[Aquinasfan]

But let's say for a moment that the mother thought (as she surely must have) that the probability that the child's life could be saved by abstaining from treatment was far greater than the chance that her own life could be saved by undertaking the same treatment.

With this in mind, if she chose to undertake the treatment knowing that it would certainly result in the termination of her pregnancy and that it only offered a chance of recuperation, wouldn't that pose a moral problem of some kind? Or to phrase it another way, wouldn't the secondary effect (or permitted evil) be out of proportion to the intended (primary) effect, and thus no longer be licit?

It seems that way to me, although the act might still be permissible depending on the degree of certainty of the prognosis. I'm grateful to God that I've never had to face a decision like this.

[bourbon]

I'm grateful to God that I've never had to face a decision like this.

Me too. People placed in such unenviable positions certainly deserve our prayers.

Thanks for your thoughts on this subject, btw.