0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
So the only two choices are abortion or patient neglect/abandonment?
I’m afraid Sister was wrong here.
- Status
I’m afraid Sister was wrong here.
L
Latin
Guest
The National Catholic Bioethics Center
The Management of Ectopic Pregnancy Prepared by the Ethicists of the NCBC February 2013
• SalpinGECTOMY (considered morally permissible by Catholic ethicists under the principle of double effect)— Either the entire fallopian tube or the segment affected by the pregnancy are removed; the cut ends are sutured. The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of an act directed at removing the pathologically affected section of the fallopian tube.
.
• SalpinGOSTOMY (considered morally impermissible by many Catholic ethicists).
Argument for permissibility: The act by its object removes the trophoblast; removal of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended side effect.
.
• Use of methotrexate (permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists).
Argument against permissibility: This drug inhibits the rapid multiplication of trophoblastic cells. The trophoblast is part of the embryo, an essential organ; therefore, the drug directly causes the embryo’s demise.
.
Argument for permissibility: The trophoblast is not part of the embryo; the drug licitly targets the trophoblast and only indirectly causes the demise of the embryo.
Moral Debate regarding Salpingostomy and the Use of Methotrexate Some Catholic ethicists argue that salpingostomy and the use of methotrexate are morally permissible under the principle of double effect.
They argue that both procedures directly intend the removal of the exact cause of the condition, i.e., the trophoblast rapidly dividing in the wrong place, and not the embryonic child itself.
This argument assumes that the trophoblast is not an organ of the embryo and therefore can be an object of moral focus apart from the developing embryo.
.
Ectopic pregnancy v FAQ v
Question: What does the Magisterium say about the moral liceity of these three procedures?
Reply: The Magisterium is silent on these three specific procedures.
In the absence of magisterial direction, the use of any of these procedures becomes a matter of conscience.
In the face of the certain death of the embryo regardless of the procedure used (or not used), one may weigh what is proportionately beneficial to preserve a woman’s fertility. (Emphasize added.)
The National Catholic Bioethics Center 6399 Drexel Road, Philadelphia, PA 19151 • 215.877.2660 www.ncbcenter.org
.
God bless
The Management of Ectopic Pregnancy Prepared by the Ethicists of the NCBC February 2013
• SalpinGECTOMY (considered morally permissible by Catholic ethicists under the principle of double effect)— Either the entire fallopian tube or the segment affected by the pregnancy are removed; the cut ends are sutured. The death of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended effect of an act directed at removing the pathologically affected section of the fallopian tube.
.
• SalpinGOSTOMY (considered morally impermissible by many Catholic ethicists).
Argument for permissibility: The act by its object removes the trophoblast; removal of the embryo is a foreseen and unintended side effect.
.
• Use of methotrexate (permissibility not resolved among Catholic ethicists).
Argument against permissibility: This drug inhibits the rapid multiplication of trophoblastic cells. The trophoblast is part of the embryo, an essential organ; therefore, the drug directly causes the embryo’s demise.
.
Argument for permissibility: The trophoblast is not part of the embryo; the drug licitly targets the trophoblast and only indirectly causes the demise of the embryo.
Moral Debate regarding Salpingostomy and the Use of Methotrexate Some Catholic ethicists argue that salpingostomy and the use of methotrexate are morally permissible under the principle of double effect.
They argue that both procedures directly intend the removal of the exact cause of the condition, i.e., the trophoblast rapidly dividing in the wrong place, and not the embryonic child itself.
This argument assumes that the trophoblast is not an organ of the embryo and therefore can be an object of moral focus apart from the developing embryo.
.
Ectopic pregnancy v FAQ v
Question: What does the Magisterium say about the moral liceity of these three procedures?
Reply: The Magisterium is silent on these three specific procedures.
In the absence of magisterial direction, the use of any of these procedures becomes a matter of conscience.
In the face of the certain death of the embryo regardless of the procedure used (or not used), one may weigh what is proportionately beneficial to preserve a woman’s fertility. (Emphasize added.)
The National Catholic Bioethics Center 6399 Drexel Road, Philadelphia, PA 19151 • 215.877.2660 www.ncbcenter.org
.
God bless
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
I think it’s reasonably straightforward to describe the situation thusly: the ‘object chosen’ is “to save the life of the mother”; the ‘intention’ is “remove the placenta, which is causing the mother’s symptoms and impending death”; the ‘circumstances’ are that “the patient is pregnant, and removal of the placenta will also hasten the death of her baby”.
I think she’s spot on with her object. On the other hand, to frame up the ‘object’ as “the taking of innocent life” misconstrues the situation. Besides which, doesn’t the consideration of “taking an innocent life” reside in the actor and not the action? It speaks to intent, as such!
Nope. Here’s your counter-example: the ‘double effect’ case of ectopic pregnancy. The life of an innocent is ‘taken’. However, it’s an unintended (yet foreseen) consequence.
No… the procedure is “removal of placenta”.
Again, you’re inserting “intentional” where there is no such intent, and you’re failing to see the correlation with the standard example of ‘ectopic pregnancy’. This causes your analysis to be skewed, I’d suggest.
The case revolves around intent: is the intent “kill the baby” or “save the mother”? If the former, then it’s morally illicit; if the latter, then it can be morally licit.
That’s correct. The baby was already hypoxic, and the doctors said that it was in the process of dying (and they couldn’t treat the child or save its life).
G
Gorgias
Guest
OK… so, let’s try a thought experiment: if their method of removing the placenta had resulted in the baby being removed intact from the womb, then you’d say that the procedure was licit? After all, no “direct killing of the innocent”, right? (Even though the child’s life could be foreseen to be lost.)
What the argument comes down to is that the mother was not able to survive a surgical procedure that would have been more invasive than a D&C, and therefore, D&C was the only option. It seems that, since D&C is also used as a post-abortion procedure, some have taken to calling this case an ‘abortion’ (when, it seems, it was not strictly such). Nevertheless, Bishop Olmsted had the right to exercise his authority as bishop and make the proclamation he did. I’m not going to weigh in on whether his analysis of the medical situation was right or wrong, though.
Last edited:
O
o_mlly
Guest
We agree that the unborn child’s life, the mother’s life and any other born children’s lives are of equal value.
If a born child has terminal cancer and the mother is in need of a heart transplant, would it be moral to transplant the living child’s heart to the mother? If not then what principle do you invoke that would morally prohibit such a procedure? And why would that principle not obtain in Sr. McBride vs Olmstead case?
If a born child has terminal cancer and the mother is in need of a heart transplant, would it be moral to transplant the living child’s heart to the mother? If not then what principle do you invoke that would morally prohibit such a procedure? And why would that principle not obtain in Sr. McBride vs Olmstead case?
Last edited:
M
MarkRome
Guest
Completely disagree. The intention is to “save the mother’s life”. The fact is the fetus is an innocent life not matter what the will is of the actor. “remove the placenta” is only one part of the procedure. Killing and dismembering the fetus is also one part of the procedure. The author wanted to use the words “terminating the pregnancy” and not use the words kill and dismember.
This isn’t a “double effect” scenario, as the author even states. Can’t use it here.
As I said above, that is one step, another step is kill and dismember the fetus. It isn’t just “remove the placenta”
Again, there is no correlation with ectopic pregnancies as the author already said double effect isn’t at play here. She is basing her entire argument on the meaning of moral object which she is obfuscating with the end/intention.
The NCBC disagrees with the author’s conclusions as well. When the doctor’s knife was inserted in the baby’s skull and killed him/her, that is a direct abortion and is a grave evil, no matter the intention or good that was willed by it.
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Yes. That’s what matters: No direct killing of the child is ever okay.
I haven’t seen any materials saying that the removal of the placenta was the objective. Everything I’ve seen was that it was just an abortion.
I’m wondering if the concept that it is never okay to do something objectively evil to achieve good applies to all the Commandments, or just to direct killing.
Say you have a struggling single mom who, through no fault of her own, loses her job. She does the best she can but she runs out of money. In desperation, she steals groceries so her child will not go hungry.
We can all agree it’s objectively wrong. She broke the Commandment Thou Shall Not Steal. But is this mother considered a thief with malicious intent?
Say you have a struggling single mom who, through no fault of her own, loses her job. She does the best she can but she runs out of money. In desperation, she steals groceries so her child will not go hungry.
We can all agree it’s objectively wrong. She broke the Commandment Thou Shall Not Steal. But is this mother considered a thief with malicious intent?
Last edited:
U
Useless
Guest
So only healthy lives matter?
Uh… yes they are. They are absolutely going to die.
You are guaranteed to die, no matter what. But those people who need organs still have a chance to continue living.
Except they didn’t preserve life. They took one. You just decided (arbitrarily) that the life they took wasn’t worth anything.
Your position is not logical, it is not based on anything other than pure emotionalism. . . .
Last edited:
Do you (and others) seriously not understand that in this case, the child would die no matter what anyone did? In fact, the child was already beginning to die. It’s absolutely not that “only healthy lives matter.” You are willfully misrepresenting my stance and making me out to be some sort of monster. I find it abhorrent and grossly un-Christian.
The child in question was ALREADY beginning to die! The mother still had a chance. Do you seriously not understand the concept here? By removing the baby one person died rather than two. If the baby had a chance you’d have to let nature take its course.
Um…no, you just contradicted yourself. Both the people needing organs and I are guaranteed to die at some point. This makes no sense.
If they hadn’t done anything TWO people would have died. They made it so ONE person would die, rather than two. And it isn’t arbitrary in the least! It’s the one that couldn’t be saved one way or the other. And I absolutely do NOT believe the one they took wasn’t worth anything! That is a horrible accusation and I find it extremely insulting.
I find it illogical that one believes that one person must die so that another person can die anyway. As I’ve said a hundred times on this thread, if the baby could somehow still survive and develop inside the mother’s dead body then you’d have to let nature take its course. But if one person will die no matter what, you save the one you can.
Last edited:
U
Useless
Guest
Your reasoning why it was not okay to kill you was because you were healthy. Your reasoning for why it was okay to kill the baby was because the baby was unhealthy. Logical conclusion: only healthy lives matter to you.
By killing you and taking your organs, only one person will die instead of four or five.
And both the mother and the baby are guaranteed to die at some point, so why are you bringing up this “guaranteed to die” nonsense as justification for murdering a baby?
And by killing you and harvesting your organs we can make it so one person dies rather than four or five.
L
LilyM
Guest
And where do you draw the line on such “self-defence” or “mother’s right to preserve her own life” reasoning?Anesti33:
I agree the baby is innocent. It’s the pregnancy of that baby that’s the cause. I’m antiabortion but not in this case. The mother has a right to decide to live or die in this situation and in this case, it’s self defense on the mothers part to choose to live. I’m comfortable with her choosing to live even though it requires the death of the child.
Imagine a wartime situation where food is incredibly scarce, and a mother cannot obtain enough to feed herself and her baby, so the very high likelihood is both will die. Is she then justified in saving her own life by starving the child to death?
Last edited:
:woman_facepalming:t2: :woman_facepalming:t2: :woman_facepalming:t2:
This “everyone is going to die at some point” argument is the biggest straw man I have ever encountered in my life.
The baby would have died no matter what anyone did for him/her and never seen the light of day no matter what anyone did for him/her. The mother had four existing children and a husband who depended on her, and if she recovered (she was only 27) probably had a good number of years left.
Stop making me out to be a monster who doesn’t think every life matters. I’m going to say this for the third time on this thread: I hate abortion. I hate it to the core. I can’t stand the whole “my body my choice” mumbo jumbo. I can’t stand people who carry on about how they personally wouldn’t have an abortion but don’t want to “impose their views on others” because everyone should be allowed to “do what’s best for them.” I don’t think abortion is okay in the case of r*pe. And, when there are medical issues, I think doctors need to work to save both mother and baby, if possible.
What I have a problem with is when the death of the baby is inevitable —it’s going to happen no matter what—it should be permissible to save the one you can.
Last edited:
To those continuing to come up with hypotheticals…
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
I mean, just stating the facts of the case and why your analysis doesn’t fit with Catholicism isn’t working. What else should we do?
M
MarkRome
Guest
Remember, the Church also teaches that it is grave evil to kill a dying person (euthanasia), even if that person has no chance of survival and death is imminent. That is still murder.
P
Pattylt
Guest
I’m not going to play anymore what if’s. In most war time starvation scenarios, the mother starves herself for the sake of the child.
This case is an 11 week old fetus that is dying and the mother is dying. There is no scenario here where the child will live at 11 weeks. Judaism REQUIRES the baby be removed and the mother saved and I agree with it in this case.
No matter how you look at the Catholic position, it is placing more value on the baby than the mother. That’s just how it is. I’m not Catholic and I don’t agree with that position in this case.
As Catholics, you must abide in the Church’s rules and reasoning and it’s definitely a difficult one to reason through and accept. Many Catholics have a problem with it, too. All anyone can do is recognize the difficulty. There isn’t a pleasant answer to it.
Last edited:
M
MarkRome
Guest
CCC 2408 “The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.”
We agree to disagree. We don’t keep spouting straw man arguments that are not fair comparisons and willfully misrepresenting the claims of those you don’t agree with.
Last edited:
M
MarkRome
Guest
That’s one way to put it.
- Status