The Church and ectopic pregnancy for health care workers

[Mamanurse]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitacre_Girl
I see them saying that the death of the child cannot be willed as a first effect. I don’t think any mother facing an ectopic pregnancy wills the death of her child. I think she is seeking the removal of a deadly situation in a way that allows her to best go on and have other children. That is, if the ectopic pregnancy is diagnosed early enough for this to be an option. I can see that the church wants to avoid a slippery slope, but their logic in ruling on this case makes absolutely no sense to me. I can’t help but feel it’s a near no-win situation for the catholic mother. She not only bears the pain of losing her precious unborn child, for whom nothing can be done to save his or her life; but then has to negatively impact her fertility so having another child is less likely. I dunno. I guess all I can do is pray this never happens to me or anyone I know. quote

Again, I just got home for having an ectopic pregancy with removal of my left tube. I asked the surgeon and he said that my chances of getting pregnant are the same as if I had both tubes. It means that my eggs that come from my left ovary make their way to my right tube, per the surgeon. So in no means does having a tube removed make me less fertile, but in fact strengthens the fact that I probably won’t have another ectopic pregnancy.

 

[momor]

restate the question this way: suppose a woman’s fertility will be compromised unless her 3 year old child is killed. The moral issue is the same. Direct murder with intent to murder is never an option.

This analogy doesn’t work. Presumably the 3 year old child will go on to live her life if not murdered. An ectopic pregnancy is doomed from the start.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Again, I just got home for having an ectopic pregancy with removal of my left tube. I asked the surgeon and he said that my chances of getting pregnant are the same as if I had both tubes. It means that my eggs that come from my left ovary make their way to my right tube, per the surgeon. So in no means does having a tube removed make me less fertile, but in fact strengthens the fact that I probably won’t have another ectopic pregnancy.

I am sorry to hear about the ectopic pregnancy. That must be hard. Prayers for you and your family!

So what do they do in the surgery to get the eggs from the left ovary to the right tube? This is highly fascinating. I love the idea that there is a less chance of an ectopic pregnancy that way.

 

[JReducation]

I agree with you 100% However, having this apparent “opinion” has been a neverending battle for me on this forum with some members. I’ve been told several times that the Church dictates that if a couple is done having children, they are “sinning” by using NFP as a birth control method, and should abstain. I’m VERY glad you and I share the same thoughts in this matter

Whoah! Who told you or them that? Absolutely wrong. To say this is to say that sex between married partners is evil because they are not having children.

There are two different things here. You cannot interfere with natual conceptioin using artificial means. This creates a conflict between the natural effect of sexual activity between a couple and the will of man.

In natural family planning there is no such a conflict. When a couple has intercouse during the period when the woman is not fertile, they are not interfering witht he natural process. There is not conflict between God’s plan and human plans. You’re still open to God’s plan, because if God wills it, an accident will happen and the mother will conceive. There is the big difference. NFP is not handcuffing God. It is using the body the way that God created it.

Does this help?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[RazzsMom]

I am an RN — I would like to give a little explanation.

emedicine.medscape.com/article/258768-followup

womenshealth.org/a/ectopic_pregnancy.htm

If you go to the above addresses, you can read some good information on this topic. Basically, your chances of a successful pregnancy after ectopic pregnancy is fairly much the same no matter the method of treatment of the ectopic. The range is anywhere from 50 - 85%. Yes - the removal of the affected tube does affect subsequent ability to conceive. But one must also take into consideration the reasons why the first ectopic happened. Those reasons - advanced maternal age, genetics, etc. - affect your chances just as much as the simple fact that having had one ectopic pregnancy predisposes you to have another. Each subsequent ectopic pregnancy - no matter the treatment, by methotrexate or removal of the tube - reduces your success rate of carrying a future preganancy to term.

Yes - it is possible for the egg to “travel” to the unaffected tube. Or - lacking the tube due to surgical removal - the egg can move via the abdominal cavity to the other tube. The reason this can happen is the fallopian tubes are not directly connected to the ovaries themselves. There are little “fingers” are called fimbria (Latin for “fingers”) gather the released egg and “pull” the egg into the tube. Thus it is possible for the released egg to travel and get “grabbed” by the opposite tube! The address below will give you some anatomy information.

tubal-reversal.net/fallopian-tubes.htm

I hope this helps clear some things up. Now — if you want me to clear up the Church’s view, I am sorry, but I cannot do that!

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I am an RN — I would like to give a little explanation.

emedicine.medscape.com/article/258768-followup

womenshealth.org/a/ectopic_pregnancy.htm

If you go to the above addresses, you can read some good information on this topic. Basically, your chances of a successful pregnancy after ectopic pregnancy is fairly much the same no matter the method of treatment of the ectopic. The range is anywhere from 50 - 85%. Yes - the removal of the affected tube does affect subsequent ability to conceive. But one must also take into consideration the reasons why the first ectopic happened. Those reasons - advanced maternal age, genetics, etc. - affect your chances just as much as the simple fact that having had one ectopic pregnancy predisposes you to have another. Each subsequent ectopic pregnancy - no matter the treatment, by methotrexate or removal of the tube - reduces your success rate of carrying a future preganancy to term.

Yes - it is possible for the egg to “travel” to the unaffected tube. Or - lacking the tube due to surgical removal - the egg can move via the abdominal cavity to the other tube. The reason this can happen is the fallopian tubes are not directly connected to the ovaries themselves. There are little “fingers” are called fimbria (Latin for “fingers”) gather the released egg and “pull” the egg into the tube. Thus it is possible for the released egg to travel and get “grabbed” by the opposite tube! The address below will give you some anatomy information.

tubal-reversal.net/fallopian-tubes.htm

I hope this helps clear some things up. Now — if you want me to clear up the Church’s view, I am sorry, but I cannot do that!

That does provide a lot of great information. Thank you!

And thank you for all your hard work as an RN. You guys really are saints!

 

[RazzsMom]

That does provide a lot of great information. Thank you!

And thank you for all your hard work as an RN. You guys really are saints!

Nah…my halo is held up by my hors…lol! :getholy:

But …serously, thank you!

 

[RazzsMom]

Nah…my halo is held up by my hors…lol! :getholy:

But …serously, thank you!

OMGoodness …what a spelling error…“serous” (meaning from blood) instead of “serious”…time to go home…

 

[momor]

OMGoodness …what a spelling error…“serous” (meaning from blood) instead of “serious”…time to go home…

How about the “hors”

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

How about the “hors”

haha, I was gunna say that too! LOL

It’s okay. I make tons of embarassing typos. Especially today since I gave blood. LOL

ANyway, I read the site, and it looks like there is a treatment that doesn’t seek to kill the child, just remove it. Is that acceptable, or is it tubal removal only? Removing the child without killing it first (the removal kills it, whereas the chemical treatment kills it and gets rid of it). That is, if my reading is correct.

 

[JReducation]

I am an RN — I would like to give a little explanation.

emedicine.medscape.com/article/258768-followup

womenshealth.org/a/ectopic_pregnancy.htm

If you go to the above addresses, you can read some good information on this topic. Basically, your chances of a successful pregnancy after ectopic pregnancy is fairly much the same no matter the method of treatment of the ectopic. The range is anywhere from 50 - 85%. Yes - the removal of the affected tube does affect subsequent ability to conceive. But one must also take into consideration the reasons why the first ectopic happened. Those reasons - advanced maternal age, genetics, etc. - affect your chances just as much as the simple fact that having had one ectopic pregnancy predisposes you to have another. Each subsequent ectopic pregnancy - no matter the treatment, by methotrexate or removal of the tube - reduces your success rate of carrying a future preganancy to term.

Yes - it is possible for the egg to “travel” to the unaffected tube. Or - lacking the tube due to surgical removal - the egg can move via the abdominal cavity to the other tube. The reason this can happen is the fallopian tubes are not directly connected to the ovaries themselves. There are little “fingers” are called fimbria (Latin for “fingers”) gather the released egg and “pull” the egg into the tube. Thus it is possible for the released egg to travel and get “grabbed” by the opposite tube! The address below will give you some anatomy information.

tubal-reversal.net/fallopian-tubes.htm

I hope this helps clear some things up. Now — if you want me to clear up the Church’s view, I am sorry, but I cannot do that!

Medically this is excellent information. The moral principle that applies here is the principle of double effect. If you remove the tube, the child will die. But you did not kill the child. You removed an organ that was threatening the mother’s life.

If you abort the child, you are guilty of killing. It’s almost like euthanasia. It’s a principle that says, “It’s ok to kill this child, because he’s going to die anyway.” The second half is true. The baby will die in an ectopic pregnancy. But it is never a moral good to accelerate the death by direct killing.

The extraction of the tube is a medical procedure. The killing of the child in the tube is murder.

To put this in another scenario. A pregnant woman needs heart surgery. We know that the procedure, the anesthesia and so forth place the infant at risk. But the intention is not to kill the infant. The intention is to repair the damage to the heart. The child may die in the process. But you did not attack the child.

The same happens with the removal of the tube. You’re not attacking the child. The child just happens to be inside a tube that needs to be removed. But if you abort the child to save the tube, that is morally unacceptable. The tube is not more valuable than the child, even if the child is going to die. Let the child die of natural consequences.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

Whoah! Who told you or them that? Absolutely wrong. To say this is to say that sex between married partners is evil because they are not having children.

Do I have to name names? I’ll just send you the links to posts the next time it happens. And THANK YOU! But just to clarify: yes, I’ve been told several times that if you’re done having kids, you should be abstinate. And that you need “serious” reason to space out kids. And yes, I do believe it’s out of the CCC that you need serious reasons, but serious reasons is defined by the couple based on their many factors that contribute to the dynamics of their family. And I don’t believe a woman is made to be perpetually pregnant.

There are two different things here. You cannot interfere with natual conceptioin using artificial means. This creates a conflict between the natural effect of sexual activity between a couple and the will of man.

Gotcha, I know there are strict rules about using NFP only. Unfortunately, I’ve found conflicting reports as to the effectiveness of it, and conflicting reports that indicate some people love it and stick with it for life, and others find it too confining and don’t stick with it. But that’s a whole other story. I still want to learn it well enough to teach it.

In natural family planning there is no such a conflict. When a couple has intercouse during the period when the woman is not fertile, they are not interfering witht he natural process. There is not conflict between God’s plan and human plans. You’re still open to God’s plan, because if God wills it, an accident will happen and the mother will conceive. There is the big difference. NFP is not handcuffing God. It is using the body the way that God created it.

Neither does contraception, but again that’s another story I totally agree with what you said above though.

Does this help?

Yes it does, thank you very much

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Medically this is excellent information. The moral principle that applies here is the principle of double effect. If you remove the tube, the child will die. But you did not kill the child. You removed an organ that was threatening the mother’s life.

If you abort the child, you are guilty of killing. It’s almost like euthanasia. It’s a principle that says, “It’s ok to kill this child, because he’s going to die anyway.” The second half is true. The baby will die in an ectopic pregnancy. But it is never a moral good to accelerate the death by direct killing.

The extraction of the tube is a medical procedure. The killing of the child in the tube is murder.

To put this in another scenario. A pregnant woman needs heart surgery. We know that the procedure, the anesthesia and so forth place the infant at risk. But the intention is not to kill the infant. The intention is to repair the damage to the heart. The child may die in the process. But you did not attack the child.

The same happens with the removal of the tube. You’re not attacking the child. The child just happens to be inside a tube that needs to be removed. But if you abort the child to save the tube, that is morally unacceptable. The tube is not more valuable than the child, even if the child is going to die. Let the child die of natural consequences.

I hope this helps.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Just to play devil’s advocate for fun…

It looks like there is a treatment option which removes the child from the tube, and the tube is worked on by surgeons to attempt to fix it. Removing the child from the tube will certainly kill it, if the process of removal doesn’t kill it anyway.

How does this work? If I read the article correctly, this is the best treatment for the mother’s health and does the best for fixing the damaged organ and preserving the liklihood of future to-term pregnancies.

Also, I am wondering why the situation isn’t the same as somone posing a direct threat to another’s life. It’s moral to kill for self defense. I am just curious why this situation doesn’t qualify as that situation. I know the kid isn’t malicious, it’s just the wrong place to be. It’s still deadly though, and the mother is seeking to save her life.

In all honesty sometimes this situation feels like any action we do will sign the death an the child. If we do nothing, nature kills the child and the mother with it.

 

[Mamanurse]

I am sooo glad I didn’t read this info before I had to have the surgery!!! I am a very morally conscious person and only want to do what it right. If knowing that I could be committing a grave sin by having the surgery I had to have yesterday, I would not have known what to do!!! I guess, I figured that since the baby was not in the place it was supposed to be in order to grow and develop to full term that having the tube removed was my only medical option. I am very pro life, I didn’t even have the genetic testing with my first born, who was subsequently born with Down syndrome. We have wanted another child for over 2 1/2 yrs now, only to find out our pregnancy was ectopic was devestating. I will say that the issue of morality didn’t really come into my mind, since I knew that this pregnancy was only going to lead to either a miscarriage or my death, I didn’t consider any other option at the time. I will definitely be speaking with my priest this weekend for further advice and consolation.

 

[JReducation]

I am sooo glad I didn’t read this info before I had to have the surgery!!! I am a very morally conscious person and only want to do what it right. If knowing that I could be committing a grave sin by having the surgery I had to have yesterday, I would not have known what to do!!! I guess, I figured that since the baby was not in the place it was supposed to be in order to grow and develop to full term that having the tube removed was my only medical option. I am very pro life, I didn’t even have the genetic testing with my first born, who was subsequently born with Down syndrome. We have wanted another child for over 2 1/2 yrs now, only to find out our pregnancy was ectopic was devestating. I will say that the issue of morality didn’t really come into my mind, since I knew that this pregnancy was only going to lead to either a miscarriage or my death, I didn’t consider any other option at the time. I will definitely be speaking with my priest this weekend for further advice and consolation.

All you have to do is to lay it out to the priest that you did not know the rule. He can take it from there. I’m sure that you will be very consoled. God is very merciful when we act according to what we know. He does not hold us accountable for what we don’t know. That would be unfair. Human beings do that, but not God.

Be at peace!

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Just to play devil’s advocate for fun…

It looks like there is a treatment option which removes the child from the tube, and the tube is worked on by surgeons to attempt to fix it. Removing the child from the tube will certainly kill it, if the process of removal doesn’t kill it anyway.

How does this work? If I read the article correctly, this is the best treatment for the mother’s health and does the best for fixing the damaged organ and preserving the liklihood of future to-term pregnancies.

Also, I am wondering why the situation isn’t the same as somone posing a direct threat to another’s life. It’s moral to kill for self defense. I am just curious why this situation doesn’t qualify as that situation. I know the kid isn’t malicious, it’s just the wrong place to be. It’s still deadly though, and the mother is seeking to save her life.

In all honesty sometimes this situation feels like any action we do will sign the death an the child. If we do nothing, nature kills the child and the mother with it.

The issue is one of logic, really. If you remove the tube, because what’s going on in the tube is a threat to the mother, there is no murder involved here.

If you elect to kill the child in the tube, to protect the tube, that is murder

As to self-defense, it does not apply in this case. Self-defense only applies when the threat comes from an attacker who intentionally seeks to do harm to you. The infant is not an attacker and certainly has no intention to do harm. He is a victim. He got caught in this tube and can’t make his way to where he belongs.

It is true that the infant is goiing to die, as is fhe mother, if no action is taken. But you cannot kill a person who is a victim to save another victim. This is not a case of opposing forces. This is the case of two victims, mother and child. Since both are victims, in justice, the end result must be shared between them. The mother loses a tube and the child loses his life. It’s very sad, but it’s the only just way to proceed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

The issue is one of logic, really. If you remove the tube, because what’s going on in the tube is a threat to the mother, there is no murder involved here.

If you elect to kill the child in the tube, to protect the tube, that is murder

As to self-defense, it does not apply in this case. Self-defense only applies when the threat comes from an attacker who intentionally seeks to do harm to you. The infant is not an attacker and certainly has no intention to do harm. He is a victim. He got caught in this tube and can’t make his way to where he belongs.

It is true that the infant is goiing to die, as is fhe mother, if no action is taken. But you cannot kill a person who is a victim to save another victim. This is not a case of opposing forces. This is the case of two victims, mother and child. Since both are victims, in justice, the end result must be shared between them. The mother loses a tube and the child loses his life. It’s very sad, but it’s the only just way to proceed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

A good post! Lots to think about!

I still come back to the idea that no matter what we do, we are intentionally removing the child from the only situation where he can die a natural - non human caused death. Basically, it feels to me that we are splitting hairs as to how we are going to kill him or her. Either it’s a direct killing, or death by neglect (removed all the basic care the mother’s body provides, intentionally, to end the pregnancy).

I just have a hard time wrapping my mind that God doesn’t want us to pursue an option that leaves the mother in tact, so she is more easily able to have future children, since there is literally nothing we can do to let the child die naturally (by the tube rupturing) and not cause devastating harm to the mother.

 

[momor]

A good post! Lots to think about!

I still come back to the idea that no matter what we do, we are intentionally removing the child from the only situation where he can die a natural - non human caused death. Basically, it feels to me that we are splitting hairs as to how we are going to kill him or her. Either it’s a direct killing, or death by neglect (removed all the basic care the mother’s body provides, intentionally, to end the pregnancy).

I just have a hard time wrapping my mind that God doesn’t want us to pursue an option that leaves the mother in tact, so she is more easily able to have future children, since there is literally nothing we can do to let the child die naturally (by the tube rupturing) and not cause devastating harm to the mother.

Let me state that I accept the Church’s position and would follow it if it came up in my life.

But I have to agree that it is splitting hairs. I kind of see it as the same rigid position that pro-abortionists take anytime an attempt is made to place any restriction on abortion. It seems like the fear of a slippery slope scenario overrides logic.

 

[JReducation]

A good post! Lots to think about!

I still come back to the idea that no matter what we do, we are intentionally removing the child from the only situation where he can die a natural - non human caused death. Basically, it feels to me that we are splitting hairs as to how we are going to kill him or her. Either it’s a direct killing, or death by neglect (removed all the basic care the mother’s body provides, intentionally, to end the pregnancy).

I just have a hard time wrapping my mind that God doesn’t want us to pursue an option that leaves the mother in tact, so she is more easily able to have future children, since there is literally nothing we can do to let the child die naturally (by the tube rupturing) and not cause devastating harm to the mother./

The bold is mine. The issue here is that we have no right to attack a person, even one who is going to die. The life of the child is in danger. This is true. Is the child going to die if you remove the tube? Yes he is. Does the child have a chance at viability? No he does not. If you remove the tube, have you literally done direct harm to the child? No you have not. The child is not supposed to be in the tube.

Why can’t you abort the child who is going to die? Because you’re directly attacking the child, who is also a victim. Why must the the mother lose her tube? Because the activity in the tube is a threat to her life.

Why can’t we save the tube so that she can have more children? Because you cannot bring other children into the world at the expense of their older sibling.

Will the woman ever be able to conceive again? Yes, she can. Will she? Only God knows for sure. Many women without complications never conceive.

This is very difficult to embrace until we stand away from it. As human beings we make conception very personally. It is personal in that it involves us. But it is not personal in that we do not make the rules that govern conception and life. What we have to do is to learn to draw the line between that over which I have authority and that over which I do not have authority. Having the technology and power to do something does not mean that one has the authority to do something. We have the technology and power to blow our enemies off the planet, but not the athority to do so.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Rence]

I am sooo glad I didn’t read this info before I had to have the surgery!!! I am a very morally conscious person and only want to do what it right. If knowing that I could be committing a grave sin by having the surgery I had to have yesterday, I would not have known what to do!!! I guess, I figured that since the baby was not in the place it was supposed to be in order to grow and develop to full term that having the tube removed was my only medical option. I am very pro life, I didn’t even have the genetic testing with my first born, who was subsequently born with Down syndrome. We have wanted another child for over 2 1/2 yrs now, only to find out our pregnancy was ectopic was devestating. I will say that the issue of morality didn’t really come into my mind, since I knew that this pregnancy was only going to lead to either a miscarriage or my death, I didn’t consider any other option at the time. I will definitely be speaking with my priest this weekend for further advice and consolation.

I’m really very sorry for your loss! But I’m glad you had the surgery. I hope you heal quickly and well enough to have a baby again soon!