The Church and ectopic pregnancy for health care workers

[momor]

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

Brother JR,
What if the ectopic pregnancy is implanted in the abdomen and not contained within an organ that can be removed? The growing placenta is invading blood-rich tissues and will eventually cause life threatening bleeding. The only option is to remove the implanted fetus. Is that acceptable?

 

[CB_Catholic]

Wait, this doesn’t make any sense.
MUHC Reproductive Centre | McGill University Health Centre

The tubes connect one ovary to the uterus and are on opposite sides of the other. An egg from an ovary where the tube has been removed or damaged cannot travel to the other fallopian tube to be fertilized. In order for what you say to be true, the ovary connected by the now damaged tube must be rendered totally inactive. Otherwise it stands to reason that the woman’s fertility was just slashed in half.

I’d really like to see a medical article or something from a medical source that says that fertility isn’t reduced by the removal of a damaged fallopian tube. This is a head scratcher, indeed!

For the record, I understand the church’s position. I can see where they are coming from and it makes sense. However, while I will never advise anyone to act contrary to church teaching (including myself!) I can’t help but feel sometimes like this issue is just splitting hairs. I mean, if the woman can retain full fertility after treating an ectopic pregnancy, shouldn’t she do that instead? Although, if one retains full fertility after one tube is removed, awesome. That’s probably why God gave us two!! On the flip side, what if the woman is operating on just the one, but an ectopic pregnancy happens again. Is she then required to render herself sterile to save her life? You can see how, while I believe we need to follow the church, the logic of their decision isn’t always clear to me. I guess that’s why I am just a lay person!

It is not impossible for a woman who has an ovary on one side and a tube on the other to become pregnant, and I have a brother-in-law to prove that. My MIL lost a tube with an ectopic pregnancy on one side, and later had an ovary removed on the other side. She managed, much to everyone’s surprise, to get pregnant and give birth to a healthy baby boy 10 years after her first son was born. It’s probably rare, but definitely not impossible.

At the Catholic hospital where I work, which follows the teachings of the Church, ectopic pregnancies are treated surgically by removing the fallopian tube. The intent is to save the life of the mother, not to abort the fetus. If both tubes are removed because of 2 ectopic pregnancies, yes the woman will be sterile, but why would she choose otherwise? That would be an unnecessary death, as the fetus will not survive. What would be the point of such a death? It’s not like she is choosing to save her baby over her own life, because the baby will not survive. There is no moral principal to uphold by making such a choice, and no sin involved, because she is not voluntarily making herself sterile in order to avoid becoming pregnant. The sterility would be the effect of the effort to save her life.

 

[JReducation]

Brother JR,
What if the ectopic pregnancy is implanted in the abdomen and not contained within an organ that can be removed? The growing placenta is invading blood-rich tissues and will eventually cause life threatening bleeding. The only option is to remove the implanted fetus. Is that acceptable?

Let me answer with a question and I think that you’ll see the answer. It the desired end to kill the baby?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[momor]

Let me answer with a question and I think that you’ll see the answer. It the desired end to kill the baby?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

No. The desired end is to save the mother’s life so I am assuming you would say it’s acceptable. Is that correct?

If so, please explain how that is morally any different than ending a tubal pregnancy without removing the tube. The desired end is also to save the life of the mother by preventing a ruptured tube and subsequent hemorrhage, not to kill the baby.

 

[JReducation]

No. The desired end is to save the mother’s life so I am assuming you would say it’s acceptable. Is that correct?

If so, please explain how that is morally any different than ending a tubal pregnancy without removing the tube. The desired end is also to save the life of the mother by preventing a ruptured tube and subsequent hemorrhage, not to kill the baby.

They difference is that in an ectopic pregnancy you have another choice that does involve a direct attack on the child…

In the case that you described, you’re not attacking the child, you removing him/her because you have no other choice. If there was something that you could extract, with the child in it, the that would be the higher good.

You always go for the higher good. It is a good to save the mother’s life. There is no question there. We then move to the next question. What are the choices we have available to save this mother’s life? Then we examine those choices and we ask which of these is the greater good? The greater good is always the one that avoids destroying life. If a life is lost, let it happen in a manner that is fair (just).

If I understand the case that you presented, there was nothing that could be extracted except the baby. I’ll have to take your word for it, because I’m not a physician or nurse. You said that the mother would die and that the child is not viable. So what are your choices? You see what I’m saying?

What I always recommend in these cases is that the patient (mother) consult with her priest before the procedure. The priest will inquire into the details and if he finds something that is better or find something wrong with the procedure he’ll guide the mother. It’s really easy for us to sit here and speak hypothetically. But when the rubber meets the road, we have to deal with the person directly. I know because I do Gospel of Life Miniistry and teach the Gospel of Life. When I speak with the men and women who come to my centers, I get a lot of information that does not come out in forums and blogs.

Again, I can’t emphasize it enough. If there is the opportunity to speak with the priest or deacon or a brother, before the procedure, please do so. Let them ask you questions and be as honest as possible.

I would also recommend the biography of St. Giana Molla to all those who are following this thread. You can find an edition of it written by her husband on amazon.com. This was one of those cases where the solution that was given to the mother was abortion. The story has a very interesting ending. Becasue the daughter that was born is now a physician like the mother. This is the child that was supposed to die. In the meantime, the older sister who was just a little girl, died. God’s ways are not our ways, nor should we try to get God to accommodate to our ways.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

**They difference is that in an ectopic pregnancy you have another choice that does involve a direct attack on the child…

In the case that you described, you’re not attacking the child, you removing him/her because you have no other choice. If there was something that you could extract, with the child in it, the that would be the higher good.**

This is an excellent answer to a really good question!

But you see how many people (who will follow church law if it comes down to it anyway) see this as splitting hairs. Either way, your action will cause the death of the child. There is absolutely no way around that.

I also posted earlier that one treatment option doesn’t involve directly killing the child, but removing it. This question goes unanswered. According to what I read, it seems there is an option to surgically remove the child, repair the tube, and increase future fertility. The goal with this option is to remove the child from the diseased tube, fix the tube, and save the mother’s life and health. Would this be moral? There is no intentional killing of the child, just removal. The removal process, however, will certianly kill the child, just as the removal of the tube is. It would be the same if the ectopic pregnancy occured in the abdomen on an organ that could not be removed. The child would be removed since he or she could not exist there.

I mean, I can imagine a woman discovering she has an ectopic pregnancy, and elects this procedure to remove the child and repair the tube. Couldn’t she in good conscience ask the doctor/surgeon to remove the child and NOT kill it, and let it remain in her body? Her body would (hopefully) flush it out with her next cycle, or it could (after it has expired from the removal which is inevitable) be respectfuly interred?

I also think its important to note that both are victims in the situation. That is totally true. And in these cases, the woman is left scarred by the loss of her child, whom she could do nothing to save. She has to carry the pain of that her entire life. That is her cross, her burden, her scar. Must she sacrifice her fertility as well? I know she can still have children, but her liklihood is much less. WHy reduce that unnecessarily when she can fix the problem that caused the ectopic pregnancy in the first place, surgically?

 

[momor]

They difference is that in an ectopic pregnancy you have another choice that does involve a direct attack on the child…

In the case that you described, you’re not attacking the child, you removing him/her because you have no other choice. If there was something that you could extract, with the child in it, the that would be the higher good.

You always go for the higher good. It is a good to save the mother’s life. There is no question there. We then move to the next question. What are the choices we have available to save this mother’s life? Then we examine those choices and we ask which of these is the greater good? The greater good is always the one that avoids destroying life. If a life is lost, let it happen in a manner that is fair (just).

If I understand the case that you presented, there was nothing that could be extracted except the baby. I’ll have to take your word for it, because I’m not a physician or nurse. You said that the mother would die and that the child is not viable. So what are your choices? You see what I’m saying?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

I appreciate your time and effort in explaining all of this. But I’m sorry to say the logic still escapes me, not that that is your fault.
The reality at the bottom of it all is that the baby is going to die regardless of the type of procedure performed. The desired end of any procedure is to prevent the mother from dying also. Given those circumstances, I just can’t see that the method matters with regard to the baby; that one can be said to be a higher good over another. It seems to me that the method that is best for the mother’s health is what needs to be considered.

 

[momor]

I would also recommend the biography of St. Giana Molla to all those who are following this thread. You can find an edition of it written by her husband on amazon.com. This was one of those cases where the solution that was given to the mother was abortion. The story has a very interesting ending. Becasue the daughter that was born is now a physician like the mother. This is the child that was supposed to die. In the meantime, the older sister who was just a little girl, died. God’s ways are not our ways, nor should we try to get God to accommodate to our ways.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

This is a very heroic situation where St Giana chose to risk her life rather than kill her child. However, I just want to point out that neither the death of the child or the mother was a given in her case, unlike the ectopic pregnancy scenarios we have been discussing. Mother’s in those situations have no choice.

 

[Rence]

I also posted earlier that one treatment option doesn’t involve directly killing the child, but removing it. This question goes unanswered. According to what I read, it seems there is an option to surgically remove the child, repair the tube, and increase future fertility. The goal with this option is to remove the child from the diseased tube, fix the tube, and save the mother’s life and health. Would this be moral?

I didn’t answer before because I couldn’t find the information again to answer you. But to answer your question (but I’m still looking for the article): I read an article some time ago about another treatment for ectopic pregnancy that involved removing the embryo from the tube, and implanting it in the uterus. And then the tube would be repaired. It’s a fairly new procedure and it’s not that successful (at least at the time I came upon the article).

But I’ll keep looking for it. Anyway, in this case it would seem moral, because an attempt is being made to save the embryo by a direct intervention.

 

[JReducation]

This is an excellent answer to a really good question!

But you see how many people (who will follow church law if it comes down to it anyway) see this as splitting hairs. Either way, your action will cause the death of the child. There is absolutely no way around that.

I also posted earlier that one treatment option doesn’t involve directly killing the child, but removing it. This question goes unanswered. According to what I read, it seems there is an option to surgically remove the child, repair the tube, and increase future fertility. The goal with this option is to remove the child from the diseased tube, fix the tube, and save the mother’s life and health. Would this be moral? There is no intentional killing of the child, just removal. The removal process, however, will certianly kill the child, just as the removal of the tube is. It would be the same if the ectopic pregnancy occured in the abdomen on an organ that could not be removed. The child would be removed since he or she could not exist there.

I mean, I can imagine a woman discovering she has an ectopic pregnancy, and elects this procedure to remove the child and repair the tube. Couldn’t she in good conscience ask the doctor/surgeon to remove the child and NOT kill it, and let it remain in her body? Her body would (hopefully) flush it out with her next cycle, or it could (after it has expired from the removal which is inevitable) be respectfuly interred?

I also think its important to note that both are victims in the situation. That is totally true. And in these cases, the woman is left scarred by the loss of her child, whom she could do nothing to save. She has to carry the pain of that her entire life. That is her cross, her burden, her scar. Must she sacrifice her fertility as well? I know she can still have children, but her liklihood is much less. WHy reduce that unnecessarily when she can fix the problem that caused the ectopic pregnancy in the first place, surgically?

If you touch the child in any way, you become the direct agent of is death. Divine Revelation says that man can never be the direct agent of another person’s death. This is what the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” is referring to. This is how the Church Fathers have interpreted it for us. This is the infallible teaching of the Church. The infallible teaching, means that there is no error in the Church’s teaching.

We would then have to take a step side-way, if you will, and question whether or not the Church can teach infallibly. That would mean undoing 2000 years of Sacred Tradition. Since we cannot go back and change history, we have to begin with what we have. We have a Church who is infallible in matters of morals. She can sin, but she cannot teach sin. She can cannot make a mistake in identifying sin. It is divinely impossible.

What have we left? We have a moral teaching that says that you must do the great good. You have two choices: 1) remove the child from the tube, which would be direct contact with the child or 2) remove the tube in which the child finds itself and allow nature to take its course. The greater good is to allow nature to take its course.

The issue is one of justice. The mother and child are both victims. Therefore, both share the outcome of a very unfortunate situation. The child dies, the mother loses a tube. Neither victim is given preferential treatment. Both lives are considered sacred, even though we cannot save one.

When there is more than one choice, the great good has to be chosen. This comes from Revelation itself. It dates back to the Fathers of the Church and the scriptures. God only allows death when justice is being served. But God reserves the right to define justice. He does not give man that right. That’s the whole story of the woman caught in adultery. The Jews had a law. But Jesus proves to them that they have no right to make such a law. Because only God is without sin, therefore only God can put someone to death.

If only God can put someone to death, a physician and a mother cannot put an unborn child to death. They can take actions to save the mother’s life and let the child die from natural causes. Obviously, if the tube is extracted, it is natural for the child to die.

In any case where there is a chance of viability, the child must be given the right to struggle to survive. This is justice that is accorded to every human being by God himself. We cannot deny a person this right.

In the case of implanation on the abdomen, I’m afraid of saying too much, because I don’t know enough about this condition. I would have to look it up. That’s why I ask, is there another option? If there is, the action that is furthest from direct killing is the greater good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Splinker]

If only God can put someone to death, then the death penalty is wrong in all instances?
What about killing someone in self defense?
War?

 

[manualman]

The problem with abortion in general is that an awful lot of people, regardless of their pro-life or pro-choice slef identification, don’t REALLY see newly conceived humans as human persons. So let’s put this issue in the context of humans that everyone KNOWS instinctively are humans.

Imagine a ship sinks in a storm at sea. The crew abandons ship. The captain allows 14 survivors into a lifeboat made for 10. 2 MORE men (the only ones with lifejackets) are left in the water clinging to ropes hanging off the boat. The storm continues to rage and the experienced and wise captain can see that the drag created by the men in the water are going to cause the overloaded lifeboat to overturn. He faces tough choices:

1. Refuse to accept his judgement of the seaworthiness of the boat and lose all 16 men.
2. Cut the lines to save the 14 in the boat even though there is no realistic chance for the other two to survive apart from the lifeboat.
3. Shoot the two men in the water and take their life jackets (might still be useful) before casting their bodies off.

Option 1 might appear heroic, but if the captain knows his business is likely a senseless waste of life.

Option 3 is possibly the most pragmatic and corresponds to the ectopic pregnancy abortion drug, but how would YOU like to be the trigger man?

Option 2 would also be a hard choice, but ultimately it is one the captain can live with without killing his conscience. He knows the men will likely die if he cuts the lines, but he doesn’t WILL it for the betterment of the others. Rather he is seeking to prevent the immediate threat which is that the drag they create will overturn the lifeboat.

The only real difference between this scenario and the ectopic pregnancy is that none of us remotely kids ourselves about the humanity of the two men in the water.

 

[momor]

The problem with abortion in general is that an awful lot of people, regardless of their pro-life or pro-choice slef identification, don’t REALLY see newly conceived humans as human persons. So let’s put this issue in the context of humans that everyone KNOWS instinctively are humans.

Imagine a ship sinks in a storm at sea. The crew abandons ship. The captain allows 14 survivors into a lifeboat made for 10. 2 MORE men (the only ones with lifejackets) are left in the water clinging to ropes hanging off the boat. The storm continues to rage and the experienced and wise captain can see that the drag created by the men in the water are going to cause the overloaded lifeboat to overturn. He faces tough choices:

1. Refuse to accept his judgement of the seaworthiness of the boat and lose all 16 men.
2. Cut the lines to save the 14 in the boat even though there is no realistic chance for the other two to survive apart from the lifeboat.
3. Shoot the two men in the water and take their life jackets (might still be useful) before casting their bodies off.

Option 1 might appear heroic, but if the captain knows his business is likely a senseless waste of life.

Option 3 is possibly the most pragmatic and corresponds to the ectopic pregnancy abortion drug, but how would YOU like to be the trigger man?

Option 2 would also be a hard choice, but ultimately it is one the captain can live with without killing his conscience. He knows the men will likely die if he cuts the lines, but he doesn’t WILL it for the betterment of the others. Rather he is seeking to prevent the immediate threat which is that the drag they create will overturn the lifeboat.

The only real difference between this scenario and the ectopic pregnancy is that none of us remotely kids ourselves about the humanity of the two men in the water.

I certainly hope you are not implying that anyone posting on this topic here does not see the value of the life we are discussing or that the woman’s life is more important. Because if you are you are dead wrong about me (and others too but I can’t speak for them) and have not been paying attention.

The problem with your analogy is that the men in the water are not defenseless and their death is not certain. So the method of detaching them from the boat does matter in their case. The longer they live, the greater the chance for survival.

The ectopic baby is doomed regardless of the method used.

 

[manualman]

The problem with your analogy is that the men in the water are not defenseless and their death is not certain. So the method of detaching them from the boat does matter in their case. The longer they live, the greater the chance for survival.

The ectopic baby is doomed regardless of the method used.

I’m not implying anything about anybody. But statistics clearly show that a LARGE number of people believe that abortion is wrong, but want exceptions in the case of rape and incest. Methinks this a strong indicator of a subconscious defect in the recognition of unborn children as genuine human beings. Only you can decide if you are one of these folks or not. Not my place.

Been lost at sea in a raging storm much? Maybe in the warm Pacific someplace there is a remote chance. Fine. Ship sinks in an ATLANTIC storm. Approximately the same chance of survival as there is the chance of us relocating a baby from a fallopian tube to the uterous. (currently 0.00000001% chance)

Our inability to re-implant an ectopic baby is a technological problem. We just don’t have the ability to save them within our current medical capability. Same as the captain in my example.

Wiggle all you want about the specifics of the storm or ocean temperature. The difference still remains between cutting the rope and shooting the men. In one case you deliberately kill to save others. In the other you take action to save the 14 that unavoidably kills 2 that would be doomed anyways in the process.

If that doesn’t sound awfully familiar to you…

 

[Phemie]

I have another question. Since ectopic abdominal pregnancies have resulted in live babies, why are we removing that type of ectopic when there is a possibility, minuscule though it is, that the baby could survive?

 

[Rence]

Been lost at sea in a raging storm much? Maybe in the warm Pacific someplace there is a remote chance. Fine. Ship sinks in an ATLANTIC storm. Approximately the same chance of survival as there is the chance of us relocating a baby from a fallopian tube to the uterous. (currently 0.00000001% chance)

In the Atlantic, the men on the outside of the boat will suffer hypothermia and lose consciousness regardless of whether they are tethered to the boat or not.

Health care workers in triage during disasters have the same burden. They are trained to direct people of various levels of injury. After quick assessments they send some people to immediate treatment as appropriate, others will wait because their not as critical. But in some cases, they will choose not to treat some people who are too far gone, and concentrate on those who have a chance.

Our inability to re-implant an ectopic baby is a technological problem. We just don’t have the ability to save them within our current medical capability. Same as the captain in my example.

Yeah, I spent quite a bit of time looking for the article I read several weeks ago. I probably happened across an abstract from an exerimental procedure

Wiggle all you want about the specifics of the storm or ocean temperature. The difference still remains between cutting the rope and shooting the men. In one case you deliberately kill to save others. In the other you take action to save the 14 that unavoidably kills 2 that would be doomed anyways in the process.
If that doesn’t sound awfully familiar to you…

But cutting the rope doesn’t kill the men, any more than leaving them tethered. They’re still outside the boat and exposed to the elements. By cutting the rope, you’re not taking a direct action to end their lives (such as shooting them), but allowing nature to take its course.

Thankfully, the Church recognizes the principle of double effect and allows the medical procedure (removing the fallopian tube, removing a cancerous uterus, removing a ruptured uterus, etc), even though indirectly it will have fatal consequences on the fetus.

 

[momor]

I’m not implying anything about anybody. But statistics clearly show that a LARGE number of people believe that abortion is wrong, but want exceptions in the case of rape and incest. Methinks this a strong indicator of a subconscious defect in the recognition of unborn children as genuine human beings. Only you can decide if you are one of these folks or not. Not my place (that’s for sure!)

Been lost at sea in a raging storm much? Maybe in the warm Pacific someplace there is a remote chance. Fine. Ship sinks in an ATLANTIC storm. Approximately the same chance of survival as there is the chance of us relocating a baby from a fallopian tube to the uterous. (currently 0.00000001% chance)

Our inability to re-implant an ectopic baby is a technological problem. We just don’t have the ability to save them within our current medical capability. Same as the captain in my example.

Wiggle all you want about the specifics of the storm or ocean temperature. The difference still remains between cutting the rope and shooting the men. In one case you deliberately kill to save others. In the other you take action to save the 14 that unavoidably kills 2 that would be doomed anyways in the process.

If that doesn’t sound awfully familiar to you…

You are still making offensive implications just by your statement. Now you are bringing abortion for rape and incest into the picture as well and implying I should “decide if I’m one of those folks”. That is beyond the pale I guess your MO is if you can’t fight fair, fight dirty.

I can’t help it if you cannot see the flaw in your analogy. It needs no further explanation from me to make it clear.

 

[JReducation]

Many people are focussing on the fact that the baby is going to die. Divine Revelation does not work the way that our brains work. For God that issue of whether the baby dies by removing a tube with the baby in it or dies by removing the baby is the point.

What God has revealed to through scritpure, sacred tradition, the Fathers of the Church and the Magisterium is that we do not have a right to lay a finger on that baby if we can avoid it. God knows that the child is going to die, her permitted the pregnancy this way in the first place. But he does not allow us to do anything less thant the greater good, regardless of whether or not the outcome is the same.

God does not split hairs. God has a very clear picture of the good and he has a clear picture of the options. He demands that we take the course of the greater good. Saving the mother’s life by removing the child from the tube is a good for the mother. But it is tampering with the child when it is not necessary to touch the child. It is this act that offends God grievously and therefore excommunicates the individual who KNOWINGLY does this. Some people really don’t know the rules.

In Hebrew tradition it was always very clear that a man could not directly take another man’s life unless that man was an aggressor. This was passed down from generation to generation and confirmed by Christ himself. That’s why he stops those who are about to stone the woman caught in adultery. Did she break the law? Yes. Was she going to die at some point? Yes. Was it necessary for men to lay a finger on her? No. Therefore, stoning here was a sin against justice.

In an ectopic pregnancy justice says that mother and child are victims. When there are two victims it is morally unjust to place the full burden of sacrifice on only one of the victims, if there is an way that both victims can share the sacrifice.

This is a principle of revelation. Regardless of whether the child dies in or out of the tube. That’s not how God operates. God operates out of justice for both victims. In this case, two victims share in one sacrifice to save a life.

Increasing the possibility of future conceptions does not enter into the mind of God in these cases. God is very objective. He deals in rights and wrongs, not in what can be in the future, but in the present moment. I’m know that I’m not saying this very clearly, because the fact is that God does not know the future, because he lives outside of space and time. But I hope you undestand what I mean. God knows what is going to happen and how many children he wants this mother to have. That’s what I’m trying to say. We don’t have to play God and try to increase her chances of future pregnancies at the risk of violating Divine Revelation that has come to us through an infallible teaching. Glod will provide for those future pregnancies if it is in his plan that there be future pregnancies.

We must never lose sight of God’s plan and God’s revelation in these discussion or we will end up being guided by our logic and our feelings. God mind is not our mind. As I said, he sees the bigger picture. He is much more objective than we are. That’s why he gives us the Church to guide us in these matters. Because the Chruch can never teach moral error. She can sin, but she cannot teach error.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :0

 

[Houro]

Thanks for the great replies everybody! And judging by the amount of debate this has caused, I guess now that you can all understand where I am coming from and why I had such a moral and ethical dilemma at work that day. I had all these same questions running through my head. I hope that none of you are ever put in this position.

First, I’d just like to clarify that I am a male midwife. It was assumed that I was female by some of the posters here, so I’d just like to clear that up, lol.

This is the best analogy that I could come up with on the day that I had the problem…

Two climbers hanging from a cliff suspended by a rope. The rope is breaking at the top. The climber closest to the top is alert, the climber at the bottom of the rope is unconscious. The rope will hold if the bottom climber is cut lose, and sent to his death. The top climber has no knife. I’m in a helicopter and have the choice of cutting the rope to save the top climber or letting them both die… The answer seems simple… but do you want to be that person who cuts the rope, sending the bottom climber to his death?

This is why I wanted an answer from the AAA forum because there is so much debate and I can’t seem to find a simple Church teaching on this scenario. I spoke to Priests and Sisters and many other people, and still can’t find an answer. I just wish the AAA forum had better prioritised my obviously concerning question…

Thanks again everybody, and continue the discussion!

 

[rwillenborg]

Many people are focussing on the fact that the baby is going to die. Divine Revelation does not work the way that our brains work. For God that issue of whether the baby dies by removing a tube with the baby in it or dies by removing the baby is the point.

What God has revealed to through scritpure, sacred tradition, the Fathers of the Church and the Magisterium is that we do not have a right to lay a finger on that baby if we can avoid it. God knows that the child is going to die, her permitted the pregnancy this way in the first place. But he does not allow us to do anything less thant the greater good, regardless of whether or not the outcome is the same.

God does not split hairs. God has a very clear picture of the good and he has a clear picture of the options. He demands that we take the course of the greater good. Saving the mother’s life by removing the child from the tube is a good for the mother. But it is tampering with the child when it is not necessary to touch the child. It is this act that offends God grievously and therefore excommunicates the individual who KNOWINGLY does this. Some people really don’t know the rules.

In Hebrew tradition it was always very clear that a man could not directly take another man’s life unless that man was an aggressor. This was passed down from generation to generation and confirmed by Christ himself. That’s why he stops those who are about to stone the woman caught in adultery. Did she break the law? Yes. Was she going to die at some point? Yes. Was it necessary for men to lay a finger on her? No. Therefore, stoning here was a sin against justice.

In an ectopic pregnancy justice says that mother and child are victims. When there are two victims it is morally unjust to place the full burden of sacrifice on only one of the victims, if there is an way that both victims can share the sacrifice.

This is a principle of revelation. Regardless of whether the child dies in or out of the tube. That’s not how God operates. God operates out of justice for both victims. In this case, two victims share in one sacrifice to save a life.

Increasing the possibility of future conceptions does not enter into the mind of God in these cases. God is very objective. He deals in rights and wrongs, not in what can be in the future, but in the present moment. I’m know that I’m not saying this very clearly, because the fact is that God does not know the future, because he lives outside of space and time. But I hope you undestand what I mean. God knows what is going to happen and how many children he wants this mother to have. That’s what I’m trying to say. We don’t have to play God and try to increase her chances of future pregnancies at the risk of violating Divine Revelation that has come to us through an infallible teaching. Glod will provide for those future pregnancies if it is in his plan that there be future pregnancies.

We must never lose sight of God’s plan and God’s revelation in these discussion or we will end up being guided by our logic and our feelings. God mind is not our mind. As I said, he sees the bigger picture. He is much more objective than we are. That’s why he gives us the Church to guide us in these matters. Because the Chruch can never teach moral error. She can sin, but she cannot teach error.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF :0

Dang, man…I read your posts alot. You’re good. Really good. It’s like you do this for a living or something.