Texas man wants pregnant wife off life support despite state laws

[Marie5890]

You truth is not the Church’s truth.

Do you often accuse others of grave matter when you lack the intimate knowledge necessary to make that determination?

Im not sure how well educated Lochias is on the Church’s moral theology…

I know I am not. I guess he is leaning on his own views, but not necessarily the views of the Magisterium? I know I am in the process of educating myself on the Church’s view, and I expect Lochias is also doing his own research into the Church’s teachings as well.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Im not sure how well educated Lochias is on the Church’s moral theology…

I know I am not. I guess he is leaning on his own views, but not necessarily the views of the Magisterium? I know I am in the process of educating myself on the Church’s view, and I expect Lochias is also doing his own research into the Church’s teachings as well.

I am not an expert at all the nuances, but I am familiar with the overall position. All that I’ve sources that I’ve read on BD mothers with a fetus this young indicate a 0% chance of survival. Therefore there is no burden to attempt to keep this child alive.

However, it is not forbidden to attempt to save the child either. But in this particular case, with a historic 0% chance of survival, and not close the time frame that a child could possibly survive, the result of one’s actions is the prolonged suffering and inevitable death of the child. When that is the case, I prefer to leave the situation in God’s hands.

And, of course, leaving it in God’s hands in this case is not murder.

 

[vz71]

However, it is not forbidden to attempt to save the child either. But in this particular case, with a historic 0% chance of survival, and not close the time frame that a child could possibly survive, the result of one’s actions is the prolonged suffering and inevitable death of the child. When that is the case, I prefer to leave the situation in God’s hands.

And, of course, leaving it in God’s hands in this case is not murder.

All of this can be said for the first of nearly any life saving procedure.
Heart Transplants
Kidney Transplants

And it gets even more complicated when we look at bone marrow or kidney transplants as the first few was experimental and also risked the safety of not just the patient but also the donor.

 

[Marie5890]

All of this can be said for the first of nearly any life saving procedure.
Heart Transplants
Kidney Transplants

And it gets even more complicated when we look at bone marrow or kidney transplants as the first few was experimental and also risked the safety of not just the patient but also the donor.

Are you of the view that grace sin as occurred?

 

[Marie5890]

I am not an expert at all the nuances, but I am familiar with the overall position. All that I’ve sources that I’ve read on BD mothers with a fetus this young indicate a 0% chance of survival. Therefore there is no burden to attempt to keep this child alive.

However, it is not forbidden to attempt to save the child either. But in this particular case, with a historic 0% chance of survival, and not close the time frame that a child could possibly survive, the result of one’s actions is the prolonged suffering and inevitable death of the child. When that is the case, I prefer to leave the situation in God’s hands.

And, of course, leaving it in God’s hands in this case is not murder.

Thanks for making clear where your educational understand of the Church’s view is on this.

Perhaps there are some who do think grave sin has been committed but not fully understand the Church’s teachings are in error themselves?..

For some it seems to be a black and white issue, the Church’s stance is not so clear in Her wisdom of moral theology.

Certainly I know I need to be better educated on where the Church’s teachings really are, and not look to my own ego and small mindedness. Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

All of this can be said for the first of nearly any life saving procedure.
Heart Transplants
Kidney Transplants

And it gets even more complicated when we look at bone marrow or kidney transplants as the first few was experimental and also risked the safety of not just the patient but also the donor.

What particular new life-saving procedure did they use in this case to differentiate it from all of the other prior attempts that failed?

 

[twoshoes]

You obviously have no idea of my line of thinking if that is your conclusion.

People are treating a fetus that cannot live on its own (specifically solely dependent on its mother for its existence), nor near to living own its own, to an already born child. Sorry, but they are not the same.

That does not mean they are both entitled to life, but they are two entirely different circumstances.

The dead mother is extraordinarily relevant when discussing this matter. For some strange reason, many Catholics see no problem in treating things as if they are entirely independent of each, when in fact they are interconnected…that goes for fetus/mother, us and our environment, theory and practice, etc. The child is not a separate entity from its mother, regardless of how assertively one wishes to state it. Remove the baby and see what happens. The only mortal being that can take care of the child at 14 weeks is the mother, and the mother is dead.

Actually, in my world, you’d be healthy. I am a middle-aged man with various health problems, but eat right, and work out to keep the in check.

But in the end, when God calls me home, I will not fight it. It’s just amazes me that so many talk about a wonderful afterlife, yet fear death and as a result cling onto life when the end is obvious with every ounce of their being.

A child one day old cannot live on it’s own, children in need of critical care can not live on there own, you point is irrelevant and not well thought out. I guess you also believe that a person in critical care should not live because they are depending someone else for care.

You really need to study church doctrine on abortion, abortion is considered an intrinsic evil, as is murder. The church also teaches life begins at conception. It really amazes me how far men will go to support there sins and how convoluted their thinking can get. By the way the sin of abortion predates the new testament. It truly amazes me how some in this present generations believe they are smarter than thousands of years of theology and common sense.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

A child one day old cannot live on it’s own, children in need of critical care can not live on there own, you point is irrelevant and not well thought out. I guess you also believe that a person in critical care should not live because they are depending someone else for care.

A fetus under approximately six months old can ONLY be taken care of by its own mother, which it is part of and entirely dependent on. And, the mother is dead in this case. And we have a established pattern of what happens to fetuses approximately 14 weeks old in this situation: the all die, whether the mother is one support or not.

Comparing this situation to one where the fetus is approximately 6 months old, or already born, and can be taken care of others, is simply not relevant.

You really need to study church doctrine on abortion, abortion is considered an intrinsic evil, as is murder. The church also teaches life begins at conception. It really amazes me how far men will go to support there sins and how convoluted their thinking can get. By the way the sin of abortion predates the new testament. It truly amazes me how some in this present generations believe they are smarter than thousands of years of theology and common sense.

I am aware of the Church’s position on the matter; there is no requirement that the mother be put on support. And the survival rate for ectopic pregnancies, where the survival rate is much higher than the situation, allows the death of the child.

You should really familiarize your self with the Church’s position on the matter. Comparing this situation to abortion is simply emotionally-uncharged, mindless drivel that makes Catholics look like radicals.

 

[twoshoes]

I honestly believe that this case has to do with giving ordinary care, or extraordinary to the baby.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

---

I’m not sure we have the ability to prevent the death of an unborn child when the mother suffers such a long time without oxygen.

I am not sure that this attempt was nothing more than a prolongation of the child’s death.

This quote from the Catechism is not relevant to this post, It does not speak to the live of the child in the womb, There is only one person alive, that is the child in the womb. I guess what you are saying is that a dead woman has precedent over a living human being, I’ve never seen this any where in church teachings.

You know I’ve fought this evil from the day Kennedy proposed it and the silly incomplete arguments and the lack of love for the child in the womb continue.

 

[buc_fan33]

A fetus under approximately six months old can ONLY be taken care of by its own mother, which it is part of and entirely dependent on. And, the mother is dead in this case. And we have a established pattern of what happens to fetuses approximately 14 weeks old in this situation: the all die, whether the mother is one support or not.

Comparing this situation to one where the fetus is approximately 6 months old, or already born, and can be taken care of others, is simply not relevant.

I am aware of the Church’s position on the matter; there is no requirement that the mother be put on support. And the survival rate for ectopic pregnancies, where the survival rate is much higher than the situation, allows the death of the child.

You should really familiarize your self with the Church’s position on the matter. Comparing this situation to abortion is simply emotionally-uncharged, mindless drivel that makes Catholics look like radicals.

I think in general, you and I are in agreement. But, I must agree that this is faulty logic. You are arguing from what is essentially known as consequentialism. This is the faulty logic that looks primarily, if not exclusively, at the consequences of a given action to determine whether or not said action ought to be done.

As far as I can tell, your argument can be summed up like this:

1. The baby is going to die either way. It’s chances of survival are zero, or perhaps slightly higher. But, for all intents and purposes, the chances of survival are zero.
2. Since the baby is going to die anyway, we might as well remove life support from the mother.
3. Therefore, go ahead and remove life support from the mother.

The weakness is the second premise, because it argues from a consequentialist point of view. The problem with consequentialism is that it NECESSARILY says that objectively immoral means not only MAY be used, but MUST be used to accomplish a good end.

And, those who are critiquing you on this point are, as far as I can tell, quite right. We cannot do evil so that good may come about as a result. But, that doesn’t mean that what was done in this case was objectively evil. There is a huge, enormous, monumental gap between actively choosing evil to accomplish a good end, and tolerating a foreseen, but unintended, evil consequence.

On the other hand, those who are arguing that this is unequivocally murder, I believe, are getting caught up in the emotionalism of the debate. We rightly speak out against abortion as a grave in justice, which it surely is. We defend the rights of the unborn. And in our emotionalism, we think that this looks a lot like abortion. But, the thing is…it’s not. Or, if it is, that needs to be hashed out.

I think maybe a far better comparison to make would be to compare this case to a needed medical treatment that would necessarily result in a miscarriage. While it would be heroic for a pregnant woman to forego needed medical care to preserve the life of her unborn child, it would not, strictly speaking, be morally required.

I admire the zeal of the pro-life movement. I pray outside of abortion clinics. I help women in crisis pregnancies. I teach about the evils of abortion. But, we have to be careful to not let our emotions get in the way of sound reasoning.

 

[buc_fan33]

This quote from the Catechism is not relevant to this post, It does not speak to the live of the child in the womb, There is only one person alive, that is the child in the womb. I guess what you are saying is that a dead woman has precedent over a living human being, I’ve never seen this any where in church teachings.

You know I’ve fought this evil from the day Kennedy proposed it and the silly incomplete arguments and the lack of love for the child in the womb continue.

Are you sure that she is dead? Because, the Church would say that she could be anointed. It seems to me that the Church is at least erring on the side of caution, assuming that she is alive.

 

[St_Francis]

This quote from the Catechism is not relevant to this post, It does not speak to the live of the child in the womb,

This section of the CCC most certainly speaks to the life of the child in the womb *when it is being maintained by medical activity. *

There is only one person alive, that is the child in the womb. I guess what you are saying is that a dead woman has precedent over a living human being, I’ve never seen this any where in church teachings.

I don’t think anyone is saying that the mother takes precedence over the baby when discussing Catholic moral teaching regarding medical treatment

You know I’ve fought this evil from the day Kennedy proposed it and the silly incomplete arguments and the lack of love for the child in the womb continue.

The problem that some here are having is that having worked so hard to save babies’ lives from abortion they are focused on saving babies’s lives.

The reason abortion is wrong is not because a baby dies–sadly, unborn babies die every day. The reason abortion is wrong is that unborn babies are *killed. *I don’t think we need to get graphic about it, but there is a direct action inflicted upon the unborn child for the intention and purpose of assuring that he or she is dead.

Now, ij a situation in which there is medical treatment, discontinuing medical treatment, *unlike abortion, *is *not *intrinsically wrong. Not every case of withdrawal from or refusal of medical treatment is wrong.

Despite the fact that in each case an unborn child dies, there is only *sin *in one of tye cases.

The Church teaches that medical treatment for the mother can be done even foreseeing a possibility or even the probability of the mother’s death. Do pro-life activists pray and picket every time a Fallopian tube is removed when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy? And yet, a baby dies.

This is the same type of situation in reverse, in that the *moral *act of withdrawing from medical treatment occurred. *This is a moral act. *The death of the Muñoz’s baby was an unintended “side-effect”: they did not commit an action which would kill the baby.

We know of only 12 out of 30 cases in which the unborn babies survived their mother’s deaths, and those cases occurred under the best of circumstances. In this situation, tere existed far *worse *circumstances, circumstances the doctors probably don’t even know the effects of!

To withdraw the treatment was *not *committing abortion, and does not fall under the same area of moral theology. We must consider this case under the criteria *that we receive from the Church *in considering it, not the criteria for a different act altogether.

 

[vz71]

A fetus under approximately six months old can ONLY be taken care of by its own mother, which it is part of and entirely dependent on. And, the mother is dead in this case. And we have a established pattern of what happens to fetuses approximately 14 weeks old in this situation: the all die, whether the mother is one support or not.

Do you suggest that a medical procedure is only licit if it has been tried in the past successfully?

Seems a position that would run contrary to medical advances.

 

[vz71]

Comparing this situation to one where the fetus is approximately 6 months old, or already born, and can be taken care of others, is simply not relevant.

Sure it is.

As soon as you utilized the dependence of the child to the parents as a reason the child is part of the mother you introduced this hole in logic.

 

[vz71]

I am aware of the Church’s position on the matter; there is no requirement that the mother be put on support. And the survival rate for ectopic pregnancies, where the survival rate is much higher than the situation, allows the death of the child.

Odd.
On the one hand the dead mother is argued.
On the other hand we wish to draw comparisons to procedures in which the mother is not dead…and actually highlight the survival rate of the mother as pertinent.

You should really familiarize your self with the Church’s position on the matter. Comparing this situation to abortion is simply emotionally-uncharged, mindless drivel that makes Catholics look like radicals.

I am not making the comparison.
The arguments draw out a disturbing similarity.

Perhaps the argument should center upon actual church teaching instead of those tenets advocated by abortion supporters.

 

[vz71]

Are you sure that she is dead? Because, the Church would say that she could be anointed. It seems to me that the Church is at least erring on the side of caution, assuming that she is alive.

Perhaps not.
But with the brain inactive, there is nothing there to perceive suffering.
And we can very safely say there is no chance of recovery nor any chance with current technology we can sustain the body for long.

 

[buc_fan33]

The author of this piece is a good friend of mine, and in my humble opinion, the best moral theologian in the world. And, believe me, I do not say that lightly. He arrives at a very different conclusion that what I’ve come to. I would trust Christian Brugger’s judgment in all matters relating to moral theology. He is not the magisterium, and does not pretend to speak for them. But, he is an expert in the field, faithful to the magisterium, whose knowledge far exceeds my own.

I don’t think he would say that his conclusion is definitive. But, at least for the time being, I would trust his judgment over mine. I think the error in my reasoning was not considering the unborn child as a patient.

cultureoflife.org/blog/fundamental-questions-marlise-munoz-case

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Do you suggest that a medical procedure is only licit if it has been tried in the past successfully?

I do not make such a suggestion, nor did I comment on whether it is licit or not. However, I did comment on the reality of the situation. Putting the mother on support in this case will not save the child based on previous cases, but it WILL cause the child more suffering until it dies. We should not cause an increase in suffering to others when our actions do nothing to change the outcome.

Seems a position that would run contrary to medical advances.

I see this argument repeated over and over, and I will challenge it again. What particular new procedure was utilized in the case to save the child? Using the same futile procedure over and over and expecting a different result is not medical advancement. If a new reasonable procedure was utilized, I will review this procedure, and adjust my opinion accordingly.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Perhaps the argument should center upon actual church teaching instead of those tenets advocated by abortion supporters.

And what does that Church teaching state?

There is no requirement to put the mother on support in the first place, especially since there is no hope of survival for the child.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

As soon as you utilized the dependence of the child to the parents as a reason the child is part of the mother you introduced this hole in logic.

This is not what I stated. I stated “mother,” not parents. Situations must be examined in their context. I’ve already addressed this issue, and addressed it rather clearly. A fetus under approximately six month of age is solely dependent on its mother, whether you wish to ignore it or not; that’s reality. If the fetus is 6 months old, the answer is straightforward; remove the child ASAP, because the child no longer has to be reliant on its mother (obviously will be reliant on others, though). There is no hole in this logic.

BTW, is your opinion on this matter based on anything other than taking potshots at others logic?