What is your view on this story...related to abortion?

[Truth_Faith13]

Please note this is NOT about abortion in the general sense, I know the Catholic Church is against abortion.

Ireland is a catholic country and as such abortions are illegal except for exceptional reasons (I don’t know the full details as I am not Irish so won’t guess)

There was a non catholic, non Irish pregnant woman who was rushed to hospital.
She was 17weeks pregnant.
Baby was reported to be dying…there was nothing doctors could do to save baby. She was having a miscarriage
This was causing several problems for the mum…she began to get septaceimia
Doctors refused to terminate the pregnancy that was ending anyhow
The septaceimia led to multiple organ failure and the death of the mother (and baby obviously too)

This caused huge protests especially from India (where the woman was from)

Thoughts?

Were the doctors wrong? Was this an individual catholic act of making a bad decision?
Were the doctors right and acting as the church would expect them to act?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Were the doctors wrong? Was this an individual catholic act of making a bad decision?
Were the doctors right and acting as the church would expect them to act?

Generally speaking, the Church is OK with an abortion if it is absolutely necessary to save the mother’s life.

IMHO the doctors were wrong and should have gone ahead with terminating the pregnancy.

 

[PhiloMed]

Much like with an ectopic pregnancy, the death of the baby would be an unintended consequence.

So, if they had treated the mother properly and delivered the baby, she(he) would not have survived outside the womb at such an early age of gestation but presumably the mother’s life would have been saved. Delivering the baby would not have been done with the intent to kill the baby, but to save the mother. There would be the unintended consequence of (likely) a stillbirth.

 

[edward_george]

Generally speaking, the Church is OK with an abortion if it is absolutely necessary to save the mother’s life.

IMHO the doctors were wrong and should have gone ahead with terminating the pregnancy.

I would like to see what Church document teaches this. The teaching of the Church has always been fairly clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is never morally licit.

As for the OP’s question, the case you mention was one which was widely sensationalized by the secular media. The doctors would not have performed an abortion in this case because A) the woman was miscarrying; one can hardly abort a child who is already dead; and B) abortion is an extremely invasive procedure, and one dying of septic shock is nowhere close to stable enough condition to undergo such a traumatic surgical procedure. An abortion in this case might have only made her condition worse, and would have in no way been able to save her life.

-ACEGC

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I would like to see what Church document teaches this. The teaching of the Church has always been fairly clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is never morally licit.

As for the OP’s question, the case you mention was one which was widely sensationalized by the secular media. The doctors would not have performed an abortion in this case because A) the woman was miscarrying; one can hardly abort a child who is already dead; and B) abortion is an extremely invasive procedure, and one dying of septic shock is nowhere close to stable enough condition to undergo such a traumatic surgical procedure. An abortion in this case might have only made her condition worse, and would have in no way been able to save her life.

-ACEGC

This is the problem, I think it took 3 days to miscarry…the doctors were happy to intervene once the heart of the baby had stopped beating. Unfortunately this was too late for the mother. Had they have intervened as soon as she entered the hospital (in knowledge that the child could hot survive) she may not have gone into septic shock. From a secular perspective they could intervene because they can always get a baby out before it causes harm to the body (miscarriages aren’t always quick and simple), the same way a doctor can perform a caesarean after hours of natural labour. The doctors themselves said it had noting to do with miscarrying but because as a catholic country they don’t believe in abortions.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I would like to see what Church document teaches this. The teaching of the Church has always been fairly clear that the direct taking of an innocent human life is never morally licit.

As for the OP’s question, the case you mention was one which was widely sensationalized by the secular media. The doctors would not have performed an abortion in this case because A) the woman was miscarrying; one can hardly abort a child who is already dead; and B) abortion is an extremely invasive procedure, and one dying of septic shock is nowhere close to stable enough condition to undergo such a traumatic surgical procedure. An abortion in this case might have only made her condition worse, and would have in no way been able to save her life.

-ACEGC

OK, some clarification.

It is not permissible to intentionally perform an abortion just to save the mother’s life. However, if an effort is being made to save the mother’s life and losing the child is an unfortunate (but not intended) consequence of this effort, then no harm no foul.

For example, suppose a pregnant woman suffers severe abdominal injuries as the result of an automobile accident. During emergency treatment, the child dies as a result of that treatment. This is not considered a “abortion” because there was no intent to harm the child. Nor is it an abortion if there is a high probability the child was also going to die as a result of the accident.

However, if a doctor says “this fetus is the way of the surgery I need to do. Let’s get rid of it.” then that would be wrong (though arguably, the sin is against the doctor rather than the mother because perhaps she is unconscious and not a party to the decision).

Here’s some additional reading.

catholicism.about.com/b/2010/01/22/reader-question-abortion-and-the-life-of-the-mother.htm

catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=177

dummies.com/how-to/content/the-catholic-church-and-abortion.html

 

[edward_george]

OK, some clarification.

It is not permissible to intentionally perform an abortion just to save the mother’s life. However, if an effort is being made to save the mother’s life and losing the child is an unfortunate (but not intended) consequence of this effort, then no harm no foul.

For example, suppose a pregnant woman suffers severe abdominal injuries as the result of an automobile accident. During emergency treatment, the child dies as a result of that treatment. This is not considered a “abortion” because there was no intent to harm the child. Nor is it an abortion if there is a high probability the child was also going to die as a result of the accident.

However, if a doctor says “this fetus is the way of the surgery I need to do. Let’s get rid of it.” then that would be wrong (though arguably, the sin is against the doctor rather than the mother because perhaps she is unconscious and not a party to the decision).

Here’s some additional reading.

catholicism.about.com/b/2010/01/22/reader-question-abortion-and-the-life-of-the-mother.htm

catholic.net/index.php?option=dedestaca&id=177

dummies.com/how-to/content/the-catholic-church-and-abortion.html

I’m aware of the teaching on double effect, particularly as concerns ectopic pregnancy and similar situations. I was just making sure you were–you came right out and said “the Church allows for abortion in some cases,” which isn’t entirely accurate.

-ACEGC

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I’m aware of the teaching on double effect, particularly as concerns ectopic pregnancy and similar situations. I was just making sure you were–you came right out and said “the Church allows for abortion in some cases,” which isn’t entirely accurate.

-ACEGC

It’s ok, I understood what she meant…

The problem I am having is I consider withholding a treatment which could save the life of the mother, murder too…so while the baby died as it was going to anyway, the mother was murdered.

 

[edward_george]

It’s ok, I understood what she meant…

The problem I am having is I consider withholding a treatment which could save the life of the mother, murder too…so while the baby died as it was going to anyway, the mother was murdered.

I don’t think you can say that the mother was murdered in this case–no willful, deliberate, and premeditated action was taken to kill her. Rather, she died as the result of an infection. Tragic and unfortunate, but hardly murder. And as I understand the case, having an abortion would not have helped her at all–but this was greatly distorted in how it was reported, as there is a significant abortion lobby in Ireland trying to overturn the laws banning it.

-ACEGC

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I’m aware of the teaching on double effect, particularly as concerns ectopic pregnancy and similar situations. I was just making sure you were–you came right out and said “the Church allows for abortion in some cases,” which isn’t entirely accurate.

-ACEGC

Not to pick nits, but that would depend on how you define “abortion.” Does one mean “deliberately killing fetus” or a “human action that results in the death of a fetus”?

 

[EasterJoy]

One patient cannot be sacrificed or euthanized in order to save another patient, even if one patient is yet unborn. Could the baby be delivered early when it is certain it would not change the child’s chances of survival but might increase the mother’s chances of survival? I think arguments in favor of that intervention could be made, but it is impossible to say whether or not that course of action applied in this case. If the procedure in question would have been a dilation and curettage, though, it could not be acceptable unless the child had already died. An ethical physician cannot dismember a living child, even if the child seems obviously to be dying.

 

[Usagi]

Not to pick nits, but that would depend on how you define “abortion.” Does one mean “deliberately killing fetus” or a “human action that results in the death of a fetus”?

“Deliberately killing a fetus” is the one being talked about when we discuss abortion as a terrible sin. Medically, of course, the term is used more broadly.

When talking about the sin in documents, the Church usually specifies “deliberate” or “procured” abortion.

Usagi

 

[fontgoddess]

The finding of the inquest into this case was that she died of medical misadventure (I.e. they totally missed that she was septic until it was probably too late to do anything). She had e. Coli which was not caused by the miscarriage, but in fact probably caused the miscarriage. She didn’t die because she was denied an abortion, she died because they failed to diagnose her properly. Nevertheless, the case was very much exploited by the pro-abortion lobby in Ireland.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

“Deliberately killing a fetus” is the one being talked about when we discuss abortion as a terrible sin. Medically, of course, the term is used more broadly.

When talking about the sin in documents, the Church usually specifies “deliberate” or “procured” abortion.

Usagi

How can you deliberately kill something which is already dead technically as is the term of a miscarriage?

Basically they said - you are having a miscarriage but we aren’t going to remove anything even though you are developing septic shock from the dead/dying foetus because technically it could still have a heart beat…

It’s like having two people trapped in a car which is under water but you only have time to save one…then letting them both die because you don’t want to let either die even though once could be saved…(especially if one had already drowned)

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The finding of the inquest into this case was that she died of medical misadventure (I.e. they totally missed that she was septic until it was probably too late to do anything). She had e. Coli which was not caused by the miscarriage, but in fact probably caused the miscarriage. She didn’t die because she was denied an abortion, she died because they failed to diagnose her properly. Nevertheless, the case was very much exploited by the pro-abortion lobby in Ireland.

See now that’s interesting and makes medical sense…do you have a link for that information?

 

[Usagi]

How can you deliberately kill something which is already dead technically as is the term of a miscarriage?

Basically they said - you are having a miscarriage but we aren’t going to remove anything even though you are developing septic shock from the dead/dying foetus because technically it could still have a heart beat…

It’s like having two people trapped in a car which is under water but you only have time to save one…then letting them both die because you don’t want to let either die even though once could be saved…(especially if one had already drowned)

I was answering Lost Sheep’s definitional question, not giving an opinion on the specific case.

That said, you obviously cannot deliberately kill someone who is already dead, and the Church of course does not forbid removing a dead fetus. On the other hand, you most certainly can deliberately kill someone who is dying, and it isn’t any less wrong on your part just because you only hastened something that was already coming.

Usagi

 

[robwar]

Please note this is NOT about abortion in the general sense, I know the Catholic Church is against abortion.

Ireland is a catholic country and as such abortions are illegal except for exceptional reasons (I don’t know the full details as I am not Irish so won’t guess)

There was a non catholic, non Irish pregnant woman who was rushed to hospital.
She was 17weeks pregnant.
Baby was reported to be dying…there was nothing doctors could do to save baby. She was having a miscarriage
This was causing several problems for the mum…she began to get septaceimia
Doctors refused to terminate the pregnancy that was ending anyhow
The septaceimia led to multiple organ failure and the death of the mother (and baby obviously too)

This caused huge protests especially from India (where the woman was from)

Thoughts?

Were the doctors wrong? Was this an individual catholic act of making a bad decision?
Were the doctors right and acting as the church would expect them to act?

the story you are referring to was a resident that did have to be rushed to the hospital, the mom went into septic shock and passed away along with the baby. This story was twisted by the new media the if the baby was aborted, the mother could have been saved. There is in reality no proof for this thinking and even if there was an abortion, the mom probably would not have survived anyway because she went into septic shock before hand. You really need to be careful in following stories like this which was used by a pro-abortion media to go after Ireland’s policies concerning abortion. They used this tragic story to promote abortion. I would check a number of the active pro-life web sites for better and accurate info on this very sad case.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

the story you are referring to was a resident that did have to be rushed to the hospital, the mom went into septic shock and passed away along with the baby. This story was twisted by the new media the if the baby was aborted, the mother could have been saved. There is in reality no proof for this thinking and even if there was an abortion, the mom probably would not have survived anyway because she went into septic shock before hand. You really need to be careful in following stories like this which was used by a pro-abortion media to go after Ireland’s policies concerning abortion. They used this tragic story to promote abortion. I would check a number of the active pro-life web sites for better and accurate info on this very sad case.

Don’t take this has me being difficult I’m just making a point but what would make a pro life website more accurate…both pro life and pro abortion news/website etc do not have the full details as is always the case for a medical case so both will use the information that supports their own “missions” as it were.

I guess I am struggling with it as in the UK we have to honour the religious beliefs of the patient not our own religious beliefs. I believe it’s every persons right to make their own decisions whether I agree with them or not.

 

[robwar]

Don’t take this has me being difficult I’m just making a point but what would make a pro life website more accurate…both pro life and pro abortion news/website etc do not have the full details as is always the case for a medical case so both will use the information that supports their own “missions” as it were.

I guess I am struggling with it as in the UK we have to honour the religious beliefs of the patient not our own religious beliefs.

The fact is that the abortion isn’t going to save someone that is in septic shock or going into it. The main line news media ignored that fact. Abortion not only kills the baby, it hurts women very profoundly as well. Someone that is spiraling down hill is not going to be helped by an abortion, it will only make it worse and kill the mother as well as the baby.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The fact is that the abortion isn’t going to save someone that is in septic shock or going into it. The main line news media ignored that fact. Abortion not only kills the baby, it hurts women very profoundly as well. Someone that is spiraling down hill is not going to be helped by an abortion, it will only make it worse and kill the mother as well as the baby.

The problem is the pro life are saying she was already in septic shock but the news said she wasn’t, it was the refusal to remove the foetus that caused the septic shock.

I agree that if she was already in septic shock, an abortion wouldn’t have helped but that is not what the news said…she deteriorated over the 3 days it took for the miscarriage to happen causing the septic shock.

I guess we will never know what really happened as I never trust anyone with an agenda.

I still think medical facilities shouldn’t be governed by religion and the wishes of the patient respected. I think I am right in saying that doctors in the uk aren’t actually allowed to refuse to give treatment on their own religious grounds.