Question about Church's Teachings on "Indirect" Abortions?

[JSRG]

I know that the Catholic Church has maintained that direct abortion, i.e. where the purpose is simply to end the fetus’s life, is prohibited–even when it’s done to try to save the life of the mother.

What I am trying to figure out, however, is cases where the abortion is indirect. That is, where the death of the child is a normal result of the procedure, but is not the goal of it, sort of like how a procedure with intent of sterilization is wrong but undergoing a procedure where sterilization is a secondary effect (e.g. some kind of cancer treatment that renders someone sterile) is permissible.

To give examples of what I’m talking about, when an ectopic pregnancy is removed, the purpose is not to actually kill the fetus/embryo, though that is usually the result of the procedure. And if even a normal pregnancy is a legitimate major danger, one could avoid a direct abortion by removing the fetus/embryo via induced labor or C-section, even though it in some cases it would almost certainly result in the death of the fetus/embryo, particularly when early in pregnancy. In neither of these cases is the intent to kill the fetus/embryo, but this is frequently (though not always) the result. Are these permissible? I was under the impression it was, but the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on abortion has this section:

Abortion was condemned by name, 24 July, 1895, in answer to the question whether when the mother is in immediate danger of death and there is no other means of saving her life, a physician can with a safe conscience cause abortion not by destroying the child in the womb (which was explicitly condemned in the former decree), but by giving it a chance to be born alive, though not being yet viable, it would soon expire. The answer was that he cannot. After these and other similar decisions had been given, some moralists thought they saw reasons to doubt whether an exception might not be allowed in the case of ectopic gestations. Therefore the question was submitted: “Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”.

So this appears to forbid even such indirect abortions. You can’t even induce labor if it’s expected the child would die as a result, nor is the removal of an ectopic pregnancy allowed.

(cont. in next post)

 

[JSRG]

(cont. from previous post)

However, the Catholic Encyclopedia is from the early 20th century. Perhaps things were relaxed later? (I seem to remember a document that I believe was official in some sense indicating the indirect abortions mentioned above would be okay, but I cannot remember what it was) The New Catholic Encyclopedia, published in 1967, doesn’t seem to directly say anything about the examples from the original Catholic Encyclopedia, but does imply that restrictions on them may have been relaxed:

Fetal loss that is in no sense the purpose of intent of the physician, but occurs as a side effect of some very seriously indicated therapy or surgery demanded without delay for the sake of the mother, is indirect and can be justified under the principle of double effect."

That said, this statement is vague. Does anyone know of more recent guidelines on this that indicate whether these “indirect abortions” are permissible or not?

EDIT: I should note that both the original and new Catholic Encyclopedias have imprimaturs, if that matters.

 

[fredystairs]

The Church’s teaching is that a directly procured abortion cannot be licit under any circumstances. This from the CCC:

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

The principle of double-effect is used to evaluate the morality of a human act that has foreseeable good and bad effects. The act may be done under the following four conditions:
1. The action in itself must be good, or at least morally indifferent. (An intrinsically evil action cannot be done to produce a good effect.)
2. The good effect must result immediately and directly from the action placed, not from the bad effect. (In causality, the good effect must precede or be immediate with the bad effect.)
3. Only the good effect must be intended. (One cannot intend the evil effect.)
4. There must be a proportionately grave reason for placing the act. (It is not licit to perform an action that has a large evil effect for a small good effect.)

Now, as you stated, an “indirect abortion” where the procedure is not to cause an abortion, but rather is to cure some other condition. The death of the baby is foreseen, but is not directly willed.
Taking your examples:

“Is it ever allowed to extract from the body of the mother ectopic embryos still immature, before the sixth month after conception is completed?” The answer given, 20 March, 1902, was: “No; according to the decree of 4 May, 1898; according to which, as far as possible, earnest and opportune provision is to be made to safeguard the life of the child and of the mother. As to the time, let the questioner remember that no acceleration of birth is licit unless it be done at a time, and in ways in which, according to the usual course of things, the life of the mother and the child be provided for”.

It seems to me, that the question asked is whether it is permissible to remove an ectopic embryo. The answer to that is no, since it constitutes a directly procured abortion. What IS permissible is the removal of the damaged fallopian tube. One there is removing damaged tissue. The death of the baby is foreseen, but it is not directly willed.

Your second quote is correct:
*Fetal loss that is in no sense the purpose of intent of the physician, but occurs as a side effect of some very seriously indicated therapy or surgery demanded without delay for the sake of the mother, is indirect and can be justified under the principle of double effect.

The sentence could be viewed as being vague, because each particular scenario would stand on its own. One would have to review the current situation to determine what is permissible.

Continued:

 

[fredystairs]

What I was taught is to look at the situation as if the woman was not pregnant. If the procedure would be done without any reservation, if the woman was not pregnant, then it will probably be acceptable for it to be done with the woman being pregnant, even if the loss of the baby is foreseen.

I apologize for not having any references. I am not currently at home and am thus away from my books and other references. Please write back if you have any further questions or if I have completely confused you.

Pax

 

[Vico]

…

USCCB http://www.usccb.org/about/pro-life-activities/respect-life-program/life-matters-abortion.cfm:

Very rarely, continuing a pregnancy may put the mother’s life at risk. In certain cases, such as aggressive uterine cancer or an ectopic pregnancy, it is morally licit to remove the threat to the mother’s life by removing the cancerous uterus, or by removing part or all of the Fallopian tube where the child implanted, even though it is foreseeable that the child will die as an indirect and unintended effect of such surgery. Abortion, a direct and intentional attack against the child’s life, is never morally licit. The unborn child and his mother have equal human dignity and possess the same right to life. When a medical crisis arises during pregnancy, there are always two patients involved. Doctors should do whatever they can to save both their lives, never directly attacking one—through drugs, surgery or other means—to save the other.

 

[JSRG]

I apologize for not having any references. I am not currently at home and am thus away from my books and other references. Please write back if you have any further questions or if I have completely confused you.

Your post was helpful. But if you do end up with any references available feel free to share them!

 

[fredystairs]

I will try to provide references next week when I return home.

Pax