Question about the morality of a medical procedure

[Rock_Happy]

Is it correct that the Church does not oppose making medical decisions which may result in loss of life?

 

[catholictiger]

Is it correct that the Church does not oppose making medical decisions which may result in loss of life?

yes but sort of, the church teaches that is morally wrong to intentionally kill any other human being in any circumstance.

but lets say you have a situation where twins are in the womb of a women and there is some medical condition could end up killing both children, there is a medical procedure that can save both of the twins, but it is highly risky and they also suspect very likely that the procedure could kill one of the children while saving the other. This procedure in the eyes of the Church is morally acceptable, because the goal of the procedure isn’t to end the life of the child even though the procedure will probably end up doing that.

Note: I’m pretty sure this is what the church teaches lol.

 

[catharina]

now that is ironic. you accuse me of changing the subject by changing the subject to my supposedly changing the subject.

you made a general statement which was false. i refuted it. simple as that

Nope.

My “general statement” was in the context of this thread.
Perhaps you will choose to comment on this thread - or
perhaps you can’t do that.

 

[handmaidenByzC]

I am a pro-life OB/GYN (and gynecologic oncologist). I believe what is being referred to here is called in the medical field “selective reduction.” The manner in which this occurs is most often by infusing hypertonic saline (concentrated salt solution) into the amniotic sac (the fluid bag the baby is lives in.) This results in burning the baby, and in drawing all the fluid from the less concentrated state of the baby…resulting in dehydration and ultimate withering and death. “Tying the tubes,” in a later pregnancy, would mean to embolize (or occlude) the blood supply in the unbilical cord (the life line from the mother.) The later procedure, more so, has the risk of hurting both babies, as it could cause preterm labor, and death of both. The former procedure if EXTREMELY common. It is utilized especially for IVF pregnancies (invitro fertilization cases where there are several embryos or even just two, and the parents want only one, eg) This is less of a risk for the “chosen fetuses” as it is at an earlier time in pregnancy…although spontaneous abortion of all fetuses is still a risk. There can be direct problems problems such as “nicking” the umbilical cord when trying to reach the amniotic sac. As so, there are the same risks with the more advanced pregnancy where embolization of the cord may be done.
ALL of these procedures pose risk to ALL the fetuses
I understand Catholic teaching to be: You may render any necessary medical care for the mother…if a baby dies as an INDIRECT consequence than that is to no fault. For example…if a mother has a uterine tumor causing her life threatening problems…the uterus may be removed…in so doing…the pregnancy inside is removed…however not directly…only as a consequence. However, many Catholic women have made the decision to put their own life in the way in order that they not have treatment which would harm their baby. This is not suicide, as there is no direct killing…that is…it just may end up being a consequence of eg declining a particular treatment.

You have no idea of the horrors of these practices…I am haunted almost daily by memories. I have difficulty leaving all the memories from my training AND from my professional society’s news and discussions of the present, etc, in the past…where I was/am in the fray. You become very unpopular…and get accused of being women killers and sentencing women to back alley care where they get septic and bleed and die a terrible death. That even if you do not agree with their decision…you must take care to see that they are properly cared for as a medical professional who took an oath…as the mothers will do this anyway…and you will SENTENCE them to a death for something they will have done anyway in an unsafe manner.
The evangelical movement, returning to the reproductive teachings of the founders Luther and Calvin…has started in a real way to help strengthen Catholic position. But for many years…there has been teaching among the protestant churches that proving abortions is a great service to help oppressed women.

We know this is all lies…we really know it now…as all the “evidence” about back alley abortions is not there…that was actually propagated as a means to convince people that this convenient, selfish, horrific practice was to “save” the lives of oppressed women.

Now I can tell you, that during my training, there was an"expert" who did all the selective terminations…he used to laugh and say, “eenie meenie minie moe” as he decided which sac to infuse. That never leaves me. Sometimes he did not have to make the decision, as the parents just chose based on the genders they wanted.

NOW, a question…is it really true that a man who has had a part in an abortion (or taking of a life in any way) cannot be a priest. Is there not complete mercy from God, is that in fact not between the penitent and confessor, is not a priestly vocation a wonderful example of conversion, did not Jesus come to save sinners after all? Non of the apostles were sinless.

Unworthy Handmaiden

 

[Suudy]

yes but sort of, the church teaches that is morally wrong to intentionally kill any other human being in any circumstance.

I’d attach one qualifier:
… [T]he church teaches that it is morally wrong to intentionally kill any other innocent human being in any circumstance.
Capital punishment intentionally kills another human being. War, when waged justly, intentionally kills other human beings. Self defense, when lethal, intentionally kills another human being. Yet these are permissible.

What differentiates abortion from any other form of killing is that the victim is necessarily innocent.