Question about Phoenix Hospital situation. .

  • Thread starter Thread starter bookgirl32
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

bookgirl32

Guest
First off, this isn’t a post to debate Bishop Olmsted or the Church’s position in response to the situation. I support both. My question is in regards to the reports that the mother’s life was in direct danger from the fact that she was pregnant. If this were the case is it true that there were ONLY two options: perform an abortion or let the woman sit there and die? If it were true that the only way to save her life was to somehow make her no longer pregnant, wouldn’t delivery have been an option?

I’m wondering what the moral implications would’ve been had the baby been delivered alive, even knowing that there was no chance it would live outside the womb, but had died of “natural causes”, that of being outside the womb? The death then being an indirect result of the delivery? I could be totally off base here. Just wondering if a live delivery, though certain to result in the death of the child, would be considered the same as a pregnant mother undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer certain to result in the death of the child. Does it fall under the same category or would a live delivery be considered the same as an abortion in this case?
 
bookgirl32 said:
If this were the case is it true that there were ONLY two options: perform an abortion or let the woman sit there and die?
Click to expand...
Based on the limited information publicly available, I don’t think we can know the answer to this.
bookgirl32 said:
If it were true that the only way to save her life was to somehow make her no longer pregnant, wouldn’t delivery have been an option?
Click to expand...
Only if the fetus were past the point of viability, which is somewhere in the 20-24 week range (with the ever increasing abilities of the neo-natal unit, this could be a judgment call on the part of the doctor.).

Before viability, deliver is not an option. It violates #49 in the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition, see here.
bookgirl32 said:
I’m wondering what the moral implications would’ve been had the baby been delivered alive, even knowing that there was no chance it would live outside the womb, but had died of “natural causes”, that of being outside the womb?
Click to expand...
This is not morally allowable before viability.

49 For a proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.
bookgirl32 said:
The death then being an indirect result of the delivery?
Click to expand...
Not if done before viability. It would be immoral to deliver beforehand.
bookgirl32 said:
I could be totally off base here. Just wondering if a live delivery, though certain to result in the death of the child, would be considered the same as a pregnant mother undergoing chemotherapy to treat cancer certain to result in the death of the child. Does it fall under the same category or would a live delivery be considered the same as an abortion in this case?
Click to expand...
No it would not be considered the same as a chemotherapy treatment, double effect.
 
1ke said:
Based on the limited information publicly available, I don’t think we can know the answer to this.

Only if the fetus were past the point of viability, which is somewhere in the 20-24 week range (with the ever increasing abilities of the neo-natal unit, this could be a judgment call on the part of the doctor.).

Before viability, deliver is not an option. It violates #49 in the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services, Fourth Edition, see here.

Thanks for the clarification!

This is not morally allowable before viability.

49 For a proportionate reason, labor may be induced after the fetus is viable.

Not if done before viability. It would be immoral to deliver beforehand.

No it would not be considered the same as a chemotherapy treatment, double effect.
Click to expand...
Thanks!
 
The mass media have been promoting the idea that this was an either/or situation: either abort or let the mother die. However, documents that were published a few months ago when the situation first arose indicated that the emergency team never even considered non-abortion options. If they had tried other options to reduce the mother’s hypertension and those were unsuccessful, then the decision to abort would have had stronger justification. As it is, though, they chose the easy option.
 
Muzhik said:
The mass media have been promoting the idea that this was an either/or situation: either abort or let the mother die. However, documents that were published a few months ago when the situation first arose indicated that the emergency team never even considered non-abortion options. If they had tried other options to reduce the mother’s hypertension and those were unsuccessful, then the decision to abort would have had stronger justification. As it is, though, they chose the easy option.
Click to expand...
And that’s the key issue here. There weren’t two choices as often reported - there were three. If, for example, the treatment of the woman’s condition caused early labor and the baby died as a foreseeable but untintended result of the treatment, the hospital would have been acting morally. The loss of the child was the treatment, not the result of treatment.

In the last few days, there has been much more published on this. After the fact, the hospital seems to have relied on the report of a lay moral theologian to support its choice not to comply with the Bishop’s directives. That theologian primarily based her assertion that the abortion was moral on the fact that the child would have died anyway. That is chilling. Couldn’t the same be said about a terminally ill child, a child born with a severe birth defect or a child with a genetic abmormality that will shorten his/her life?
 
I understand that cases where abortion is the only option to save the mothers life are extremely rare - maybe nonexistent today.

It is predictable that this either/or case would be raised by the media. It causes confusion among most people. This confusion is just what the media wants.

I remember the debates on this subject when I was younger - in the 70’s. This specific case is what swayed many women to side with a pro-abortion view.

Confusion, division, … the devil wins.

I pray for the poor souls that cooperated.
 
In this case, the baby was healthy and there were no problems with the
pregnancy; rather, the mother had a disease that needed to be treated. But instead of treating the disease,
St. Joseph’s medical staff and ethics committee decided that the healthy, 11-week-old baby should be
directly killed.
Click to expand...
Sounds like this is the closest we’re going to get to a detailed explanation (which I don’t necessarily personally need, I trust the Bishop). This statement alludes to the fact that the abortion was the initial reaction to the presentation of the problem, or chosen from the outset as the most suitable of all of the options and performed prior to the attempt of other treatments. My mistrust of the abortion industry makes it hard for me to believe that an abortion was the only option in saving her life.
 
I agree, abortion was not the only option. It was decided upon with complete fredom and in a premeditated manner - by committee no less.

I was not surprised to see the person responsible for the decision was a Sister (nun). I have had to deal with so many nuns that are complete heretics.

I will be glad when these dark days are over.

On a positive note, thank God we are seeing a few bishops actually do something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top