R
Ridgerunner
Guest
No it isn’t.
- Status
R
ringil
Guest
I like that. Short and to the point.
B
bitznbitez
Guest
No but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night so you will need to come up with more advanced material…what are you, another doctor???
Whether it makes you happy or not no doctor is on record as having said the woman would have lived had the abortion been performed.
If anything this is an example of a total failure of prenatal care that she was allowed to reach such a critical state prior to presenting for treatment.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
The article never really tells us why the woman became septicemic, why antibiotics were put off as long as they were, why they failed or even why E Coli (normally only found in the digestive tract or in unsanitary conditions0 was prominent among the bacteria in her bloodstream. How did it get past the blood barrier between mother and baby? Was there another, undiscovered and/or untreated source of infection?
If the septicemia was due to the baby becoming necrotic (which we’re not told) how did they find a heartbeat? Was the placenta perhaps necrotic? We don’t know.
The article does not explain why induction could not be performed if the physicians felt the baby could not survive whether they did or didn’t do it, and particularly when it was concluded that she was mid-miscarriage anyway.
I am not a doctor, but I intend to ask one about this. There are things here that need answers that are not in the article.
The article’s chosen answer is “The cause is the Catholic Church”, without ever exploring the physical cause or causes.
If the septicemia was due to the baby becoming necrotic (which we’re not told) how did they find a heartbeat? Was the placenta perhaps necrotic? We don’t know.
The article does not explain why induction could not be performed if the physicians felt the baby could not survive whether they did or didn’t do it, and particularly when it was concluded that she was mid-miscarriage anyway.
I am not a doctor, but I intend to ask one about this. There are things here that need answers that are not in the article.
The article’s chosen answer is “The cause is the Catholic Church”, without ever exploring the physical cause or causes.
B
bellasbane
Guest
“By the 36th week there is usually around a liter of amniotic fluid, but by this time it is made up for the most part from fetal urine.” gynob.com/amniotic.htm
I think that by 17 weeks a good bit of it is urine.
G
Gorgias
Guest
Hmm. So, you’re saying that unless one is a doctor, he shouldn’t ask questions and propose distinctions? I guess, then, that your participation in the apologetics sections of the forum will stop now – after all, you’re not a theologian, right?wow doctors just keep on coming now.
S
sophion
Guest
And further incriminate themselves? i dont think so.
Now other doctors would be smart enough not to say anything as well, for they did not recieve the full report of the diagnosis.
But the point is since both are dying anyway, removing the child MIGHT produce a different result. It is a CHANCE WORTH TAKING.
Sometimes doing nothing is the greater evil.
manygift1spirit
New member
We should be careful as it does seem like not all the facts are properly out yet. But in any case, the statement about fetal heartbeat is somewhat curious. The doctors should never be the aggressor against the baby, true. But it can be permissible to treat the mother even at some risk to the baby, per double effect and all that. The heartbeat statement suggests either this was a truly tragic case with no licit medical recourse, or that the doctors were ill informed about the moral issues involved (yes, perhaps due to religious extremism).this is just religious extremism.
Let’s calm your jets about doctors, OK? The appropriateness of the scenarios put forth by posters should be considered hypotheticals. So when we talk about assessing the morality of giving antibiotics (say), we can condition on it being medically appropriate. And even if not medically appropriate, we are not dealing with (im)morality, but rather (in)competence.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
i read this article and it was quite disturbing. i am not a medical doctor so i don’t know if she was in the process of miscarrying when she went to the hospital or how she developed the blood infection. she was a young, beautiful professional woman and her death is very tragic and my prayers go to her husband and family.
B
bellasbane
Guest
D
dshix
Guest
this is just religious extremism.
And from what hospital are you from, Doctor?
look for excuses instead of dealing with the problem. amazing.
what are you, another doctor???
Well, this is quite a sarcastic and inflammatory character.yeah. but unlike those 2 up there the reporters dont tell everyone what medical procedures should have been followed instead.
wow doctors just keep on coming now.
Code:
This is a very sad and unfortunate sitation, but it appears to me that this was a problem of lack of care due to the blood problem, not the baby.
F
fix
Guest
Are they protesting poor medical treatment?
manygift1spirit
New member
This may be a false dichotomy.
There may be something which could be done to the mother which might help. Even if it has foreseeable risk to the baby, although then some tricky discernments might need to be made.
And maybe there is nothing which can be done to the mother to help her. That would be a tragedy. But there is no evil done here if nothing can be done.
It is true that the deliberate killing of the baby is forbidden. Murder is never a medical treatment.
Always remember, if the mother is the patient, she can be treated. But a baby is not a disease, never an aggressor.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
i am having the same conflicting feelings that you are about this.
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
contact the moderator and perhaps the two threads can be joined.
F
fix
Guest
Not enough details but I wonder what the protest is about? So far what we have seen reported does not give anyone enough reason to protest.
C
catholictiger
Guest
the principle of double effect would apply here, if the abortion would truly save the women’s life.
first the act itself must be good or morally neutral so a direct abortion couldn’t be allowed.
second the ends can’t be brought about by evil means
third the intention of the actor must be that of wanting to do the good while only enduring the bad
fourth and finally, the good must be proportional to the bad.
I don’t know enough about this situation to explain it, but if a pregnancy is going to kill a women if it is left going on and if you end the pregnancy early you must use the principle of double effect in order to determine what procedure must be done. To my limited knowledge with cases that actually put the life of the mother in danger there is a moral way to save the mothers life even though the baby won’t survive.
first the act itself must be good or morally neutral so a direct abortion couldn’t be allowed.
second the ends can’t be brought about by evil means
third the intention of the actor must be that of wanting to do the good while only enduring the bad
fourth and finally, the good must be proportional to the bad.
I don’t know enough about this situation to explain it, but if a pregnancy is going to kill a women if it is left going on and if you end the pregnancy early you must use the principle of double effect in order to determine what procedure must be done. To my limited knowledge with cases that actually put the life of the mother in danger there is a moral way to save the mothers life even though the baby won’t survive.
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
As would any reasonably intelligent person. None of us here have the full story, just the slanted media report which infers that the woman died of a blood infection which MAY have been able to be better treated if she were not pregnant. So yes, since Doctors are generally pretty darn intelligent, I doubt many will comment on the specifics of this case.
The question then begs to be asked: Why are you pushing this subject so hard? Are you less than reasonably intelligent? Or do you have more detailed information than what is published in the articles?
By your faulty logic here, since both are dying anyway, standing on your head in the broom close is a CHANCE WORTH TAKING!
The only thing that comes to my mind is perhaps her septicemia was caused by a pathogen who was only susceptible to a some nasty antibiotics which were prohibited due to her pregnancy. This is sheer speculation however, and I would say that it is far more likely that the media, and their abortion-loving liberal friends, has simply latched onto this story because they see the ability to use the death of a beautiful young woman to force their pro-abortion agenda.
And, to answer your earlier question…I practice medicine at two different hospitals.
B
bitznbitez
Guest
And from what hospital are you from, Doctor?
- Status