Why did USCCB defend a dangerous forced c-section

[TheLittleLady]

This is why each of us, young or old, healthy or ill, need to have a medical power of attorney in place. We need to know that one person will understand our morals and our wishes and will act accordingly if we are unable.

 

[D.Erasmus.R]

Here’s what Aquinas said on the topic:

Objection 3. Further, eternal death is a greater evil than death of the body. But of two evil the less should be chosen. If, therefore, the child in the mother’s womb cannot be baptised, it would be better for the mother to be opened, and the child to be taken out by force and baptised, than that the child should be eternally damned through dying without baptism.

Reply to Objection 3. We should “not do evil that there may come good” (Romans 8:3). Therefore it is wrong to kill a mother that her child may be baptised. If, however, the mother die while the child lives yet in her womb, she should be opened that the child may be baptised.

A mother must never be killed so that her baby might live.
It seems that the object of a c-section in Aquinas’s case was to kill the mother.
The only thing that can change that now is that mothers have a high chance of surviving the operation. However, if a mother has very little chance of surviving the operation then Isn’t the object of the act to kill?

 

[Elf01]

However, if a mother has very little chance of surviving the operation then Isn’t the object of the act to kill?

A moral act has three fonts: object, intent and circumstances.

An act that is evil in it’s object can never be moral regardless of intent or circumstances.

An act that is evil in intent is also not moral.

Circumstances are different. In general the circumstances should be good or neutral. However there are cases where, in order to achieve a good effect, a bad effect may be permitted. This is called the Principle of Double Effect.

The conditions are:

1. The act itself is not evil.
2. The bad effect is not intended
3. The good effect is not caused by the bad effect
4. The good effect outweighs the bad effect

I think we can agree that 2, 3 and 4 apply in this case. The question is is the mothers death in the object or the circumstances of the C Section?

My rule of thumb of figuring this out is asking myself if the treatment did not have the bad effect would the good effect still happen - and is there no alternative available? In the case of an etopic pregnancy, if a tube was to rupture and no baby was in it I think it would have to be removed (yes, I am ignoring the fact that the baby is the reason the tube is going to rupture). I have no medical experience but I’m picturing it as like an acute appendix.

A healthy woman has a very good chance of surviving a C Section and I’m assuming that one would be the normal recommended treatment in the situation and no treatment with a better outcome for the mother was available. Under those conditions I would see the mothers death as a consequence, not an object. Even if you disagree I hope you can see that a reasonable case can be made.

If delivering a pre viable baby in the cases of Savita Halappanavar & Tamesha Means was a direct attack on the child, then isn’t cutting a mother open without a reasonable chance for her surviving a direct attack?

I’m going to correct some misinformation re Savita Halappavavar

Savita Halappanavar: Her tragic death and how she became part of Ireland's abortion debate

The quote I want to draw your attention to is

Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart[beat].

That implies to me that there were circumstances under which the baby could have legally been delivered. Assuming it was the best way to save Savita I would say it would also be moral.

 

[phil19034]

Here’s what Aquinas said on the topic:

Objection 3. Further, eternal death is a greater evil than death of the body. But of two evil the less should be chosen. If, therefore, the child in the mother’s womb cannot be baptised, it would be better for the mother to be opened, and the child to be taken out by force and baptised, than that the child should be eternally damned through dying without baptism.

I agreee with Thomas, it is always wrong TO KILL the mother to save the baby. However, Aquinas’ teaching on this is based on 13th century medicine.

In the 13th century a c-section was EXTREMELY dangerous & premature babies did not live. In his time, a c-section was killing the mother.

Today, C-Sections are not immoral acts because mothers typically make full recoveries & the babies typically live. So a c-section today is morally licit.

In the situation we are discussing it can be argued that BEFORE the surgery was performed, all 3 measures of a moral act were met.

1. the object was morally licit (the c-section)
2. the intent (to save the baby) was moral
3. and it can be argued that the citiation did not make this act immoral. The surgery did not kill the mother. Complications from the surgery did & the root cause was her medical condition.

Let’s also remember, a baby in the womb looses his/her oxygen after the death of the mother, & must be delivered within 5 minutes of a mother’s death.

In this situation, the Catholic ethicists (who I trust far more than secular doctors in regards of medical morality & eithics) felt the situation warranted the surgery.

Today, we are looking at this situation after the mother had died due to the complications. However, if the mother didn’t die due to complications - this surgery would be viewed as a total success by everyone (except the extreme pro-abortion croud).

It’s easy to second guess subjective situations after the fact & judge the morality based on the negative outcomes. People do that with the Crusades all the time.

However, what we should really do it put ourselves in their decision making process & understand what they knew as fact at the time.

The situation was subjective & there was nothing that I have read that indicates they murdered the mother in order to save the baby. Instead, they made a risky discission (that was worth the risk in this situation) & tried to save BOTH.

Again, had the mother not died due to complications, no one would be saying the surgery was immoral.

 

[Annie]

Wow, I did not realize that she had miscarried a few days before she died.

While this case is tragic, it is odd that a death resulting from pregnancy (very rare in developed nations) can lead to a call for legalizing abortion, while a mother’s death from abortion (never mind the babies’s deaths) does not lead to calls to illegalize abortion. Even laws to protect mothers are fought against.

 

[po18guy]

Late 80s? Is this hotly debated or something? By carrying her child as far as she could, are not her intentions known? Did she express her desire explicitly? And, would losing both when one could be saved be morally acceptable? I don’t really get your point.