Principle of Double Effect and Abortion

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. If I understand correctly, the principle of double effect allows for a damaged fallopian tube (such as in an ectopic pregnancy) or uterus which contains a baby to be removed to save the life of the mother even if it results in the death of the baby. Am I correct?

 

[pumpkinbeast]

Yup, you’ve got it. A terrible situation for anyone to be in, but permissable…

 

[Holly3278]

Yup, you’ve got it. A terrible situation for anyone to be in, but permissable…

Ah okay thank you. And I agree that it would be a terrible situation to be in.

 

[rpp]

It is a very sad situation. Because not only does the baby die, but the fertility of the mother is compromised. Yet her life is saved.

We should all pray that medical technology advaces in a way that would somehow be apble to save both the mother and the baby.

I have a close friend who had two ectopic pregnancies. It is so said because they were her first two pregnancies. But she is still here and she prays for her children every day. She would have been such a wonderful mother.

 

[pumpkinbeast]

I have a close friend who had two ectopic pregnancies. It is so said because they were her first two pregnancies. But she is still here and she prays for her children every day. She would have been such a wonderful mother.

Don’t give up hope on her, God likes miracles involving supposedly-infertile women. ^^ And perhaps she could adopt?

 

[Daniel_Kane]

Just to clarify, as mentioned, it is permissible to remove a diseased or injured organ even if regrettably, it contains an embryonic person. This is the core of the double effect, a good act (removal of diseased organ to regain health) with a predictable or foreseeable bad end (death of the embryo). The bad end cannot be intended, it merely must be incidental, as it is in this case.

On the other hand, one cannot directly attack the embryo with chemicals, etc, if the embryo is alive. This is a bad act (murder) with a good end (health of the mother). This would be an immoral act as the primary act (murder of the embryo) is always wrong.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Hi everyone. If I understand correctly, the principle of double effect allows for a damaged fallopian tube (such as in an ectopic pregnancy) or uterus which contains a baby to be removed to save the life of the mother even if it results in the death of the baby. Am I correct?

If the death of the baby is viewed as a grievous sacrifice only made with deep reluctance, the person is in a totally different moral position to your average abortive woman.

We can invent endless moral conundrums about special cases and moral theologican can enjoy ruling on them. However the situations arise so rarely in practise that it has nothing to do with the real issues about abortion.

 

[adam_in_ohio]

I have a close friend who had two ectopic pregnancies. It is so said because they were her first two pregnancies. But she is still here and she prays for her children every day. She would have been such a wonderful mother.

Thats gona be some family reunion ih Heaven

 

[rpp]

I have a close friend who had two ectopic pregnancies. It is so sad because they were her first two pregnancies. But she is still here and she prays for her children every day. She would have been such a wonderful mother.

Thats gonna be some family reunion in Heaven

Yes it will. She is a wonderful and faithful woman. Her husband left shortly after and she has basically been alone the last 20 years or so.

Yet through all this, her faith is stronger than most I have ever met. She is a Traditional Catholic. She has given names to her children. She learned that one was a girl and believes the other was a boy. She s literally counting the days when she can see them.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Just to clarify, as mentioned, it is permissible to remove a diseased or injured organ even if regrettably, it contains an embryonic person. This is the core of the double effect, a good act (removal of diseased organ to regain health) with a predictable or foreseeable bad end (death of the embryo). The bad end cannot be intended, it merely must be incidental, as it is in this case.

On the other hand, one cannot directly attack the embryo with chemicals, etc, if the embryo is alive. This is a bad act (murder) with a good end (health of the mother). This would be an immoral act as the primary act (murder of the embryo) is always wrong.

It still seems like a loophole to me.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

It still seems like a loophole to me.

It can be used as one.

Let’s say a woman is told that, uless she aborts her baby, she will lose the use of her legs and not be able to walk. Now the Church would say that in this situationthe act is still immoral. However the abortion is being performed for a serious purpose, we can certainly have a sensible argument about it.

Now woman two has a criplling mental illness that involves long stays in hospital for moths at a time. She is told that if she goes ahead with the pregnancy she will spend the rest of her life in hopsital drugged up. You would probably say that the situation isn’t really any different from woman one. Why should the brian be treated differently from any other organ?

However do this and very soon will enter woman three. She is on anti-depressants and has an unsatisfactory low level job as a cleaner, and an unstable relationship with her boyfriend. She is mentally ill too so can she have an abortion please? Virtually any woman can have an unsatisfactory job and an unsatisfactory relationship if she wants one, so effectively you now have abortion on demand.

 

[fix]

The principle of double effect holds that it is morally allowable to perform an action that has a bad effect only under the following conditions:

** the action to be performed must be good in itself, or at least indifferent.

**** The evil effect must not be directly intended for itself but only permitted to happen as an accidental by-product of the act performed**.

              **                     The good intended must not be obtained by means of the evil effects.

** ** There must be a resonably grave reason for permitting the evil effect.

** ** Abortion:
Correct Application of Natural Law Theory**

 

[valient_Lucy]

fix:
I still don’t get it. If a person removes the affected fallopian tube or the damaged womb, they are still killing the child. They know that the death will occur if the womb or fallopian tube is removed, yet they proceed, regardless.

Imagine for a minute that RU-486 was found to cure cancer. Would it be morally permissible for a pregnant woman with cancer to take RU-486 to cure her cancer, even if she knew it would kill her baby?

To me, the double effect seems to say, “I can shoot someone as long as I pretend I’m not trying to kill them.”

 

[valient_Lucy]

I still don’t get it. If a person removes the affected fallopian tube or the damaged womb, they are still killing the child. They know that the death will occur if the womb or fallopian tube is removed, yet they proceed, regardless.

Imagine for a minute that RU-486 was found to successfuly cure cancer. Would it be morally permissible for a pregnant woman to take RU-486 to cure her cancer if she knew that the drug would also kill her baby?

To me, the double effect seems to say, “I can shoot someone as long as I pretend I’m not trying to kill them.”

 

[pilchard]

I wondered about this myself - that if the baby dies anyway why not remove it and leave the tube intact.

THe point is though is that removing the baby is illicit because ends (the life of the woman) can never justify the means (the life of the baby) whereas the removal of a fallopian tube that is will result in the death of the woman has the unfortunate double effect of the loss of life of the child.

The argument that “they both result in the death of the child” is kind of utilitarian. Best critique of the utilitarian ethic by the way is the film I Robot (I’ll say no more - don’t want to spoil the plot.

… and besides - the removal of the tube leaves the babies body intact - and there is dignity in that.

As for it being a loophole - are there any / many known miracles relating to ectopic pregnancies?

 

[Listener]

The interesting thing is that I am not sure they still remove a woman’s tube just because it has an etoptic pregnancy in it. In some recent cases I have heard of, the doctor gives the woman some kind of cancer drug to keep the “tumor” from growing. The result is that the embryo can’t grow any more, preventing it from getting big enough to rupture the tube (which, I guess, would probably kill the woman).

This actually may be a no-no, at least for the people who post on these forums. However, if the doctor tells the woman to take a drug instead of have surgery, what is she going to do? If she tries to find another doctor, she may die before she finds one.

By the same logic they use to say you can remove the tube with the baby in it, it seems to me it would be morally correct to give the woman a drug to control the “abnormal” growth in her tube. The fact that the growth was an embryo seems to me secondary just like it would be if the doctor removed the tube. Keep in mind that an etoptic pregnancy has zero chance of survival, and the woman will probably die if something isn’t done. If she still has her tube, her chances of a future pregnancy will probably double.

Isn’t this like self defense, as when someone breaks into your house? After all, the baby is supposed to be in your uterus, not in your fallopian tube or somewhere else.

Anyway, I sure have trouble understanding all of this, and I sure wouldn’t want to be in that situation.

 

[fix]

I still don’t get it. If a person removes the affected fallopian tube or the damaged womb, they are still killing the child. They know that the death will occur if the womb or fallopian tube is removed, yet they proceed, regardless.

Imagine for a minute that RU-486 was found to cure cancer. Would it be morally permissible for a pregnant woman with cancer to take RU-486 to cure her cancer, even if she knew it would kill her baby?

To me, the double effect seems to say, “I can shoot someone as long as I pretend I’m not trying to kill them.”

Part of the problem is we have not defined what constitutes a moral or immoral action. An act needs a good intention a good means and a good end. They all have to be good or neutral. No part may be evil.

Double effect says the intent is good, the means are good and the end is good, except there can be an unintended evil by-product that is lesser than the good end desired.

Your example of pretending not to kill would really be a bad intent. The act would be immoral.

In treating an ectopic pregnancy the intent is never to directly kill anyone. The intent is to save both lives. The means of surgery is morally neutral and the end is saving life which is good. Unfortunately at this stage of science there is no way to save the baby. That is unintended.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Part of the problem is we have not defined what constitutes a moral or immoral action. An act needs a good intention a good means and a good end. They all have to be good or neutral. No part may be evil.

Double effect says the intent is good, the means are good and the end is good, except there can be an unintended evil by-product that is lesser than the good end desired.

Your example of pretending not to kill would really be a bad intent. The act would be immoral.

In treating an ectopic pregnancy the intent is never to directly kill anyone. The intent is to save both lives. The means of surgery is morally neutral and the end is saving life which is good. Unfortunately at this stage of science there is no way to save the baby. That is unintended.

What does the doctor do in the case of ectopic pregnancy to attempt to save the life of the embryo?

 

[fix]

What does the doctor do in the case of ectopic pregnancy to attempt to save the life of the embryo?

He removes it from a place that is pathologic and will eventually kill the baby and mother. As I said at this point in the science there is no way to preserve the life of the baby. But, the intent is to remove him from a pathological state. That no other good place exists to have him grow is not desired or an evil means. His death is not willed.

As an example when you drive a car you accept it is possible an accident may occur and a life may end. Is getting behind the wheel a sin knowing it is possible you may kill someone unintentionally?

What about a police car that needs to speed sometimes and could kill someone? Is the cop committing a sin?

Unintended evil consequences may happen as the result of many actions. That does not mean these actions are wrong.

 

[Orionthehunter]

He removes it from a place that is pathologic and will eventually kill the baby and mother. As I said at this point in the science there is no way to preserve the life of the baby. But, the intent is to remove him from a pathological state. That no other good place exists to have him grow is not desired or an evil means. His death is not willed.

As an example when you drive a car you accept it is possible an accident may occur and a life may end. Is getting behind the wheel a sin knowing it is possible you may kill someone unintentionally?

What about a police car that needs to speed sometimes and could kill someone? Is the cop committing a sin?

Unintended evil consequences may happen as the result of many actions. That does not mean these actions are wrong.

Fix, nice job on explaining this.

Valient, I here where you are coming from. It can appear to be a loophole but it is not. The driving determinant of the double effect is “intent” in this situation.

The intent of the mother/doctor can not be to kill the baby. The intent absolutely must be to restore the mother to health. Furthermore, there can be no reasonable alternative protocol that achieves the same result (health of the mother). Otherwise, one is required to pursue that protocol that doesn’t have the evil effect (death of the baby).

Also remember that there is a proportionality. A pregnant woman can’t choose a protocol that results in the death of her baby if the “ill-health” is not severe (i.e. avoids bed rest until the baby is born). In short, only to save her life is the protocol that results in death of the baby permitted.

You used the example of shooting someone.

Assume that I am physically threatened to the point of death.

If I can run from the danger, this is the choice that I must make.If fleeing isn’t a reasonable alternative, I am able to take more dire steps to protect myself. If I determine that I can reasonably immobilize the threat by hitting him over the head, I am to do that. If I determine that I must shoot him, I must do so with the intent of only doing enough damage as to stop the attack (my intent can not be to kill). If I determine that the shot must be fatal as anything less would allow him to shoot me, I am permitted to take this most extreme step.