the abnormalities are an escape goat for some people I would say, it’s easy to say “because of mercy we should let this baby die” rather then addressing the actual question “should a baby be kept alive in a dead mothers womb?”I agree. It bothers me the way people are using the abnormalities of the baby as a reason to turn off the machine.
I believe it was she who posted from the CCC.a couple of things
Mary Gail talked about a person who doesn’t spew for the magisterium he is a theologian with an opinion on the interpretation of Catholic teaching. Yes we should respect it but he in no way speaks authoritatively.
The problem is that if the baby is unable to survive on its own anyway, then the treatment is only delaying death. If this is a burden, then treatment can be withdrawn.Yes WRT does apply for the women in this case but it may not necessarily apply for the Baby, yes it has serious malformations but in the eyes of the Church that means nothing, what matters for the Church is the dignity of the human person. What comes down is the WRT take away dignity or is it in line with the babies dignity to let it die. This is the question, I side on no we should do our best to keep the baby alive, but I’m no medical expert or theological expert so I can’t begin to get into why it must be this.
OH! Your the only one to bring religion into it.They are desecrating the body of this woman and trying to hide behind a law which doesn’t even apply to this case. This is religious extremism at work.
OH? Where do you find the hospital did this for religious or prolife reasons? We are a Catholic website so of course we are going to discuss it from a religious point of view. We don’t need your insult.They are desecrating the body of this woman and trying to hide behind a law which doesn’t even apply to this case. This is religious extremism at work.
The mother isn’t actually being treated in this case; she is deceased. Deceased bodies can receive “support” (to be distinguished with “life support”) for certain reasons, such as for various organs to remain viable for transplant. It cannot go one forever, though; the body starts to decay, albeit at a slower rate than if no support is provided.The problem is that if the baby is unable to survive on its own anyway, then the treatment is only delaying death. If this is a burden, then treatment can be withdrawn.
You make some very good points, but seem unaware of the fact that this has been done before, in cases where apparently the mother had not been through extensive oxygen deprivation and repeated electrical shocks to re-start her heart.The mother isn’t actually being treated in this case; she is deceased. Deceased bodies can receive “support” (to be distinguished with “life support”) for certain reasons, such as for various organs to remain viable for transplant. It cannot go one forever, though; the body starts to decay, albeit at a slower rate than if no support is provided.
With regard to the main issue of this thread, it is simply a sad state of affairs. The mother is deceased. The natural course of events is that the baby dies also. It is only through massive, unnatural intervention that this can even be an issue. If it is done for a short time, it might be possible for the baby to remain viable. But when it goes on for weeks or months on end, I’m not so sure.
The fetus normally receives information from the mother, which we fully don’t understand the benefits of yet. The fetus obviously is receiving little, if any, such information at this point. Also, during a normal pregnancy, the mothers body is geared toward survival of the fetus (immune system adjusts, etc.). Since the mother is not longer alive, this is no longer the case. And since the body is slowly decaying, we really have not idea how badly this will affect the fetus.
I’m all for helping the baby; and ultimately it is up to the medical professionals to decide. But man has his limits, and it appears in this particular case that the baby is ultimately an experiment, so see how long the baby survive in a dead mother. Some things were not meant to be, and we should not play God.
Let’s hope. They have been used as pawns by everyone who thought that they had an interest in their personal affairs. This should never have been a story.The mother has been removed from the ventilator.
May the family finally have some peace.
cnn.com/2014/01/26/health/texas-pregnant-brain-dead-woman/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Has that actually happened I wonder? I thought the hospital had until Monday and didn’t do it right away. I’m having trouble with your link from my phone.The mother has been removed from the ventilator.
May the family finally have some peace.
cnn.com/2014/01/26/health/texas-pregnant-brain-dead-woman/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
The hospital is not a religious hospital. The doctors did not do this for religious reasons but for medical reasons. IMHO they probably believed if the baby made it to 22 - 24 weeks, which is a time when there is a possibility of viability outside the mothers womb, they could save the baby. There is also always the possibility if they let the baby die the husband and family would be upset that they didn’t do what they could. Hospitals and doctors always try to err on the side of life.They are desecrating the body of this woman and trying to hide behind a law which doesn’t even apply to this case. This is religious extremism at work.
I completely agree.Let’s hope. They have been used as pawns by everyone who thought that they had an interest in their personal affairs. This should never have been a story.
John
Yeah, see, I think that the doctors must have been under the impression somehow they could get the baby to viability. Somewhere there must have been some hope but sadly he or she didn’t make it.I just read a bit more about the other cases where a baby was able to be brought to viability after the mother had died. First of all those babies were all much older - 22 weeks - than this baby was when the mother died. That is a huge difference in gestational age. Those babies were more developed and needed much less time before they could be delivered and kept in the NICU.
wtop.com/?nid=893&sid=3549402&pid=0&page=2
The hospital has been very clear. They didnt do this for medical reasons. They did it for legal reasons.The hospital is not a religious hospital. The doctors did not do this for religious reasons but for medical reasons.
No, they were following Texas law.Yeah, see, I think that the doctors must have been under the impression somehow they could get the baby to viability. Somewhere there must have been some hope but sadly he or she didn’t make it.
There was one who was 15 weeks. It makes me so sad that the pro-abortion arguments are used. It didn’t work it might have. Experimentation is the basis of medical advancement. We would not have penicillin, heart, liver transplants and numerous other procedures that started with experimentation and today is the norm. When first used, there was a poor success rate. There are those here who point at the outcome and say the child wasn’t viable nanny nanny nanny forgetting they are talking about a human life who has a right to life. It could have gone the other way just as easily. I am glad they tried. Yes children sometimes must be protected from the very ones that are suppose to be their defenders. Just like families choose for religious reasons not to provide medical assistance, the state is liable to protect them. Now those who are saying that it belongs to the family to decide would you say the same thing for the family who won’t give a blood transfusion or the parent who won’t take their children to a doctor because they believe they should rely on prayer alone?I just read a bit more about the other cases where a baby was able to be brought to viability after the mother had died. First of all those babies were all much older - 22 weeks - than this baby was when the mother died. That is a huge difference in gestational age. Those babies were more developed and needed much less time before they could be delivered and kept in the NICU.
wtop.com/?nid=893&sid=3549402&pid=0&page=2
This is not a Catholic statement.
Catholic teaching is that death happens at cardiovascular death OR brain death, period. You are wrong; you are directly contradicting Catholic teaching. I have given you links to prove this. If you still don’t believe me, would you like to show me the papal statements discussing how life only ends at the cessation of breath?
You have made a slight change. You state that Catholic teaching is that death happens at brain death and this is not true. You are misrepresenting and you continue to do so since it isn’t Catholic Doctrine. The Church’s position is thatLochias’s position was that death could not possibly have happened to a person who is still breathing. I am not misrepresenting Bl. JPII or the NCBC when I say that that statement is unequivocably false. The Catholic Church recognizes brain death as a valid means of death in conjunction with doctors. In this case, several doctors have all concurred that the women is 100% brain dead, meaning the women is dead by Catholic doctrine, period.
You do misrepresented what the teaching of the Church is.With regard to the parameters used today for ascertaining death - whether the “encephalic” signs or the more traditional cardio-respiratory signs - the Church does not make technical decisions. She limits herself to the Gospel duty of comparing the data offered by medical science with the Christian understanding of the unity of the person, bringing out the similarities and the possible conflicts capable of endangering respect for human dignity.
. When the Church painstakingly, veers away from an absolute statement of when death can be monitored. Earlier in the pieceThe Church does not say that death occurs at cardiovascular death OR brain death, period
Basically what is being said in MHO is that science has there definition that the Church follows but since science cannot detect when the soul leaves science cannot identify the moment of death. The Church would be foolish to make such a statement as you have made. Just as once it was cessation of breathing, we may find in the future a different set of criteria for death.In this regard, it is helpful to recall that the death of the person is a single event, consisting in the total disintegration of that unitary and integrated whole that is the personal self. It results from the separation of the life-principle (or soul) from the corporal reality of the person. The death of the person, understood in this primary sense, is an event which no scientific technique or empirical method can identify directly.
You advocate medical experimentation against the wishes of the family?There was one who was 15 weeks. It makes me so sad that the pro-abortion arguments are used. It didn’t work it might have. Experimentation is the basis of medical advancement. We would not have penicillin, heart, liver transplants and numerous other procedures that started with experimentation and today is the norm.
I don’t but it is an argument that was made with which I disagree. Your post doesn’t seem to be one of discussion but one of “gotcha”. I don’t play “gotcha” games. I try to understand the others point of view while presenting my own. You ignored the majority of my post.You advocate medical experimentation against the wishes of the family?
So you see this case as case of medical experimentation?
This situation is different. We’re talking about a non-viable fetus in a dead mother. I do not think God intended for a fetus to survive this situation.There are those here who point at the outcome and say the child wasn’t viable nanny nanny nanny forgetting they are talking about a human life who has a right to life.
There is no “defender” in this case, unless one believes that non-viable fetuses in dead mothers are supposed to survive. Now, if one wants to attempt to bring the baby to term, it can’t hurt to try. But playing God is not required in this case.I am glad they tried. Yes children sometimes must be protected from the very ones that are suppose to be their defenders.
This is an entirely different situation. Dealing with the living is not the same as dealing with a young, non-viable fetus in a dead mother.Just like families choose for religious reasons not to provide medical assistance, the state is liable to protect them. Now those who are saying that it belongs to the family to decide would you say the same thing for the family who won’t give a blood transfusion or the parent who won’t take their children to a doctor because they believe they should rely on prayer alone?