Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

[odile53]

According to the article, the woman who was in a threatened abortion (starting to miscarry) was at 17 weeks of her pregnancy. According to a wiki source (I know, not the greatest,) the lowest age of neonate survival is approximately 21 weeks, and the 50 percent viability point comes at about 24-26 weeks. If the doctors had attempted a cesarean section, they would have been doing so with a child with no practical chance for extrauterine survival. Despite the anti-abortion policies, I doubt that the law would recognize the principle of double effect. So their standard of practice is “watchful waiting” as long as there are fetal heart tones, and any surgical intervention that would result in the death of the fetus would be considered an abortion in the eyes of the law.

It sounds like this young lady was extremely septic as well as unstable in terms of blood pressure and cardiac output, and would have been an extreme surgical and anesthesia risk even if they had attempted surgery. She would have been at high risk of actually dying on the operating table. From what I read, it sounded like this was an extremely virulent infection, and very high powered antibiotics would be a strain on her already collapsing liver and kidneys. There would, in other words, be great odds against her survival, with or without surgically completing the abortion. I do have some medical background, and would have been very interested to see the results of an autopsy.

Of some interest to me was what was mentioned at the end of the article, that Ireland’s maternal death rate is 1/100,000 compared to the US and Western Europe’s 14/100,000, and I was thinking of reasons for this. It is no secret that many cesarean sections are unnecessarily performed in the US, sometimes for the convenience of the patient and the physician, and I am wondering if perhaps Irish doctors don’t do as many. That bodes well for the majority of women, but in cases such as this, the doctors may lack the experience to deal with a very extreme (and extremely rare nowadays) complication of pregnancy. Just mulling over a couple of thoughts on the subject here. I’m also wondering about how much prenatal care this young woman received before developing this infection.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Great, but my question was: do you know what the standard of care is when infection complicates a miscarriage and is there indication that it was practiced in this case?

The “standard of care” is a term that can only be defined when you have the complete picture, which we don’t have. What is her past medical history? What are her allergies? What were her actual vitals? What medications was she on?

As I have posted before. A woman presenting with imminent miscarriage at 17 weeks (open os with fluid) is often managed expectantly (ie: closely watched). At what point do you move from watching to helping her deliver (medicinally or procedurally) varies greatly with the circumstances. Likewise, what you do when see signs of infection varies greatly as well.

We just don’t have enough information to be able to define what the “standard of care” will be. Unfortunately this is all-to-often left up to lawyers, who I’m sure are lining up to get rich off of this.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I’m afraid that seems at odds with what I have read elsewhere: abortion is ANY delivery of a non-viable infant, by whatever means; it may be considered direct or indirect, but it is still abortion. Uterine contents means the baby, placenta and sac.

Correct, inducing labor or performing a C-Section on a pre-viable fetus will cause it’s death, and therefore immoral, according to Church teaching.

Jim

 

[St_Francis]

That timeline above apparently is a pretty accurate picture of what usually is done in Ireland in those cases. Elsewhere, the baby is usually delivered as soon as possible - according to what I have read. The reason being: nobody can tell for sure when things could go bad for the mother, but they do know for sure that death is a very real possibility. So I’m not sure your assessment is quite accurate - from the moment the woman failed to miscarry on her own, there was a potential risk to her life from delay and infection. These days, women don’t generally die from a miscarriage - that’s because doctors don’t tend to wait and see if the woman will become deathly ill.

It’s like this: we don’t wait until a crash is imminent before putting on seatbelts because we know that there might not be enough time and they do no good once the crash is in progress. In this case, it could be argued that death was a forseeable consequence for the mother.

There are 2 problems with what you have written here:

One is that putting on seatbelts is morally neutral but hastening death is not. Thus, hastening death (by hastening labor) could only be morally done when the mother’s condition showed that the good to be gained outweighed the evil foreseen.

The second is that death was *not *a foreseeable consequence. It is not at all clear how often women who are miscarrying get infected, esp in modern hospitals, and given that the doctors administered antibiotics right away (as opposed to later on as described in the newspaper), the risk of infection was being addressed.

I get dying for a baby to live…but dying for a baby to die? That’s tough.

This is not the issue. The issue is acting morally, in accordance with God’s will.

Imagine that my grandfather needed a heart transplant and was dying for lack of one. Would it be moral for me to go out and kill his healthy identical twin to get his heart? No, of course not! Would it be moral for me to kill his dying identical twin to get his heart? No.

What is at issue here is not life or death, what is at issue here is acting in accordance with God’s will, not committing mortal sin.

 

[zach_dunn]

Here is an article about a woman in Ireland who was refused an abortion, and died because of it: guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/nov/14/savita-halappanavar-medically-unnecessary-death

Essentially what the article says is that this woman was miscarrying her child, and it was clear that this was happening. The child was not going to live in any circumstances. She died after three days of excruciating pain. Does the Church make an exception in this case? I find what these doctors to did to be extremely immoral and a woman died a painful death for absolutely no reason.

FYI, I am pro-life.

Zach

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What is still not certain is whether the miscarriage is the result of the infection, or did the infection exist before hand and what was actually causing the miscarriage.

The NBC report last evening was that the infection came after the miscarriage.

Would an abortion have prevented the infection ?

Don’t know for sure and I doubt we ever will as both pro-abortion and pro-life groups spin the story away from the actual events that took place.

Jim

 

[St_Francis]

Correct, inducing labor or performing a C-Section on a pre-viable fetus will cause it’s death, and therefore immoral, according to Church teaching.

Jim

No, this is not accurate. A direct abortion, D&C or whatever, *would *be immoral under any circumstances, but inducing labor and performing a C-section are each morally neutral acts which can be done under the principle of double effect. In this case, the morally neutral act (hastening labor or performing a C-section) is forseen to have the “side-effect” or UNintended outcome of causing the death of the child in your scenario.

However, if either of these is necessary for a *proportionate *reason related to the mother’s health, then it is moral to perform the act. This is why pregnant women can be treated.

 

[St_Francis]

There is a thread in the World News forum about this very topic in which your question is being very thoroughly discussed.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

St Francis

No, this is not accurate. A direct abortion, D&C or whatever, *would *be immoral under any circumstances, but inducing labor and performing a C-section are each morally neutral acts which can be done under the principle of double effect.

They’re not morally neutral in that the procedures are the direct cause of the death of the fetus.

My daughter went through it and I consulted Priest for Life, and that’s what they told me.

In this case, the morally neutral act (hastening labor or performing a C-section) is forseen to have the “side-effect” or UNintended outcome of causing the death of the child in your scenario

.

But that’s a tap dance around what’s actually taking place, when they know that the C-Section or inducing labor will undoubtedly kill the fetus.

However, if either of these is necessary for a *proportionate *reason related to the mother’s health, then it is moral to perform the act. This is why pregnant women can be treated.

Well, the incident at St Joseph’s Hospital in Arizona contradicts your statement, where the Bishop said that all involved were excommunicated.

Jim

 

[bellasbane]

What is at issue here is not life or death, what is at issue here is acting in accordance with God’s will, not committing mortal sin.

That may be the issue from your perspective, but from the perspective of the people of Ireland it is about the failure of the government to legislate on the implications of the X Case 20 years after it was decided by the Irish Supreme Court, which held that:

“the threat of suicide constituted a “real and substantial risk to the life of the mother” and that in such an instance the equal right to life of the unborn child as envisaged by the 1983 Amendment could not mean an absolute equality, that in fact the rights of the child were “contingent” on the mothers right and, therefore, of lesser importance.”
thelifeinstitute.net/history/the-x-case/

Given that “threat of suicide” was viewed as enough of a risk to the mother to allow for the abortion of a perfectly healthy fetus, it stands to reason that the risk to Savita is far more easy to justify given that her baby was destined to die anyway. However, five successive governments in Ireland have failed to provide any protections or guidelines to doctors who are forced to make a judgement call in such cases.

“Ireland’s constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling found it should be legalized for situations when the woman’s life is at risk from continuing the pregnancy. Five governments since have refused to pass a law resolving the confusion, leaving Irish hospitals reluctant to terminate pregnancies except in the most obviously life-threatening circumstances.” worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/14/15164593-tragic-savita-case-reignites-abortion-debate-in-ireland?lite

The upshot is that doctors - fearing they will face life in prison (which is the potential penalty for performing an abortion in Ireland) are reluctant to risk themselves in order to save their patients. How is that a pro-life outcome?

 

[Gorgias]

No, this is not accurate. A direct abortion, D&C or whatever, *would *be immoral under any circumstances, but inducing labor and performing a C-section are each morally neutral acts which can be done under the principle of double effect. In this case, the morally neutral act (hastening labor or performing a C-section) is forseen to have the “side-effect” or UNintended outcome of causing the death of the child in your scenario.

This doesn’t sound right. Delivering the baby the is proximate cause of the baby’s death – after all, she’s not yet viable, right? However, delivering the baby is the means by which the end of saving the mother’s life is achieved. Under double effect, the unintended effect may not be the means by which the desired effect is achieved.

If the baby was viable, then you’ve got a different situation.

However, if either of these is necessary for a *proportionate *reason related to the mother’s health, then it is moral to perform the act. This is why pregnant women can be treated.

But “treatment of a pregnant woman” is a different case than “delivery of a non-viable baby”, isn’t it?

 

[Gorgias]

St Francis:

if either of these is necessary for a proportionate reason related to the mother’s health, then it is moral to perform the act. This is why pregnant women can be treated.

Well, the incident at St Joseph’s Hospital in Arizona contradicts your statement, where the Bishop said that all involved were excommunicated.

I believe that that’s inaccurate. As I recall, only the sister who was the chair of the ethics committee was excommunicated. Do you have a citation to support your claim? I don’t think I’m wrong, but if I am, I’d like to become better informed…

In addition, please note that the procedure in the St Joseph’s case was a D&C, so we’re talking about significantly different situations. (Moreover, the hospital asserted that the procedure was meant not as an abortion, but to remove the placenta; the bishop denied that argument.)

Finally, to the best of my knowledge, the ‘proportionality’ aspect of double effect doesn’t have to do with an assessment of the rationale, but rather, an assessment of the good effect vis-a-vis the bad effect: the good effect must be judged greater than the bad effect. So, one cannot judge the life of the mother against the life of the baby: both are equal in value. However, one can judge “save the life of the mother” as greater than “lose the lives of mother and baby”.

 

[Oumashta]

I don’t know much about this story, but if the baby was old enough, couldn’t they have just done an emergency c-section? Just saying…

 

[mommy_k]

Let us all pray that the mother and child are in the comfort of Jesus.

 

[St_Francis]

This doesn’t sound right. Delivering the baby the is proximate cause of the baby’s death – after all, she’s not yet viable, right? However, delivering the baby is the means by which the end of saving the mother’s life is achieved. Under double effect, the unintended effect may not be the means by which the desired effect is achieved.

Delivering the baby is a morally neutral action in and of itself. But doing what people are talking about when they say a woman got an abortion is not a morally neutral action; it is an intrisically evil act.

The death of a very young baby that results from the early delivery is a foreseen result but it is not the means by which the mother’s life is saved. Early delivery would be what saves the mother, and it would also be what kills the baby. One action with two results.

If the baby was viable, then you’ve got a different situation.

Oh, most certainly, because in that case, one of the two outcomes is different.

 

[St_Francis]

That may be the issue from your perspective, but from the perspective of the people of Ireland it is about the failure of the government to legislate on the implications of the X Case 20 years after it was decided by the Irish Supreme Court, which held that:

“the threat of suicide constituted a “real and substantial risk to the life of the mother” and that in such an instance the equal right to life of the unborn child as envisaged by the 1983 Amendment could not mean an absolute equality, that in fact the rights of the child were “contingent” on the mothers right and, therefore, of lesser importance.”
thelifeinstitute.net/history/the-x-case/

Given that “threat of suicide” was viewed as enough of a risk to the mother to allow for the abortion of a perfectly healthy fetus, it stands to reason that the risk to Savita is far more easy to justify given that her baby was destined to die anyway. However, five successive governments in Ireland have failed to provide any protections or guidelines to doctors who are forced to make a judgement call in such cases.

“Ireland’s constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling found it should be legalized for situations when the woman’s life is at risk from continuing the pregnancy. Five governments since have refused to pass a law resolving the confusion, leaving Irish hospitals reluctant to terminate pregnancies except in the most obviously life-threatening circumstances.” worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/14/15164593-tragic-savita-case-reignites-abortion-debate-in-ireland?lite

The upshot is that doctors - fearing they will face life in prison (which is the potential penalty for performing an abortion in Ireland) are reluctant to risk themselves in order to save their patients. How is that a pro-life outcome?

You bring up a separate and entirely different issue with the case of X. First, *nothing *justifies an actual abortion. Second, it is absurd to list risk of suicide as a risk to the mother’s life. What should be done in this case is not to kill the baby, but to care for the mother and treat her suicidal tendencies. Otherwise, any woman could claim that she was suicidal and thus be eligible for an abortion, right?

WRT the law in Ireland and the case of this woman, yes, the law should be clarified. However, it does seem that the doctors acted approriately, since they did not at any point think that the mother’s life was at risk, as shown by the fact that they thought she would recover from the infection *after *the pregnancy had ended.

The problem is that the doctors can only make a descision based on the information they have at hand at the time. If the doctors had been able to forsee the future, then they would have acted differently, but they cannot forsee the future. We must accept the fact that human limitations sometimes means that outcomes are not what we would wish.

 

[Ghosty]

I’m afraid that seems at odds with what I have read elsewhere: abortion is ANY delivery of a non-viable infant, by whatever means; it may be considered direct or indirect, but it is still abortion. Uterine contents means the baby, placenta and sac.

If that were the case then removing an ectopic pregnancy in a fallopian tupe would not be allowed, but it is. Viability is a variable term anyway, and while the likelyhood of survival drops to about nil under a certain point of gestation and below a certain level of medical training and resources, it is not a hard and fast quality unlike living and non-living.

Delivering a child from certain death, however remote its chance of survival, would never be illicit.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Pitcharan]

…Well, the incident at St Joseph’s Hospital in Arizona contradicts your statement, where the Bishop said that all involved were excommunicated.
Jim

I believe that that’s inaccurate. As I recall, only the sister who was the chair of the ethics committee was excommunicated. Do you have a citation to support your claim? I don’t think I’m wrong, but if I am, I’d like to become better informed…

guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/us-catholic-bishop-hospital-abortion

 

[Gorgias]

Delivering the baby is a morally neutral action in and of itself.

Umm, squeezing a gun’s trigger is a morally neutral action in and of itself, too. But, squeezing a trigger when the barrel is pointed at a person – well, that’s a whole 'nother story.

In this case, the action isn’t “delivering a baby”, it’s “delivering a baby who has no viability outside the womb”. That does not seem like a ‘morally neutral act’!

The death of a very young baby that results from the early delivery is a foreseen result but it is not the means by which the mother’s life is saved. Early delivery would be what saves the mother, and it would also be what kills the baby. One action with two results.

Is the removal of the baby from the womb ‘the means by which the mother’s life is saved’, though? If the condition is septicemia, then neither labor nor abortion corrects the condition…!

 

[R_C]

The child was not going to live in any circumstances. She died after three days of excruciating pain. Does the Church make an exception in this case? I find what these doctors to did to be extremely immoral and a woman died a painful death for absolutely no reason.

First of all, you don’t seem to have the facts straight. Second, for a pro-life you have a strange idea of what the doctors did.

Check this post.

Murder of an unborn baby is never justifiable.