What is the church's teaching on ectopic pregnancy?

[mbrothersrn]

I would like to know what the churches teaching is on ectopic pregnancy? Since the embryo can’t develop completely in the Fallopean tube is it permissable to remove that tube to save the mother’s life?

 

[JimG]

Yes, it is permissible. The purpose is to remove the tube to save the woman’s life, not to kill the embryo, and the removal of the tube is not a direct attack on the embryo.

 

[Lorarose]

The purpose is to remove the tube to save the woman’s life, not to kill the embryo, and the removal of the tube is not a direct attack on the embryo.

I am not against the removal of the tube…yet I have always found this argument to be splitting hairs so that it appears to not be abortion - when this procedure is no different from aborting.

I have heard the argument that removing the bulging tube is not the same as aborting.
It is as if people want to forget that the “bulging tube” is - indeed- the embryo itself. No embryo - no bulge.

I have heard people say this is not “directly” killing the embryo.
That is like saying withholding food and water from Terri Schiavo was not “directly” killing her.
Once the “bulging tube” is removed, the embryo is cut off from oxygen and nutrition and is therefore being directly killed by the procedure.

Because I don’t see any ethical difference between the 2 procedures, I personally think we should choose the procedure that protects the woman’s future fertility.

It would also be nice to see if doctors are trying to figure out a way to move the embryo down the tube, or transplant the embryo to the uterus - thus avoiding the death of the embryo.

 

[1ke]

mbrothersrn:

I would like to know what the churches teaching is on ectopic pregnancy? Since the embryo can’t develop completely in the Fallopean tube is it permissable to remove that tube to save the mother’s life?

There are two ways to treat ectopic pregnancies these days. One way is morally licit: removal of the tube. This is not a direct attack on the child, it is a legitimate medical procedure to remove a diseased tissue. The child’s death is unavoidable but not intended.

The other is a pill you take that induces a chemical abortion. This, of course, is a direct attack on the child and not permissable.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

This is a classic application of the “double effect” when you have a good or neutral act that has an expected bad outcome. Here the situation is a diseased fallopian tube that is causing pain and if the tube ruptures, can kill the woman. This is complicated by the fact that a human embryo is inside of the tube.

Can one remove the tube? Yes, you can all moral theologians agree.

Because (1) the removal of a diseased organ (the tube) is morally good or neutral (2) the good effect (saving the woman’s life) is equal to or greater than the bad effect (the loss of the embryo) (3) the bad effect is tolerated and not willed (the loss of the embryo is not the intention), the removal of a diseased tube is the intention. One is not killing the embryo to treat the mother, one is removing a tube that contains often an already deceased embryo. (4) the good effect of saving the woman’s life is the result of the removal of the tube and not the death of the embryo.

If you were to attack the embryo directly, that would be immoral. If it is possible to remove and re-implant the embryo, that should be done.

The comparison to the Schiavo case fails because in the case of the Schiavo case it was the intention to kill Terri by withholding nutrition and hydration. This act is not morally good or neutral. Further there was no “good effect” as a result withholding food, the bad effect, of her death was willed and since there was no good effect, and only a bad effect one can conclude that the withholding of food and water was an immoral act even if it was legitimated by an act of the courts of the United States.

With the ectopic pregnancy, one can either treat the tube losing the embryo (who can not develop there in any event) or not treat the tube and loose the embryo and the with reasonable certainty, the mother as well. Women have probably survived this without treatment but this is incredibly rare.

 

[Lorarose]

Who are all these moral theologians?

The tube is not diseased - it is a normal tube. It is bulging because there is an embryo inside.
The procedure is being done to remove the bulge - which is the embryo itself.
The embryo dies as a direct result from the procedure.
If the embroy were not there - and not causing the tube to bulge - the procedure would not be happening.

What I’m seeing is a manipulation of language in order to make the appearance the procedure is something it is not.

With the ectopic pregnancy, one can either treat the tube losing the embryo (who can not develop there in any event) or not treat the tube and loose the embryo and the with reasonable certainty, the mother as well. Women have probably survived this without treatment but this is incredibly rare.

Or - one can protect the fertility of the woman, as I still fail to see any ethical difference between the two procedures.
Both procedures occur because of the presence of the embryo in the tube.
Both procedures directly kill the embryo.

 

[Brendan]

Lorarose:

I am not against the removal of the tube…yet I have always found this argument to be splitting hairs so that it appears to not be abortion - when this procedure is no different from aborting…

There is a big difference between this an abortion. In abortion, the destruction of the baby is the target. The doctor directly intents the death of the baby.

That is not the case in the removal of the tube.

In an abortion, if the baby is not destroyed, the operation is considered a failure.

If, for some reason, the baby dislodges the procedure and implants correctly, would that operation be considered a failure or an astounding sucess??

That alone is a BIG difference between the two.

In addition, there are procedures for etopic pregnancys that ARE immoral. There are certain drugs that can be taken to kill the baby while leaving the tube intact.

These ARE abortion, as the target itself is the death of the baby.

The tube is not diseased - it is a normal tube.

Actually, it NOT a normal tube, a normal tube, by definition, allows a fertilized egg to pass unhindered. A normal tube is coated with mucus to inhibit implantation. However, an abnormal tube either is lacking this mucus lining, or has some type of abstruction that blocks transfer of the fertilized egg to the uterus

 

[Lorarose]

There is a big difference between this an abortion.

I don’t see one lick of a difference.

In abortion, the destruction of the baby is the target. The doctor directly intents the death of the baby.

In the case of ectopic pregnancy, both procedures recognize the sad truth that the embryo will not survive in the tube irregardless of what is done.
Both procedures are conducted specifically BECAUSE of the embryo’s presence in the tube.
Both procedures directly remove the embryo from the woman’s body, and both directly kill the embryo.

That is not the case in the removal of the tube.

I disagree. It is exactly the case.
No one would be removing the tube if it weren’t for the presence of the embryo. The goal of the procedure is to remove the embryo.
The embryo dies as a direct result of the procedure.

In an abortion, if the baby is not destroyed, the operation is considered a failure.

And likewise, in the tubal procedure, if the wrong section is removed, and the embryo remains…the operation is considered a failure.

If, for some reason, the baby dislodges the procedure and implants correctly, would that operation be considered a failure or an astounding sucess??

An astounding success.
Ever hear of it happening?

I would think this highly unlikely scenario would be MORE likely to happen in the case of the embryo being suctioned out of the tube towards the uterus, than it would if the embryo were being removed with the tube and taken directly out of the body.

That alone is a BIG difference between the two.

I’m sorry. I’m still not seeing the big difference.

In addition, there are procedures for etopic pregnancys that ARE immoral. There are certain drugs that can be taken to kill the baby while leaving the tube intact.

These ARE abortion, as the target itself is the death of the baby.

The baby is also the target in the tubal procedure - only it seems no one wants to admit it.

Actually, it NOT a normal tube, a normal tube, by definition, allows a fertilized egg to pass unhindered.

Whose definition are we going by? Yours?
If the tube is not normal because the embryo has implanted in the tube - then why is it that women go on to have normal pregnancies after an ectopic pregnancy?
We could just as easily say that the embryo itself is not “normal” because it implanted itself in the tube instead of the uterus.
So once again - I see wordgames instead of a true substantial difference.
The tube was normal before the embryo implanted - the tube is normal after the embryo is removed.
It is a normal tube.
It is temporarily declared diseased because of the presence of the embryo - which still makes the embryo the direct target of the procedure.

However, an abnormal tube either is lacking this mucus lining, or has some type of abstruction that blocks transfer of the fertilized egg to the uterus

Now when tubes are truly abnormal - lacking mucus as you claim, then do you approve of women becoming sterilized to prevent ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages?

I’m having a hard time believing this is the sole cause of all ectopic pregnancies, as most women go on to have completely normal pregnancies afterwards.
Sometimes these things happen and we don’l know why.

Do you know how many ectopic pregnancies are the direct result of lacking mucus?
And is there a way to treat it without mutilating the tube and rendering the woman infertile?

 

[Consecrated]

Lorarose:

Who are all these moral theologians?

The tube is not diseased - it is a normal tube. It is bulging because there is an embryo inside.
The procedure is being done to remove the bulge - which is the embryo itself.
The embryo dies as a direct result from the procedure.
If the embroy were not there - and not causing the tube to bulge - the procedure would not be happening.

What I’m seeing is a manipulation of language in order to make the appearance the procedure is something it is not.

Or - one can protect the fertility of the woman, as I still fail to see any ethical difference between the two procedures.
Both procedures occur because of the presence of the embryo in the tube.
Both procedures directly kill the embryo.

There is one thing that hasn’t quite been said here about it yet… the procedure to remove the bulging part of the tube with the baby inside is only morally permissable if there is no other way to save the mother’s life. In this case, the mother’s life is usually in danger because the bulge has ruptured, resulting in excessive internal bleeding. If the bleeding is not controlled, the mother will die. In order to control the bleeding, the rupture is repaired. The thing is, that the baby almost certainly died when the tube ruptured, so in many cases the baby has already died when the surgery is performed. I know this is not always the case, but I think it’s safe to say that it’s the norm, rather than the exception.

I recently had an ectopic pregnancy. I wasn’t aware I was even pregnant til I went to the ER for excessive pain in my side. The preg test was positive, and the ultrasound revealed that I was bleeding in my gut. They monitored me closely, taking periodic blood tests to make sure I wasn’t loosing blood in a dangerous amount, and my body healed itself without any interventions. (I am so blessed!) After it was all over, and my body returned to normal, they did an xray of my tubes to make sure there was nothing blocking them.

Even though removal of the part of the tube where the baby has implanted is considered moral in some circumstances, it is only a last resort when the mother is in immediate (not possible) danger. In my situation, because I was clearly in no danger of bleeding to death, scheduling a surgery to remove the tube with the baby (and I was given that option by a doctor I though was totally prolife ) would have been immoral.

I would encourage women to go to the doc sooner than i did (two whole days of mind numbing pain… I still haven’t figured out why I waited so long ), though, b/c one does need to be monitored closely in the event of a diagnosed ectopic pregnancy. Things can quickly go from ok to very bad.

I agree with the poster who said that it would be nice if doctors and researchers could come up with a way to help the tiny baby reimplant in the uterus where it should be! Unfortunately as it stands now, there’s more money and fame in destroying babies than in finding more ways to save them.

 

[Brendan]

Lorarose:

I.

I disagree. It is exactly the case.
No one would be removing the tube if it weren’t for the presence of the embryo. The goal of the procedure is to remove the embryo.
The embryo dies as a direct result of the procedure.

No, the goal of the procedure is to save the life of the woman. Do you really think that if the tube was removed and the woman died on the operating table, that the ‘goal’ of the operation was achieved.

And likewise, in the tubal procedure, if the wrong section is removed, and the embryo remains…the operation is considered a failure.

Yep, see above.

An astounding success.
Ever hear of it happening?

No, that is why is would be astounding

But that doesn’t alter the truth of the statement, now does it.

In one case the goal is to save the life of the woman, and the method is the removal of the tube.

In the other the goal might also be to save the life of the woman, but the method is the deliberate targeting of an innocent person for death.

I would think this highly unlikely scenario would be MORE likely to happen in the case of the embryo being suctioned out of the tube towards the uterus, than it would if the embryo were being removed with the tube and taken directly out of the body.

I’m sorry. I’m still not seeing the big difference.

The baby is also the target in the tubal procedure - only it seems no one wants to admit it.

So you are saying that the doctor and the woman would only be happy in this case if the baby dies.

Whose definition are we going by? Yours?

The very definition of the word normal. What definition are you using?

If the tube is not normal because the embryo has implanted in the tube - then why is it that women go on to have normal pregnancies after an ectopic pregnancy?

A woman has more than one tube, the other ovary could have released the egg.

Or a change in diet or metabolizm increased the mucus level, a fertilized egg managed to make it past the obstruction. I presume that just because one egg was able to make it past an obstruction doesn’t mean that the presence of an obstruction is normative.

We could just as easily say that the embryo itself is not “normal” because it implanted itself in the tube instead of the uterus.

Did the embryo behave abnormally by being blocked by an obstruction? Or implanting in an area not covered with mucus One would think that would be normative behavior for an embryo.

So once again - I see wordgames instead of a true substantial difference.

And your lack of perception somehow makes your premise true?

The tube was normal before the embryo implanted -

Prove it!!

the tube is normal after the embryo is removed.
It is a normal tube.

Prove it!

It is temporarily declared diseased because of the presence of the embryo - which still makes the embryo the direct target of the procedure.

Actually, no one is declaring it diseased. Disease is a specific medical term which does not apply here. In much the same way that no one declared a brain to be diseased when it has a stroke.

What is happend is that the tube has functioned abnormally.

Now when tubes are truly abnormal - lacking mucus as you claim, then do you approve of women becoming sterilized to prevent ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages?

No, why should I?

I’m having a hard time believing this is the sole cause of all ectopic pregnancies, as most women go on to have completely normal pregnancies afterwards.
Sometimes these things happen and we don’l know why.

Then I would suggest you talk to a physician on the subject. I just did ( my father) and my sister is also a physician.

Talk to yours about the causes of etopic pregnancies.

Do you know how many ectopic pregnancies are the direct result of lacking mucus?
And is there a way to treat it without mutilating the tube and rendering the woman infertile?

I don’t know specific numbers, the CDC would have them if you are interested, changes in diet and some medications can increase mucus levels. But the condition has to be know in advance.

I did check with my dad , and by far the largest reason of etopic pregnancies (over 70%) are due to blockages created either by previous abdominal surgeries, or from infections from pelvic inflammitory diseases, such as gonorrhea and chlamydia.

So, in at least 70% of the cases, the tube is NOT normal.

 

[Lorarose]

I am sorry for your loss and for your pain and suffering.

I know women who came very close to death - and at one time I thought I was in this situation (false alarm).

I think it is dangerous to play a waiting game in this situation.
I’m having a very hard time believing God expects women in this situation to wait for the tube to burst and see if the situation resolves itself.

Many women do know before the tube bursts and are given options.

I am not trying to argue here that the tubal procedure is “bad” so much as I really don’t see any ethical difference between that procedure and direct removal of the embryo.

I also find it odd that so many catholics are not considering the sterilization of the woman as a problem.

Furthermore…with the tubal procedure, if the ovaries are not removed, then what is preventing future embryos from traveling down an incomplete tube?
With the other procedure, future embryos will be able to reach the uterus.

 

[Lorarose]

No, the goal of the procedure is to save the life of the woman. Do you really think that if the tube was removed and the woman died on the operating table, that the ‘goal’ of the operation was achieved.

The goal of the other procedure is exactly the same. If she dies with the other procedure - that procedure is also a failure.
The goal of the other procedure is also to save her life.

In one case the goal is to save the life of the woman, and the method is the removal of the tube.

In the other the goal might also be to save the life of the woman, but the method is the deliberate targeting of an innocent person for death.

word games again.
The embryo is also targeted for death in the tubal procedure.
That is why the procedure is being conducted.
In both procedures - the embryo is the target.

So you are saying that the doctor and the woman would only be happy in this case if the baby dies.

I don’t think anyone is “happy” in a case like this.
I think the goal in both procedures is the same.

A woman has more than one tube, the other ovary could have released the egg.

I am asking - why is it that women often go on to have successful pregnancies - WITH THE SAME TUBE?
It appears that the tube can function normally after an ectopic pregnancy.
This has been known to happen with women who only have one tube to begin with.

Or a change in diet or metabolizm increased the mucus level, a fertilized egg managed to make it past the obstruction. I presume that just because one egg was able to make it past an obstruction doesn’t mean that the presence of an obstruction is normative.

So…diet can change the mucus levels - but you are advocating the removal of the tube to treat the problem?

Did the embryo behave abnormally by being blocked by an obstruction? Or implanting in an area not covered with mucus One would think that would be normative behavior for an embryo.

according to the numbers provided by you - if they are correct - that would be true for 30% of the embryos.
And how does one tell which category any one woman falls into?

And your lack of perception somehow makes your premise true?

You know - I’ve never found a condescending attitude to be very helpful.

Prove it!!

Really - I could just say the same to you.
And that is the gist of the problem here.
Are we going to assume that every tube is diseased and abnormal just because we want to fell better about one procedure over another?
If that works for you fine - it doesn’t work for me.

Then I would suggest you talk to a physician on the subject. I just did ( my father) and my sister is also a physician.

Talk to yours about the causes of etopic pregnancies.

I have talked to more than one physican about the topic.

I did check with my dad , and by far the largest reason of etopic pregnancies (over 70%) are due to blockages created either by previous abdominal surgeries, or from infections from pelvic inflammitory diseases, such as gonorrhea and chlamydia.

So, in at least 70% of the cases, the tube is NOT normal.

Which leaves me wondering about the other 30%, and why we are treating those cases as exactly the same?
If a woman truly has an abnormal tube - I see no problem with the procedure.
I have a problem that we assume all the cases are the same just because we want to believe one procedure is moral and the other is not.

 

[Brendan]

Lorarose:

The goal of the other procedure is exactly the same. If she dies with the other procedure - that procedure is also a failure.
The goal of the other procedure is also to save her life.

No, the goal of an abortion is to end the pregnancy by terminating the baby.

If the baby survives a tubal extraction, it is a wonderful thing and the doctor gets to congratulate herself.

If the baby survives an abortion, the operation is a failure and the doctor must attempt again.

word games again.
The embryo is also targeted for death in the tubal procedure.
That is why the procedure is being conducted.
In both procedures - the embryo is the target.

No, the embryo is NOT the target. The purpose of the operation is to remove a malignancy. If your premise was true, then the fallopian tube could never be removed without a baby being present.

A tubal removal is a tubal removal, with or without an embryo being present.

I don’t think anyone is “happy” in a case like this.
I think the goal in both procedures is the same.

Nope, one is to save a life, the other is specifically designed to terminate one.

As a pointed out above, the tubal removal procedure is not specifically designed to terminate an embryo.

I am asking - why is it that women often go on to have successful pregnancies - WITH THE SAME TUBE?
It appears that the tube can function normally after an ectopic pregnancy.
This has been known to happen with women who only have one tube to begin with.

And I gave reason why. If there is a blockage that stops one embryo, but not another, does that mean that the tube is normal. Is the presence of that blockage a normal thing?

So…diet can change the mucus levels - but you are advocating the removal of the tube to treat the problem?

Diet change is a preventative procedure. Would you advocate that a person suffering a heart attack start jogging?

according to the numbers provided by you - if they are correct - that would be true for 30% of the embryos.
And how does one tell which category any one woman falls into?

You know - I’ve never found a condescending attitude to be very helpful.

No condesdation implied. But you must admit that an inability to see the difference in no way implies that the difference is not present.

Really - I could just say the same to you.
And that is the gist of the problem here.
Are we going to assume that every tube is diseased and abnormal just because we want to fell better about one procedure over another?
If that works for you fine - it doesn’t work for me.

No, you were the one claiming that a tube that allows an implantion is somehow functioning normally when the normative function of the tube is to allow it’s passage.

.

I have talked to more than one physican about the topic.

And what did they say about the causes of etopic pregnancies.

Which leaves me wondering about the other 30%, and why we are treating those cases as exactly the same?
If a woman truly has an abnormal tube - I see no problem with the procedure.
I have a problem that we assume all the cases are the same just because we want to believe one procedure is moral and the other is not.

Because medically they are the same. The tube malfuctions. A malfunctioning tube is, by defintion, not a normal one.

 

[Lorarose]

No, the goal of an abortion is to end the pregnancy by terminating the baby.

This is just going round and round.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy the goal of the tubal procedure is to get rid of the embryo as well.

If the baby survives a tubal extraction, it is a wonderful thing and the doctor gets to congratulate herself.

It is not possible for the embryo to survive the tubal extraction, so your statement makes no sense.
If the baby survived the other procedure the doctor could congratulate herself as well.
You are assuming you understand the doctor’s intentions in these cases.
In both cases, the intent is the same - to save the life of the mother, and to remove the embryo.

If the baby survives an abortion, the operation is a failure and the doctor must attempt again.

I am not talking about any abortion. I am talking about the specific case of ectopic pregnancy - where I fail to see the difference between an abortion and a tubal extraction.
In both cases the goal is the same, the embryo is targeted for removal, and the embryo dies as a direct result of the procedure.

Nope, one is to save a life, the other is specifically designed to terminate one.

Both are to save a life, and both terminate the life of the embryo.

A tubal removal is a tubal removal, with or without an embryo being present.

That is an interesting statement.
How often are tubes removed?
You mentioned the problem with mucus - but that this can be treated with diet. I assume it is possible supplements or medicine could help this problem. So I assume that women who have a problem with mucus don’t automatically get treated by having their tube removed.
The only reason to have the tube removed in this case is if an embryo is present - which makes the embryo the cause and target of the procedure - not the mucus problem.

Same with blockages.
Women can have blockages removed without having the tube removed.
So again…it seems the presence of the embryo seems to be a requirement to opt for the tubal extraction. This makes the embryo the cause for the procedure and also the target.

If there is a blockage that stops one embryo, but not another, does that mean that the tube is normal. Is the presence of that blockage a normal thing?

How do you know these blockages are there?
And is tubal removal the only procedure used to treat them?
In other words - if the presence of the blockage were known, but there were no embryo present, would the removal of the tube still be taking place?
Or would a procedure be done to remove the blockage while leaving the tube intact?

If a woman goes on to have normal pregnancies, it is possible there is a blockage that is not hindering other embryos - but it is also possible the tube is functioning normally.
How do you know which is which?
It appears to me that people are jumping to the conclusion the tube is abnormal as moral justification for one procedure over another.

No, the embryo is NOT the target. The purpose of the operation is to remove a malignancy. If your premise was true, then the fallopian tube could never be removed without a baby being present.

So now the embryo is a malignancy?
And you wonder why I’m having a difficult time with your position?

It is not a malignancy. - it is an embryo growing the wrong place.
I understand that fallopian tubes are removed when malignant tumors are present - or other diseases for that matter.
But for this particular procedure (ectopic pregnancy) this argument makes no sense at all - there is no cancer present.

 

[Lorarose]

A tubal removal is a tubal removal, with or without an embryo being present.

True - and if an embryo were present, while at the same time a cancerous tumor were present - I would get your drift.
On one hand you are saying removal of the embryo alone is immoral because it is targeting an innocent life, on the other hand you are saying the tubal ligation is moral because it is removing a “malignancy”
Again…I only see word games here.

Diet change is a preventative procedure. Would you advocate that a person suffering a heart attack start jogging?

Sure I would. But if a diseased heart can be treated with less invasive measures than open heart surgery, it makes sense to go with those first.

No, you were the one claiming that a tube that allows an implantion is somehow functioning normally when the normative function of the tube is to allow it’s passage.

Are you saying that you know for certain that ALL ectopic pregnancies - 100% - are due to abnormal tubes?
And that the treatment of these abnormalities necessitates the removal of the tube?

Or - is it the presence of the embryo in the tube that necessitates the removal of the tube?

And what did they say about the causes of etopic pregnancies.

That the reasons are not always known.
That they often see the tubes function normally after an ectopic pregnancy.
That removal of the section of the tube where the embryo is growing isn’t any different than removing the embryo itself.

That isn’t to say there are not cases of blockage, scarring, and disease - but the removal of the tube in these cases is seen as an action of last resort.

Because medically they are the same. The tube malfuctions. A malfunctioning tube is, by defintion, not a normal one.

So let me get this right…because the pregnancy has occurred in this manner - that automatically qualifies the tube as abnormal - which automatically necessitates it’s removal.
The fact that the embryo happens to be in the tube is an unfortunate coincidence.

The fact that if the embryo were not in the tube that other treatments would be followed is inconsequential?

 

[Daniel_Kane]

The Catholic Moral Theologians who opine that the removal of all or a portion of the fallopian tube is a moral act are the bishops of the United States of America and the National Catholic Bioethics Center.

In extrauterine pregnancy the affected part of the mother (cervix, ovary or fallopian tube) may be removed even though fetal death is foreseen, provided (a) the affected part is presumed already to be so damaged and dangerously affected as to warrant its removal, and that (b) the operation is not just a separation of the embryo or fetus for its site with the part (which would be a direct abortion) and that (c) the operation can not be postponed without notably increasing the danger to the mother. Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Heath Care Services, n 16.

The only moral question unanswered is not if tube removal is moral, that is settled. But is stopping the action of the throphoblast (the exterior cells that surround the embryo which are not embryonic but placental) constitutes a direct abortion. It is the interaction of these cells in a malfunctioning tube that causes the problem. It could very well be malfunctioning throphoblasts in a normal tube. The medical research is not clear at all and it likely is caused by a number of factors both maternal and embryonic in origin that are not fully understood. But the causality of the situation is not related to the treatment.

What is clear is this. Forty to sixty percent of ectopic pregnancies resolve without treatment (but always involve embryonic death) and the remaining mothers die without treatment. In the history of medicine, all of the ectopic embryos had a fatal circumstance except for two. This is classic moral theology and a classic application of the principal of the double effect.

The fact that in the performance of a well reasoned moral act a death is foreseen does not automatically conclude that in the performance of this act a death is intended. This is not a reckless act but a desperate treatment of a condition that if left untreated has a 40% to 60% rate of killing the mother.

 

[Lorarose]

First of all…the fact that the United States Catholic Bishops made this statement does not qualify it as official Church teaching - we have seen that to be the case in other situations.

Maybe I missed it, but I have not seen Rome tackle this issue head on.

The Bishops stated that it must be demonstrated that the tube is diseased…that it is the tube that is being treated.
Are doctors really examining the tubes to see if they are abnormal, blocked, diseased? Or are they assuming the tube is abnormal BECAUSE the embryo is growing inside it? (So, the presence of the embryo automatically makes the tube abnormal?)

So, my questions I had in my other posts remain…
Tubes with blockages or disease are not always treated with removal.
The only reason the procedure of tubal extraction is being considered in most of these cases is due to the presence of the growing embryo. The removal of the embryo is the goal. The only part of the tube being removed is the section containing the embryo, and the death of the embryo is the direct result.

 

[Joan_M]

Lorarose:

This is just going round and round.
In the case of ectopic pregnancy the goal of the tubal procedure is to get rid of the embryo as well.

This is totally wrong! The goal of the tubal procedure is to save lives. If it was possible, both lives would be saved. However, even today it is not possible to save the life of the baby. Perhaps in the future it will be possible to gently remove the baby from the tube and place him or her in the womb to implant. Until then, only one life can be saved. Without the surgery, both will be lost.

The only reason to have the tube removed in this case is if an embryo is present - which makes the embryo the cause and target of the procedure - not the mucus problem.

Again, this is wrong. The only reason to remove a part of the tube is because it is has been damaged and infected by the dying or dead baby.

You seem to have little or no understanding as to what an ectopic pregnancy really is. The fallopian tube has a very small diameter. The embryo grows quite rapidly within the tube, which is stretched to the limit. That limit is unable to accommodate the growing baby, and it is crushed to death.

The pain of an ectopic pregnancy is excruciating. The tube will rupture and, without surgery, the woman will be quickly poisoned by the infection contained in the tube.

These days it is possible to identify an ectopic pregnancy early - before the dangerous stage. If our doctors study the possibilities, it may become feasible to effect a transfer - and so save both lives.

Until then, if surgery is necessary, then the tube must be removed.

Reading your posts, it appears to me that you are set in your opinion and unable to acknowledge that your understanding of the situation is mistaken. Perhaps you should bring the subject to your prayer, particularly as the Church has ruled on this. Any time we find ourselves in opposition to the Church, we should examine ourselves for the vice of pride.

 

[Lorarose]

The goal of the tubal procedure is to save lives. If it was possible, both lives would be saved.

I understand both lives would be saved if it were possible.
The removal of the embryo alone is also an attempt to save the life of the mother.
Both procedures directly remove the embryo, thereby directly killing the embryo.

The only reason to remove a part of the tube is because it is has been damaged and infected by the dying or dead baby.

If it were true the tube is always damaged or infected, then women would be unable to go on and have successful pregnancies with the same tube.
But they do.
So I am assuming the tube is not always damaged or infected.

You seem to have little or no understanding as to what an ectopic pregnancy really is.

I do understand what it is.

The pain of an ectopic pregnancy is excruciating. The tube will rupture and, without surgery, the woman will be quickly poisoned by the infection contained in the tube

I fully understand this as I almost lost a friend to this situation.

These days it is possible to identify an ectopic pregnancy early - before the dangerous stage. If our doctors study the possibilities, it may become feasible to effect a transfer - and so save both lives.

That would be a welcome and wonderful development.

Until then, if surgery is necessary, then the tube must be removed.

I know some women who had the embryo removed without removing the tube.
Their tubes functioned normally afterwards.

Reading your posts, it appears to me that you are set in your opinion and unable to acknowledge that your understanding of the situation is mistaken.

I do not see the ethical difference between the 2 procedures.
I have not seen any arguments that have convinced me there is a difference.
It appears to me that it is a matter of semantics, and not a true substantial difference.

Perhaps you should bring the subject to your prayer, particularly as the Church has ruled on this

Rome has addressed this issue? Of ectopic pregnancy?
I must have missed it.

Any time we find ourselves in opposition to the Church, we should examine ourselves for the vice of pride.

As I have not seen a statement from Rome on this I do not consider myself in opposition.
I suspect people want to have an acceptable course of action in this situation that does not appear to be an abortion.
This leads to redefining the nature of the tubal extraction - which is targeting the embryo, and is directly killing it.
I don’t see any ethical difference between the 2 procedures.

 

[Daniel_Kane]

Lorarose - Do you have any facts at all to support your opinion that is at odds with 263 American Bishops? The unrebuted written opinion of 263 bishops is considered to be valid and binding teaching unless revoked by Rome. There is no such movement to have this happen and this document is five years old. In fact, I have been working towards a certificate in bioethics and this is the first time I have seen this issue challenged. I looked for references to support your contentions and have come up with nothing. So I have a few questions about your most recent post:

What moral teachings of the entire college of American Bishops speaking with one voice have ever been superseded by Rome? I have never heard of that occurring.

Can you find any theologian (at this point I would take anyone, even a non-Catholic source) that concurs with your opinion? I gave you 263 bishops and the National Catholic Bioethics Center’s staff who concur with mine.

I think that you misread the italics. The Bishops did not say that disease of the tube had to be proven.They said presumed to be damaged, different standard totally. All tissue surgically removed from patients in the U.S. is examined by an independent third party called a pathologist. I have never seen or heard of a totally normal ectopically pregnant tube removal reported in a pathology report. Visually at surgery, the surgeon can see with the naked eye the dysfunctional tube. There is always dysfunction in the tube reported grossly and microscopically. But then again, these are American pathologists, not Roman, so the final word is still not in yet.

Fallopian tubes are by their very design in part made to have embryos transit them. One could say that this is the main purpose. If they fail in this critical function and risk the life of the mother, they are **presumed to be already to be so damaged and dangerously affected as to warrant their removal. **That is the official, written opinion of the Catholic Church in the U.S. and this opinion stands completely unchallenged until now by you. Believe me, I looked for points to support your contention because I am seeking only the truth and find none.

You said that the removal of the embryo is the goal. The solitary removal of an embryo is not the goal of tubal removal. The solitary removal of an embryo is a direct abortion and that is immoral and always wrong and is condemned by the same document (Ethical and Religious Directives for Healthcare Services) I quoted. The removal of a presumed to be damaged tube with an embryo in it is a moral act with an foreseen, unintended and sadly unfortunate result under existing Catholic teaching. It is considered to be a moral application of the principal of the double effect.