware that two eggleaders are important for every woman’s hormone balance.
D
duskyjewel
Guest
After having read through the rest of the thread, now I have another question. We are required, by Church teaching, to actually risk our lives by WAITING until the tube ruptures before any intervention? Even if we know that the pregnancy is ectopic, say by ultrasound undertaken because of pain, we have to wait unitl the tube actually ruptures to do something about it? Even though we know the pregnancy has no chance to survive and that the tube cannot support the growth and therefore WILL rupture? We must risk the mother bleeding to death in order to avoid being parties to a direct abortion?
Again…this just seems ridiculous. If this is true, I am having major issues here, because I never once before had the idea that the Church was calling me to be stupid. I have five children to raise now…there is no way I would purposely risk my life in an ectopic situation, in order to follow a rule. They need me. The whole thing seems to me absurd, and I reassert that it looks like a case of the thinking not keeping up with medical possibilities. I agree that medical treatment and technology needs to be undertaken in a moral manner, in accordance with Church teaching (when we know what it is and understand it). But I also think that if the Church is going to teach on these issues, then sometimes the thought itself needs to be reexamined and brought into line with what is possible. I am not saying moral teachings need to be changed, but that some of this argument seems to be dealing with an earlier time when it wasn’t possible to know about ectopic pregnancy before it became catastrophic or to repair the tube after it had been damaged.
Again…this just seems ridiculous. If this is true, I am having major issues here, because I never once before had the idea that the Church was calling me to be stupid. I have five children to raise now…there is no way I would purposely risk my life in an ectopic situation, in order to follow a rule. They need me. The whole thing seems to me absurd, and I reassert that it looks like a case of the thinking not keeping up with medical possibilities. I agree that medical treatment and technology needs to be undertaken in a moral manner, in accordance with Church teaching (when we know what it is and understand it). But I also think that if the Church is going to teach on these issues, then sometimes the thought itself needs to be reexamined and brought into line with what is possible. I am not saying moral teachings need to be changed, but that some of this argument seems to be dealing with an earlier time when it wasn’t possible to know about ectopic pregnancy before it became catastrophic or to repair the tube after it had been damaged.
K
kage_ar
Guest
Dusky -
In the off chance an ectopic was diagnosed before it became critical (I had an ultrasound several days before mine ruptured because I had severe pain. They did not catch the ectopic, it ruptured less than a week later.)
What we are required to do is have the doctor treat the problem, removing the tube or the portion of the tube. Moral Theologians tell us we cannot have the doc just open the tube and take out the baby.
In the off chance an ectopic was diagnosed before it became critical (I had an ultrasound several days before mine ruptured because I had severe pain. They did not catch the ectopic, it ruptured less than a week later.)
What we are required to do is have the doctor treat the problem, removing the tube or the portion of the tube. Moral Theologians tell us we cannot have the doc just open the tube and take out the baby.
B
boppaid
Guest
Actually, this is incorrect. The tube does not kill…the embryo growing inside the tube does when it bursts.
R
rayne89
Guest
Can you explain this further?Actually, this is incorrect. The tube does not kill…the embryo growing inside the tube does when it bursts.
R
rayne89
Guest
No you do not have to wait, infact you most certainly you should not wait. The part of the tube that is problematic should be removed before it ruptures if at all possible.
B
boppaid
Guest
Sure. A perfectly healthy tube will not hurt a woman. An embryo rupturing within a tube will hurt the woman. Is this not correct?
R
rayne89
Guest
Yes but the embryo isn’t the problem it’s the tube rupturing that’s the problem. The rupture of the tube causes the internal bleeding -the baby isn’t hemmoraging the tube is.
L
Linnyo
Guest
Ah…but what is causing the tube to rupture? It certainly wouldn’t rupture if the embryo hadn’t implanted in it. It is sad either way but it has to be dealt with
B
boppaid
Guest
Without the embryo, the tube wouldn’t rupture. The tube is not the problem. The embryo, which is doomed to die, is what could eventually kill the mother should the embryo be left in the tube to grow.
V
vester444
Guest
I guess this is my question…has this EXACT issue been SPECIFICALLY addressed by the Catholic Church - or are we sort of just exponentially taking from context of certain proclamations what we beleive should happen?
I think that IVF and this situation are frankly TOTALLY different.
IVF is a elective choice. An ectopic pregnancy is not.
While I see the other posters point, I disagree that the foundation of their argument is same between IVF and ectopic pregnancy.
I dont think this is an “end justifies the means” issue. While I completely and whole heartedly understand the argument being made, it does not make sense to me.
The Catholic church has allowed “ice babies.” These are babies that are embreyos that for whatever reason (wrong) have been put on “ice” and frozen. Now, TECHNICALLY IVF is wrong. But in this case, although the original act of putting them on ice was wrong, and the act of IVF is wrong, in this case, the Catholic church is saying that it will bring life and is the more pro-life action.
I see that if marriage is supposed to be open to children, and that is a sacrament that you take, that you should do what you can to ensure that happens.
I am curious to know what people think of the above scenario and how it relates to this case. I think they are much more in line with each other than just talking about IVF, etc.
Vester
I think that IVF and this situation are frankly TOTALLY different.
IVF is a elective choice. An ectopic pregnancy is not.
While I see the other posters point, I disagree that the foundation of their argument is same between IVF and ectopic pregnancy.
I dont think this is an “end justifies the means” issue. While I completely and whole heartedly understand the argument being made, it does not make sense to me.
The Catholic church has allowed “ice babies.” These are babies that are embreyos that for whatever reason (wrong) have been put on “ice” and frozen. Now, TECHNICALLY IVF is wrong. But in this case, although the original act of putting them on ice was wrong, and the act of IVF is wrong, in this case, the Catholic church is saying that it will bring life and is the more pro-life action.
I see that if marriage is supposed to be open to children, and that is a sacrament that you take, that you should do what you can to ensure that happens.
I am curious to know what people think of the above scenario and how it relates to this case. I think they are much more in line with each other than just talking about IVF, etc.
Vester
M
mesquite_magic
Guest
I think this is an excellent topic, but it probably needs it’s own section. You might want to repost, or ask a moderator to move it.
Kim
- Status