Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

[fix]

First, we do not know that medical intervention would have helped. We simply do not know enough about the facts of the case to say one way or the other.

That is the key to this entire situation. We do not have all the facts, yet the pro abortion forces use it for agitprop.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

That is the key to this entire situation. We do not have all the facts, yet the pro abortion forces use it for agitprop.

Yet we do have the statement from the husband, that when they were told by the doctors that the wife was going to miscarry, they requested an abortion and were refused because they were in a Catholic country.

Now its his word alone, but I’m not sure the doctors can reveal what was said in the conversations because of confidentiality.

But lets for the sake of argument, suppose that the doctors could’ve in fact saved the mother by aborting the fetus at that point? What should the doctors have done?

Jim

 

[littlechicken]

Yet we do have the statement from the husband, that when they were told by the doctors that the wife was going to miscarry, they requested an abortion and were refused because they were in a Catholic country.

Now its his word alone, but I’m not sure the doctors can reveal what was said in the conversations because of confidentiality.

But lets for the sake of argument, suppose that the doctors could’ve in fact saved the mother by aborting the fetus at that point? What should the doctors have done?

Jim

Sigh, the semantics of it is what gets me I think. Abortion means directly killing the baby, then removing him or her. Why couldn’t they just induce labor or perform a c-section, and honestly try to save the child’s life? Though unlikely they could, there was a time when any baby born under 5 months gestation was certain to die. Who’s to say that with medical advancement that this child could not have been saved?

When I look at this case, I look at it how it is presented in the article I read. Because even if we did know the entire story, every little detail, that doesn’t mean a case like this one couldn’t happen. That, plain and simple, a woman is having a miscarriage, and her health is fading due to the miscarriage…

I like to think if this were to happen to me, that I would do all I could to save my child’s life. But then, I haven’t been there, so I can’t say for sure. (though I would love to be that brave and selfless, doesn’t mean I would be)

 

[littlechicken]

My bet is that Ireland will be altering its laws in the very near future.

John

Yes. That is what I fear as well. So sad.

 

[juandimaunahan]

As to the comparison about life-support… you do realize that there it is permissable for certain types of life support to be reomved under certain conditions? That it does not always constitute murder? You are showing a serious lack of understanding of the actual Catholic thought on these matters.

yes when the subject is brain dead. you think thats what i’m referring to? of course not!

No, the point is that it is not actually technically the same, which is why one is ok given serious enough circumstances and the other is never ok. You make it sound as though you think you are pushing me into a corner and forcing me to twist my understanding of things but that is not at all true.I have made this same distinctions several times throughout this thread, and I made it already in the very post where I originally responded to you. These actions are not the same, there is a subtle distinction between them. Just because it is subtle doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

The action of inducing labour/c-section etc is not an action which itself directly kills anyone, it just moves them from one location to another, it is an action performed on many unborn children who survive it quite well all the time. This action is not the direct killing of a person.

i’m sorry but we dont have the technology of keeping a 17week old fetus alive outside of the womb. so ‘moving’ it out is equivalent to killing it. just like in my analogy.

However an actual abortion (at least as I and many others here have used the word, I am not sure exactly how it is used medically) would be directly killing the child, which is never ok.

except in this case.

I think you need to read up on the principle of double-effect. It is only actions which are intrinsically evil which can never be performed for any reason. If an action which is not intrinsically evil has multiple effects it is perfectly moral to act for the sake of a good effect, even if you know that there will also be a bad effect, so long as the good effect is serious enough/proportionate to the bad effect which one expects to occur. So in this case we have the action of ensuring the child is moved from within the mother to outside of the mother. This action is not in and of itself intrinsically evil. It is often a very good thing to do. However in the current scenario it would have a known effect of resulting in the death of the child. Because of this, this action would only be allowable if there will also be a good effect that it will cause which is proportionate to this bad effect, saving the life of the mother is most clearly a proportionate reason. On the other hand, directly killing an innocent person is objectively and intrinsically evil, it is never morally permissable. This is not something new, the two concepts “the ends do not justify the means” and “the principle of double-effect” are not new, they have been taught by the Catholic Church for a long, long time, and have been held as true by many very intelligent people. Please do not dismiss these distinctions as though I am just twisting words, this is not at all the case, though I understand that the subtle distinctions can at times make it seem that way.

like i said its no problem if you want to see it as “moving” instead of “killing”. JUST DO IT.

I’m just wondering, if catholics can see it as ‘moving’ instead of ‘killing’ why do they have to force that girl rape victim out of the country to get an abortion in london? as with hundred other like cases in ireleand. please explain.

if women wants to abort, then just move the fetus out instead of ‘killing’ it. right?

 

[thewanderer]

a 17 week old fetus is not a person. thats your confusion. thats why you think its as simple as moving it from one location to another. sorry but doing so is directly killing it.

Perhaps not according to law, (I’m not sure about Ireland’s law, it well may be over there) but according to both bioogy and philosophy, yes, it actually is. And if you think moving it is directly killing it then you misunderstand what is meant by directly killing it.

yes when the subject is brain dead. you think thats why i’m referring to? of course not. the analogy stands.

except in this case.

like i said its no problem if you want to see it as “moving” instead of “killing”. JUST DO IT.

I’m just wondering, if catholics can see it as ‘moving’ instead of ‘killing’ why do they have to force that girl rape victim out of the country to get an abortion in london? as with hundred other like cases in ireleand. please explain.

Because this distinction really and truly is not just semantics. Because if you actually understood this principle then you would understand the freaking difference between causing the child’s death as a secondary effect when grave circumstances permit it and directly killing a child. This last line especially shows that you really do not understand Catholic ethics, yet you are also clearly passing judgement on it without really understanding it. Please try to refrain from doing so until you actually understand it.

 

[juandimaunahan]

Perhaps not according to law, (I’m not sure about Ireland’s law, it well may be over there) but according to both bioogy and philosophy, yes, it actually is. And if you think moving it is directly killing it then you misunderstand what is meant by directly killing it.

a person has a mind of its own. its own personality, feelings, memory, will, etc. and it takes a fully functioning brain to have all of those. when does a fetus begin to have one? at the last trimester.

direct & indirect in this case is as different as a man killing someone with his bare hands vs someone who forces another person to kill another.

Because this distinction really and truly is not just semantics. Because if you actually understood this principle then you would understand the freaking difference between causing the child’s death as a secondary effect when grave circumstances permit it and directly killing a child. This last line especially shows that you really do not understand Catholic ethics, yet you are also clearly passing judgement on it without really understanding it. Please try to refrain from doing so until you actually understand it.

catholic ethics? i thought you agree that religion should not restrict doctors from doing their job in saving lives?

and if the distinction goes far beyond semantics, then why not just “move” the fetus from one location to another for all those women seeking abortion, instead of driving them to london where they actually kill the fetus?

 

[littlechicken]

Perhaps not according to law, (I’m not sure about Ireland’s law, it well may be over there) but according to both bioogy and philosophy, yes, it actually is. And if you think moving it is directly killing it then you misunderstand what is meant by directly killing it.

Because this distinction really and truly is not just semantics. Because if you actually understood this principle then you would understand the freaking difference between causing the child’s death as a secondary effect when grave circumstances permit it and directly killing a child. This last line especially shows that you really do not understand Catholic ethics, yet you are also clearly passing judgement on it without really understanding it. Please try to refrain from doing so until you actually understand it.

It truly is about the intent. If one “moves” the child with the sincere intent to save his/her life, then that makes all of the difference in the world.
If one simply opts to terminate the child, either by snuffing out it’s life first, as in the case of abortion, or by removiing him/her with no desire whatsoever to preserve the baby’s life, that is totally different.
So what we’re left with here, is according to the attending physicians, and the mother’s conscience’s, and what their sincere intent is.
I don’t even want to think about the can of worms that could open up.
But suffice to say, there is a big difference according to intent.

 

[juandimaunahan]

It truly is about the intent. If one “moves” the child with the sincere intent to save his/her life, then that makes all of the difference in the world.
If one simply opts to terminate the child, either by snuffing out it’s life first, as in the case of abortion, or by removiing him/her with no desire whatsoever to preserve the baby’s life, that is totally different.

in this case the doctors were sure that the fetus is lost. so the real question was, should they shorten (‘moving’ it would do that) its already short life for the sake of the mother’s deteriorating health?

 

[thewanderer]

a person has a mind of its own. its own personality, feelings, memory, will, etc. and it takes a fully functioning brain to have all of those. when does a fetus begin to have one? at the last trimester.

lol, I’m really not going to get into this debate with you, but suffice it to say I strongly disagree with your definition of person

direct & indirect in this case is as different as a man killing someone with his bare hands vs someone who forces another person to kill another.

catholic ethics? i thought you agree that religion should not restrict doctors from doing their job in saving lives?

I said that religion is not the cause of this woman’s death.

and if the distinction goes far beyond semantics, then why not just “move” the fetus from one location to another for all those women seeking abortion, instead of driving them to london where they actually kill the fetus?

Because there has to be a sufficient reason to do so, there has to be a good effect that is proportioinate to the bad effect of the death of the child, and really, the only reason I can think of that is actually proportionate to that is when the mother’s life is in danger.

 

[pepipop]

Yet we do have the statement from the husband, that when they were told by the doctors that the wife was going to miscarry, they requested an abortion and were refused because they were in a Catholic country.

Now its his word alone, but I’m not sure the doctors can reveal what was said in the conversations because of confidentiality.

But lets for the sake of argument, suppose that the doctors could’ve in fact saved the mother by aborting the fetus at that point? What should the doctors have done?

Jim

If the mother presented had with septicemia, or severe haemorrhaging then yes the doctors would have terminated the pregnancy. Reports to date say, Savita was healthy until after she came out of theatre. There is not enough facts about the case at this point. She could still have contracted septicemia even if the doctors had terminated the pregnancy earlier.

 

[juandimaunahan]

lol, I’m really not going to get into this debate with you, but suffice it to say I strongly disagree with your definition of person

i’ve had this kind of debate before. and in each one the catholic argument for ‘person’ boils down to ‘potential’. In this case however THERE WAS NO POTENTIAL. the doctors knew the fetus was lost, and it did happen that way. the fetus never became a person.

I said that religion is not the cause of this woman’s death.

i see. so you do hold on to the opinion that religion should mix with politics (and in effect restrict doctors).

Because there has to be a sufficient reason to do so, there has to be a good effect that is proportioinate to the bad effect of the death of the child, and really, the only reason I can think of that is actually proportionate to that is when the mother’s life is in danger.

women are going to london to kill the fetus. isnt that sufficient reason enough? so why wont the good catholic just ‘move’ the fetus? i think you know the answer. because moving it would kill it. the distinction between direct and indirect becomes blurred.

 

[littlechicken]

in this case the doctors were sure that the fetus is lost. so the real question was, should they shorten (‘moving’ it would do that) its already short life for the sake of the mother’s deteriorating health?

With the case as it stands, it seems the child was definitely dying in the mother’s womb. So I would think to remove the child in some kind of hope of preserving his/her life would be the best alternative. Contractions at that point likely would have caused fetal distress and fatality, so a c-section would perhaps have been the way to go.
The woman was miscarrying, no one doubts that right? And whereas ideally, we want to prevent a miscarriage from happening, in this case, the miscarriage itself was proving fatal to the child. So why not remove the child in as a gentle way as possible and hope for the best?
Haven’t they performed actual surgeries on babies in utero? In very early stages of pregnancy?
And though very risky, the intent has been to improve the baby’s chance of survival.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

If the mother presented had with septicemia, or severe haemorrhaging then yes the doctors would have terminated the pregnancy. Reports to date say, Savita was healthy until after she came out of theatre. There is not enough facts about the case at this point. She could still have contracted septicemia even if the doctors had terminated the pregnancy earlier.

I thought the septicemia was what was causing her to miscarry?

Jim

 

[Gorgias]

a person has a mind of its own. its own personality, feelings, memory, will, etc. and it takes a fully functioning brain to have all of those. when does a fetus begin to have one? at the last trimester.

A person with Altzheimer’s – especially in the late stages of the disease – doesn’t exhibit these features. Are you saying that they aren’t people? By extension, then you’re saying that they don’t have rights, either, no?

If not (and I hope you’re not), then you need to alter your definition of ‘person’.

 

[juandimaunahan]

A person with Altzheimer’s – especially in the late stages of the disease – doesn’t exhibit these features.

i’m sorry but there is nothing in definition or symptoms of Alzheimer’s that people become completely brain dead. even in worst cases they still retain some of their old self. some memory. will.

 

[fix]

Yet we do have the statement from the husband, that when they were told by the doctors that the wife was going to miscarry, they requested an abortion and were refused because they were in a Catholic country.

Now its his word alone, but I’m not sure the doctors can reveal what was said in the conversations because of confidentiality.

But lets for the sake of argument, suppose that the doctors could’ve in fact saved the mother by aborting the fetus at that point? What should the doctors have done?

Jim

Direct abortion is always wrong. There is no way around that before our Lord. The problem we have here is that the talk of direct abortion as the only and proper course of treatment is what all the blather is about. More smoke than facts at this point.

 

[littlechicken]

women are going to london to kill the fetus. isnt that sufficient reason enough? so why wont the good catholic just ‘move’ the fetus? i think you know the answer. because moving it would kill it. the distinction between direct and indirect becomes blurred.

Not really. In the case I pointed out above. If I give a dying person pain medication to alleviate their suffering, knowing full well the medicine will likely kill them, am I to withhold the medication?
This baby was dying within it’s mother’s womb, to remove it, and try to preserve his/her life would have been a good alternative. Even if the attempt was futile, it would be just as futile to leave him/her in the womb where death was already occurring.

 

[fix]

a person has a mind of its own. its own personality, feelings, memory, will, etc. and it takes a fully functioning brain to have all of those. when does a fetus begin to have one? at the last trimester.

Brain damaged people are no longer human?

direct & indirect in this case is as different as a man killing someone with his bare hands vs someone who forces another person to kill another.

Not at all accurate.

 

[juandimaunahan]

Brain damaged people are no longer human?

no.
brain dead
no longer a person
they are gone though the body still lives.