C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
Peace to you as well. My sincere apologies for any offense I may have caused. Know it was not my intention.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Anesti33
Guest
The Sister was reconciled with the Church but the hospital is no longer allowed to be called Catholic.
G
Gorgias
Guest
“the baby would have died either way” doesn’t necessarily hold in this case.Tell all of this to the husband and existing children of a woman who must die because there was no “diseased body part” to be removed and the only way to save her was to remove the baby who would have died either way.
The problem is that, in medicine, it’s rare that you can guarantee that “the death of the baby is inevitable.” As such, you’re setting a standard that doesn’t generally happen in real life, so it doesn’t help in thinking about this problem.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.
U
Useless
Guest
We are all, every single one of us, going to die. You can more sure of that than you are of anything else. You are going to die.What is to be gained by not ending the person’s life who would have died anyway ?
Now, I know of some people who need organs. Since you are going to die anyway, should I be able to kill you and take your organs to save them? You’re gonna die anyway, and there are 5-7 people who could be saved by killing you and taking your organs.
How is this different?
D
Diaconia
Guest
The reason I asked if there was some new development was to ascertain if there was new info to discuss.
But there’s not - I’m not going to dive into all the details of the case; as it’s long been settled.
Deacon Christopher
But there’s not - I’m not going to dive into all the details of the case; as it’s long been settled.
To those duking it out up-thread, please treat each other more respectfully; these kind of what-if discussions bring out strong feelings and emotions, and provide opportunities for ad hominem attacks, which are a waste of time.Bishop Olmsted is a very conservative bishop with roots from the most conservative diocese in the nation.
Sister McBride is not cut from the same cloth, and, (at my perfunctory look at the case) likely applied the principle of double effect in deciding the course of action.
Deacon Christopher
A
Anesti33
Guest
Other than the restoration of the Blessed Sacrament and the celebration of the Mass, no developments in the case itself.The reason I asked if there was some new development was to ascertain if there was new info to discuss.
I find it interesting that +Olmsted chose this route, where he seemingly did not fully restore Catholic status to the hospital. Will it be incremental? Can they earn his approval? They are part of a very large, no-longer-Catholic health care system. It will be interesting to see.
I’m sorry, but your organ donation analogy is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t add up. At all. You ask, what is the difference? The people you’re killing to harvest organs are healthy and viable. They are not doomed to die one way or the other, no matter what anyone does to try to save them. I do not advocate for going around murdering random innocent people to save others. I even stated upthread that if the mother died from the pulmonary hypertension and the baby was somehow able to grow and develop inside the mother’s dead body and then be successfully delivered at the appropriate time, then you would have to let nature take its course and not terminate the pregnancy. But it doesn’t work that way. If mother dies, baby dies.We are all, every single one of us, going to die. You can more sure of that than you are of anything else. You are going to die.
Now, I know of some people who need organs. Since you are going to die anyway, should I be able to kill you and take your organs to save them? You’re gonna die anyway, and there are 5-7 people who could be saved by killing you and taking your organs.
How is this different?
Yes, we’re all going to die. That’s a given. But this is a situation where one person is guaranteed to die no matter what and the other person still has a chance to continue living. I cannot wrap my mind around the Church saying medical people must stand by and allow someone to die who didn’t have to die. It is very disconcerting, and it’s making me question my faith like never before.
You say no one knows 100%. These are difficult medical decisions and are painstakingly made in sorrow. And calling people murderers when they are doing the best they can and trying to preserve life is horribly lacking in compassion and charity.
A
Anesti33
Guest
I was not aware that medical science is capable of making such guarantees. This is altogether new territory.Yes, we’re all going to die. That’s a given. But this is a situation where one person is guaranteed to die no matter what and the other person still has a chance to continue living.
You know that some of us are Catholic and some of us believe in miracles, right?
Last edited:
In this case, it’s designed to save the mother. It’s not done with the malice and evil intent you’ve been implying throughout this discussion. Sister McBride was reinstated because she saw it as double effect. Maybe she was wrong, but her intentions were not evil.The procedure is designed to kill the child, and that’s it.
I’m going to turn this back around and say, where does this end? Should Catholics never go to the doctor? Anytime we get sick, just pray there will be a miracle?I was not aware that medical science is capable of making such guarantees. This is altogether new territory.
You know that some of us are Catholic and some of us believe in miracles, right?
Last edited:
No, friend, I don’t think it’s okay to kill innocence to save others in a variety of situations. I find it perplexing that this is what you’ve taken away from my posts.Honestly, it just seems like your issue is more deep-seated than can be addressed here; a difficulty with Catholic teaching about taking lives. That’s not something that can just be restricted to abortion because, as my own analogy demonstrated, you believe it’s okay to kill innocents to save others in all variety of situations. I can’t say much against that other than it’s just not in accordance with what the Church teaches.
As the good deacon said, “what-if” scenarios only lead to problems and angry arguments. This is one of those times.
There really isn’t an adequate analogy for the situation of a pregnancy threatening the life of the mother that actually happens in real life. Maybe, maybe some cases of conjoined twins pose a similar dilemma, but for all intents and purposes, there aren’t a whole lot of times when one person must directly kill another person to save someone else. Let’s just stick to the argument at hand.
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
How do they do that?In this case, it’s designed to save the mother.
B
BornInMarch
Guest
The key word is “probably”; that means there was a chance the child and mother could have both survived.
E
ewohdrol
Guest
It’s different because she can be saved, the baby unfortunately cannot no matter the circumstance.
She is a mother. No one seems to be regarding the implications of her children losing their mother early in life.
Yes of course everyone will eventually die. But if the mother can have a further chance at life, I don’t understand why this cannot be attempted.
She is a mother. No one seems to be regarding the implications of her children losing their mother early in life.
Yes of course everyone will eventually die. But if the mother can have a further chance at life, I don’t understand why this cannot be attempted.
Last edited:
I’m not sure what you’re asking. You’re acting like the only purpose of the procedure is to kill the child. And you are ignoring the fact that in this particular instance, the purpose of it is to save the mother. It’s not a situation where a child is inconvenient or unwanted, or someone just wants to live as they please. In this case it’s done to preserve life: one person dies instead of two. Sister McBride thought the principle of double effect applied, and I agree with her.How do they do that?
Last edited:
M
MarkRome
Guest
The principle of double effect does not include direct killing. She was reinstated to the Church because she met the requirements: going to confession and resigning her position.Sister McBride thought the principle of double effect applied, and I agree with her. And she was reinstated eventually on that premise.
E
ewohdrol
Guest
I’m guessing most catholics when faced with death pray for a miracle.You know that some of us are Catholic and some of us believe in miracles, right?
I wouldn’t be pining all my hopes of a different outcome on a miracle. Especially if I was in danger of not being available to my children.
I agree with you. Completely. But others will say that it doesn’t matter, this life is temporary, and it’s better that she died innocent rather than killing her child. It’s possible that it will bring her children closer to God, and even if it drives them away from God…well, you still can’t do evil to bring about good.No one seems to be regarding the implications of her children losing their mother early in life.
The lack of compassion resulting from absolutizing one aspect of this scenario is very disheartening.
Thank you for clarifying.The principle of double effect does not include direct killing. She was reinstated to the Church because she met the requirements: going to confession and resigning her position.
Still, her intentions were not evil. She wasn’t out to maliciously murder a child. She was trying to preserve life—one person dies rather than two.
M
MarkRome
Guest
Intentionally killing a human being, no matter the reason, is intrinsically evil. She knew what the Church’s teaching was on this and went against it.She was trying to preserve life—one person dies rather than two.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.