Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

[vames]

At the very minimum, it neglected to take into account what the teachings of the magisterium actually are, which would have included (and insisted on) adequate treatment of the infection and adequate pain control for the mother.

Your colleague said that “frequently medication treatment of pregnant women tends to be conservative for fear of exposing the baby to what would be a high dosage of drug crossing the placental blood barrier”.
It’s not implausible, then, that the reason for the inadequate pain management was the same - wanting to protect the dying baby instead of protecting the mother in pain.
As this nurse said:
“Just to provide a background to the medics action in respect of providing pain management: As there would appear to have been a foetal heartbeat present the foetus was still viable (horrible word — apologies). The foetus remains viable until essentially a heartbeat is no longer present. As such, medics have to treat the mother as though a healthy foetus is going to be given birth to, resulting in reduced pain management, reduced strength of pain management leading to reduced efficiency of said pain management. That along with the fact that pain arising from miscarriage is something monumentally painful for any woman who has experienced such a thing.”
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10019816&postcount=119

 

[vames]

Besides, there are pro-life hardliners that equate abortion = induced delivery = murder, precisely by invoking some Church teachings. They say that in such cases, the only permisible action is to administer some antibiotics to the woman, nothing more. So no matter if the mother is dying or not, if she can be saved by abortion or by induced delivery, if she can be saved only by abortion, if the baby is viable or not, there’s only one rule: don’t touch the baby. Maybe the doctors involved in this case thought the same way
spuc-director.blogspot.ro/2012/11/induced-delivery-of-non-viable-children.html
spuc-director.blogspot.ro/2012/11/savita-halappanavar-death-tragic-but.html

 

[pepipop]

*She postulated that the infection could have been easily identified before becoming septicemia by a simple complete blood count, one of the most basic lab tests on anyone who presents for emergency admission. An elevated white blood cell count, along with something called a “left shift” (which she explained to me as some immature cells being forced into circulation as part of the inflammatory response) would or should have triggered a suspicion of infection somewhere in this patient’s body, possibly quite some time before it disseminated into systemic infection (septicemia) unless a) the woman was immunocompromised, or b) the responsible microorganism was particularly virulent.

We agreed that without a comprehensive medical record review, including what lab tests were obtained when, it’s impossible to garner the rationale of the treatment team for the course of treatment. We both said that we would have liked to have been flies on the wall in the mortality and morbidity conference that surely followed this.

Actually, I do think that the half-information that was in the press had a political agenda and was a not so subtle form of Catholic bashing. At the very minimum, it neglected to take into account what the teachings of the magisterium actually are, which would have included (and insisted on) adequate treatment of the infection and adequate pain control for the mother.*

She did not present with septicemia until after theatre. A complete blood count is a standard procedure when someone is admitted to hospital, her white cell count must have indicated nothing out of the ordinary. I have read of patients undergoing miscarriage that are sent home, or wish to go home and they are not prescribed pain medicines, they are to wait out the natural miscarriage process.

Possibly, the pain medicines may interfere in some way with the process, i.e. prostaglandin levels comes to mind and hence may delay or interfere with the contraction process and hence incomplete removal of the dead tissue. I’m just surmising here, but after googling quickly ‘miscarriage and pain management’, it would seem it is not usually recommended, and then only if the woman has other underlying health issues.

 

[Mustard]

The inquest hasn’t been held, the pathologist’s report hasn’t been released and the enquiry which has been announced hasn’t even been formed. At this point, nothing is known for sure about what happened in that hospital, and most of the heat is coming from abortionists who are using this woman’s dead body as an ideological battering ram. Do not believe a word you read about this case at this time, since nothing has been established, and the Irish media generally is rabidly anti-Catholic. I know; I’m Irish.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

IIRC, in the case of St. Joseph’s Hospital they performed a direct abortion, i.e. they killed the child and then extracted it. There is also the possibility that they made no effort to save the child once it was delivered, which would also be impermissible; delivering the child and leaving it on a cold table to die is not the same as what I’m advocating.

Finally, there’s the possibility that the Bishop simply misapplied Catholic ethics on the matter. If it was the placenta which was removed, resulting in the death of the child, then there would be no practical difference from the removal of a compromised fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, which is allowed. The Bishop certainly doesn’t enjoy any kind of infallibility in his judgement of the situation, though his authority must be respected, especially within his diocese. This certainly isn’t an area in which the Catholic Church as a whole has made a firm judgement about which particular actions are permissible, and discretion is given to each jurisdiction. That said, he was within his authority to revoke the Catholic status of the hospital for whatever reason, and he cited more reasons beyond that one incident.

Peace and God bless!

The fetus at St Joseph’s was only 11 weeks, so I’m not sure what else they could’ve done.

The certainly couldn’t have saved an 11 week fetus.

JIm

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

IIRC, in the case of St. Joseph’s Hospital they performed a direct abortion, i.e. they killed the child and then extracted it. There is also the possibility that they made no effort to save the child once it was delivered, which would also be impermissible; delivering the child and leaving it on a cold table to die is not the same as what I’m advocating.

Finally, there’s the possibility that the Bishop simply misapplied Catholic ethics on the matter. If it was the placenta which was removed, resulting in the death of the child, then there would be no practical difference from the removal of a compromised fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy, which is allowed. The Bishop certainly doesn’t enjoy any kind of infallibility in his judgement of the situation, though his authority must be respected, especially within his diocese. This certainly isn’t an area in which the Catholic Church as a whole has made a firm judgement about which particular actions are permissible, and discretion is given to each jurisdiction. That said, he was within his authority to revoke the Catholic status of the hospital for whatever reason, and he cited more reasons beyond that one incident.

Peace and God bless!

An eleven week foetus is less than two inches long. I doubt it would still be alive after is removed (however that was done), and the idea that it is possible to either choose to ‘make an effort to save it’ or choose to not make that effort doesn’t make any sense to me. There isn’t anything AT ALL that can be done.

 

[Ghosty]

An eleven week foetus is less than two inches long. I doubt it would still be alive after is removed (however that was done), and the idea that it is possible to either choose to ‘make an effort to save it’ or choose to not make that effort doesn’t make any sense to me. There isn’t anything AT ALL that can be done.

There’s a difference between directly cutting it up in the womb and removing it carefully, and that’s what I’m referring to. Obviously there isn’t much that can be done for a child at that stage, nor even at 17 weeks, but there is a huge difference between making some kind of effort and cutting it into pieces or setting it aside in a biohazard bin.

Peace and God bless!

 

[SnowWhite813]

Plants and animals were made for consumption and God has given us the authority to cnsume them. I was making an analogy that absemce of persona does not mean absence of life.

Your ideas are still very flawed. So because a person is in agony, that gives the person authority? The Jews supposedly caused Hitler and their society agony, so I guess you think he had every right to exterminate them.

So just so I’m clear, you do not believe Savita was in actual physical agony, but instead she was faking or imagining it, like Hitler was?

And you also think Savita did not want to terminate her pregnancy because she felt as her baby was dying and she wanted to end her pain and suffering…but rather because she just hated babies as a group and wanted to kill as many of them as possible? Why didn’t she just get an abortion earlier, in England, if that was the case, and she just hated her baby?

Also, you are claiming (for the Hitler/Jew analogy to make any sense) that her pregnancy had no actual, tangible threat to her health, it was, again, all just some mad fantasy driven by her hatred of babies…in other words, you think she would have died in the same manner at the same time even if she had not ever been pregnant? Do you believe, generally, that pregnancy and child birth is not actually dangerous (like the Jews), and that all the women who have died allegedly from pregnancy and childbirth actually died from some other reason, that pregnancy/childbirth actually cannot harm a woman?

Where did you get these supposed insights into Savita’s mindset and medical condition?

Or is your claim that physical pain is no different from the emotional pain that racists or anti-Semites feel? In other words, are you saying that a person who is being physically tortured, say, being burned to death, is in no way different and deserves no more consideration than a racist feeling emotional pain because their daughter marries a black man?

Does that mean you think torture should be legal? After all, it’s not illegal to cause someone emotional pain. If it’s not illegal to break up with your high school boyfriend, and emotional pain is exactly equal and due equal consideration** to physical pain, then it makes no sense to illegalize torture when we do not illegalize causing someone emotional pain. Or, conversely, it should be illegal to ever hurt someone’s feelings. If someone ever tells you something that really hurts you, you should be able to tell them, and demand that they correct the situation or you will press charges.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

There’s a difference between directly cutting it up in the womb and removing it carefully, and that’s what I’m referring to. Obviously there isn’t much that can be done for a child at that stage, nor even at 17 weeks, but there is a huge difference between making some kind of effort and cutting it into pieces or setting it aside in a biohazard bin.

Peace and God bless!

This is what a reporter assumed to have happened at St. Joseph’s on the 11 week fetus, but because of confidentiality, the method for terminating the pregnancy in this particular case was never revealed, other than the pregnancy was terminated and a D&C was performed, which is par for the course in miscarriage and premature births.

Various canon lawyers and theologians stated that because it was the placenta causing the problem where the woman would die, they could’ve removed the placenta which of course would kill the fetus, but it would’ve been an indirect abortion.

I say this is a tap dance around saving the mother’s life while satisfying Church doctrine.

Medically, it was probably a dumb idea and the doctors chose not to go use a work-around procedure, but rather the method that provided the least amount of risk and ensured saving the mother in time.

Jim

 

[oldcelt]

This is what a reporter assumed to have happened at St. Joseph’s on the 11 week fetus, but because of confidentiality, the method for terminating the pregnancy in this particular case was never revealed, other than the pregnancy was terminated and a D&C was performed, which is par for the course in miscarriage and premature births.

Various canon lawyers and theologians stated that because it was the placenta causing the problem where the woman would die, they could’ve removed the placenta which of course would kill the fetus, but it would’ve been an indirect abortion.

I say this is a tap dance around saving the mother’s life while satisfying Church doctrine.

Medically, it was probably a dumb idea and the doctors chose not to go use a work-around procedure, but rather the method that provided the least amount of risk and ensured saving the mother in time.

Jim

Agreed…to my mind, it is just silly to make such distinctions when the woman’s life is in danger. Doctrine is fine, but let’s not go to the absurd.

John

 

[KostyaJMJ]

Agreed…to my mind, it is just silly to make such distinctions when the woman’s life is in danger. Doctrine is fine, but let’s not go to the absurd.

John

It wouldn’t be the only fine distinctions that are made with abortion. Think about the difference between surgical and chemical intervention with ecoptic pregnancy. There is a lot of disagreement about whether methotrexate can be considered a direct or indirect abortion and so in some Catholic hospitals (3 out of 16 in a 2011 Women’s Health study) it isn’t administered. It makes absolutely no difference to the life of the fetus whether is is flushed out chemically or removed surgically. But to the mother you are talking about a rather explosive and painful situation if proper medical treatment is denied. So yea, there are some rather fine distinctions that are made that can seem rather absurd from the outside looking in.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

It seems to me that it is cases like this one where the rubber meets the road for Catholics.

The honest answer to these criticisms is simple, but no one seems to want to say it to the media…the bottom line is, in a Catholic hospital, a pregnant woman and her fetus are considered to be TWO patients. A doctor who has two patients would not deliberately kill one of his patients for the benefit of the other.

For example, if someone needed an organ transplant, and there was another patient dying, not expected to live for more than a few days…would the doctor say “Well, he’s going to die for sure pretty soon, so let’s just kill him now, and then we can save the other patient.”
But pro-choice people would deny that the baby is another patient, rather, they would say that it is still just a part of its mother’s body if it is not yet viable.

I struggle a great deal with this issue in general, but I do hate it when the Catholic Church is criticized in cases like this one, as all they are doing is having the courage of their convictions… They say that baby is a person from conception, and that no one has the right to kill him/her, for any reason. Even to save the mother.

 

[oldcelt]

It seems to me that it is cases like this one where the rubber meets the road for Catholics.

The honest answer to these criticisms is simple, but no one seems to want to say it to the media…the bottom line is, in a Catholic hospital, a pregnant woman and her fetus are considered to be TWO patients. A doctor who has two patients would not deliberately kill one of his patients for the benefit of the other.

For example, if someone needed an organ transplant, and there was another patient dying, not expected to live for more than a few days…would the doctor say “Well, he’s going to die for sure pretty soon, so let’s just kill him now, and then we can save the other patient.”
But pro-choice people would deny that the baby is another patient, rather, they would say that it is still just a part of its mother’s body if it is not yet viable.

I struggle a great deal with this issue in general, but I do hate it when the Catholic Church is criticized in cases like this one, as all they are doing is having the courage of their convictions… They say that baby is a person from conception, and that no one has the right to kill him/her, for any reason. Even to save the mother.

In my opinion, if cases like this continue, there will be a concerted effort to get the church out of healthcare entirely. The child in this case was going to die one way or the other…if the mother could have been saved, then she should have been, regardless of some technical reading of doctrine.

John

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

It seems to me that it is cases like this one where the rubber meets the road for Catholics.

The honest answer to these criticisms is simple, but no one seems to want to say it to the media…the bottom line is, in a Catholic hospital, a pregnant woman and her fetus are considered to be TWO patients. A doctor who has two patients would not deliberately kill one of his patients for the benefit of the other.

For example, if someone needed an organ transplant, and there was another patient dying, not expected to live for more than a few days…would the doctor say “Well, he’s going to die for sure pretty soon, so let’s just kill him now, and then we can save the other patient.”
But pro-choice people would deny that the baby is another patient, rather, they would say that it is still just a part of its mother’s body if it is not yet viable.

I struggle a great deal with this issue in general, but I do hate it when the Catholic Church is criticized in cases like this one, as all they are doing is having the courage of their convictions… They say that baby is a person from conception, and that no one has the right to kill him/her, for any reason. Even to save the mother.

But the trouble with the organ donor analogy is that it’s not the same thing at all. The person who needs the organ is going to die because of their medical condition and that medical condition is totally unrelated to the presence or absence of any possible potential donor. The first person’s condition does not depend on or change in relation to the condition of the second patient.

 

[Do_Good_Then_Go]

In my opinion, if cases like this continue, there will be a concerted effort to get the church out of healthcare entirely. The child in this case was going to die one way or the other…if the mother could have been saved, then she should have been, regardless of some technical reading of doctrine.

John

I know we don’t know all the facts of this case, but in a situation where there is no hope for the baby and the mother can be saved, I agree with you 100%, save her.

 

[pepipop]

It seems to me that it is cases like this one where the rubber meets the road for Catholics.

The honest answer to these criticisms is simple, but no one seems to want to say it to the media…the bottom line is, in a Catholic hospital, a pregnant woman and her fetus are considered to be TWO patients. A doctor who has two patients would not deliberately kill one of his patients for the benefit of the other.

For example, if someone needed an organ transplant, and there was another patient dying, not expected to live for more than a few days…would the doctor say “Well, he’s going to die for sure pretty soon, so let’s just kill him now, and then we can save the other patient.”
But pro-choice people would deny that the baby is another patient, rather, they would say that it is still just a part of its mother’s body if it is not yet viable.

I struggle a great deal with this issue in general, but I do hate it when the Catholic Church is criticized in cases like this one, as all they are doing is having the courage of their convictions… They say that baby is a person from conception, and that no one has the right to kill him/her, for any reason. Even to save the mother.

The mother’s life however, Savita’s, was not at risk. Most health authorities encourage natural miscarriage as opposed to anaesthesia and an operation putting the patient, i.e. the mother, at more risk. As the fetal heartbeat was still beating the pregnancy could still have been viable and with bed rest and delivered at a later stage - no-one knows, until the facts are released.

However, having read up on catholic ethical procedures, following this case, the mother is in fact always allowed treatment, if she has health issues - as it is a ‘chicken and egg’ scenario really, i.e. if the mother dies, by default, so may the child.

As was the case for St Gianna, she was offered a hysterectomy, which was allowed and would have effectively killed the unborn child.

*In 1961, Gianna was pregnant once again. During the second month, Gianna developed a fibroma on her uterus. After examination, the doctors gave her three choices: an abortion, a complete hysterectomy, or removal of only the fibroma. The Catholic Church forbids all direct abortion even when the woman’s life is in danger, but Catholic teaching would have allowed her to undergo a hysterectomy, which would have resulted in her unborn child’s death as an unintended consequence.

"Abortion – that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus – is never permitted...Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child." – The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERD) Directive 45*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla

 

[StJudePray4Me]

The mother’s life however, Savita’s, was not at risk. Most health authorities encourage natural miscarriage as opposed to anaesthesia and an operation putting the patient, i.e. the mother, at more risk. As the fetal heartbeat was still beating the pregnancy could still have been viable and with bed rest and delivered at a later stage - no-one knows, until the facts are released.

However, having read up on catholic ethical procedures, following this case, the mother is in fact always allowed treatment, if she has health issues - as it is a ‘chicken and egg’ scenario really, i.e. if the mother dies, by default, so may the child.

As was the case for St Gianna, she was offered a hysterectomy, which was allowed and would have effectively killed the unborn child.

*In 1961, Gianna was pregnant once again. During the second month, Gianna developed a fibroma on her uterus. After examination, the doctors gave her three choices: an abortion, a complete hysterectomy, or removal of only the fibroma. The Catholic Church forbids all direct abortion even when the woman’s life is in danger, but Catholic teaching would have allowed her to undergo a hysterectomy, which would have resulted in her unborn child’s death as an unintended consequence.

"Abortion – that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus – is never permitted...Operations, treatments, and medications that have as their direct purpose the cure of a proportionately serious pathological condition of a pregnant woman are permitted when they cannot be safely postponed until the unborn child is viable, even if they will result in the death of the unborn child." – The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (ERD) Directive 45*

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla

But is there ever an occasion in which the direct killing of the baby is the intended procedure in the attempt to save the life of the mother? Are there any complications of pregnancy for which the only and proven cure is a direct abortion?

My understanding was that we are not allowed to choose between the lives of two people, especially when one is defenseless.

My understanding is that other religions allow abortion in the case where the life of the mother is in danger…but that we as Catholics do not allow it. That essentially, we will not kill one person to save another.

 

[m134e5]

Before my wife and I married we were counseled by a priest and asked the question “If your house was on fire who would you save, your wife or children?” Well both my wife and I answered our children…but to our surprise, we were told that it is best that we would save the spouse because of the possibility of conceiving again.

Valuing people who do not exist over those who do exist, who are vulnerable, and who have been entrusted to your care by God makes absolutely no sense. I’m afraid either you misunderstood the priest or he has seriously misunderstood Church teaching.

 

[pepipop]

But is there ever an occasion in which the direct killing of the baby is the intended procedure in the attempt to save the life of the mother? Are there any complications of pregnancy for which the only and proven cure is a direct abortion?

My understanding was that we are not allowed to choose between the lives of two people, especially when one is defenseless.

My understanding is that other religions allow abortion in the case where the life of the mother is in danger…but that we as Catholics do not allow it. That essentially, we will not kill one person to save another.

Yes, I agree and I cannot think of an occasion whereby the baby would threaten the mother’s life - apart from pre-eclampsia (high BP) and an ectopic pregnancy, which is already covered by catholic ethical procedures. With high BP usually mothers are brought in for total bed rest and can remain in hospital for months until the fetus is viable for delivery.

From what I can see the catholic ethics on this issue are totally sound - as we come back to the chicken and egg scenario again, if the mother died of high BP, for example, the baby may and/or would die - particularly if the mother had no access to medical care (i.e. she was not in hospital at the time of death). So by inducing the baby earlier, when it is viable, would in essence be saving the baby, as the mother could die at any point of BP complications.

From what I’ve learned myself over the past week there is a lot of media spin on the catholic standpoint, that is a black and white issue and a yes or no scenario and from what I have read since that is definitely not the case, as pointed out above.

Now, I could be totally wrong with this final statement, but in essence if the mother’s dead the baby will die too. I really cannot see any occasion that a mother would have to be ‘let die’ so the baby could be born live, it doesn’t really make any sense. Possibly in days gone by that may have been the case? However, with modern medical practices and technology, caesarians, pre-term baby care, etc., I just cannot see what scenario would be involved that the mother would be let die, so as to ‘save’ the baby.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

So just so I’m clear, you do not believe Savita was in actual physical agony, but instead she was faking or imagining it, like Hitler was?

Your rant is based on your misconception and a distortion of what I actually said.

If you believe that YOU have the right to deem who is a viable human being or who is not (and other like-minded individuals who believe they have the authority to do so), based on God knows what, I am saying YOUR/THEIR mentality is akin to Adolf Hitler’s.

Also, how do you know Hitler wasn’t in true agony by the Jews? He could have been extremely delirious/schizophrenic and could have been driven to agony by anything. So since you’re not a doctor and have never examined Hitler or ever had medical/psychiatric records of his, you do not know whether he was in true agony or not. However, that is besides point. Being in agony does not give a person authority to murder. If you believe that is a good criteria for justifying murder (which is a very scary way of thinking!), then you end up with people like Hitler.

Hope that cleared things up. Bye.