Posted on 05/18/2010 5:12:51 AM PDT by markomalley
A prominent doctor at a Phoenix Catholic hospital is publicily lauding the nun who helped approve an abortion that took place there in late 2009. The hospital's ethics committee, on which the nun-- a hospital vice president-- served deemed it necessary to kill the unborn child in order to save the life of the mother.
“Sister Margaret McBride is a courageous, valued member of the St. Joseph Hospital medical team and deserves our unfailing support and gratitude,” writes Dr. John Garvie, chief of gastroenterology at St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center.
“Let me assure all that there is no finer defender of life at our hospital than Sister McBride. Everyone I know considers Sister Margaret to be the moral conscience of the hospital.”
“What she did was something very few are asked to do; namely, to make a life-and-death decision with the full recognition that in order to save one life, another life must be sacrificed.”
With due respect, I don't agree.
The intent is critical in the distinction. If the intent is to put one life over the other, then you have opened the door to utilitarianism. If the intent is to do everything possible to save both lives, then you will work to improve the technology so that this is possible.
The first will result in the abortion of babies who might have some congenital defects; the second has resulted in improvements in the art/science of medicine that now allows major surgeries while the baby is in utero.
My personal thought is that if they actually take that attitude with ectopic pregnancies, they will work to advance the art so that maybe by the time my grandchild (not yet born nor conceived) is old enough to have kids, an ectopic pregnancy will be resolved not by removing the fallopian tube, but by surgically moving the baby to the endometrium, where he or she can finish developing. It may sound pie-in-the-sky, but think about all that is commonplace in medicine now that was unimaginable 50 years ago.
But none of that will happen if say that it is ethically acceptable to simply sacrifice the infant's life.
Mark, I agree fully with what you’ve just written, and you can view my posts on this and the other thread on this subject, and you’ll see I’ve been advocating just that.
Jaydubya, on the other hand, has suggested in my opinion, that removing the fallopian tube is not really killing the baby. Perhaps I misunderstood or misinterpreted JD.
I also understood the first 2 italicized lines to be the Catholic position. At that point the italics should have ended. The words “the aforementioned article” suggests we have begun something other than the Catholic Church position. We have begun someone’s commentary on the RC position. I often have forgotten to close the italics when using html.
***A normal and proper procedure in this case is the removal of the fallopian tube, from which the death of the unborn child inevitably follows. In this case the death of the child is not sought, nor is the mother´s life saved by the child´s dying.****
I do not take the above asterisked comment to be part of the Catholic position. To me, it appears to be someone’s (jaydubya?) commentary.
That is what I disagreed with. We must be honest about taking life when we intentionally take it. There’s no way in the world that I can remove the fallopian tube and not realize I’m also removing the baby.
I cannot fathom getting around abortion by being permitted to remove the uterus. (”I wasn’t killing the baby; I was just removing the uterus.)
Thanks.
We must be honest about taking life when we intentionally take it. There’s no way in the world that I can remove the fallopian tube and not realize I’m also removing the baby.
I may be repeating myself, but bear with me:
The sole point I was getting at is if this is not seen as an undesirable but currently necessary side-effect, then medical science will not advance to the point of actually overcoming the problem.
You know that the other therapy, other than surgical, for ectopic pregnancy is RU-486?
Seems to me that medical science is going in the opposite direction then...embracing the culture of death with a big, sloppy kiss.
Physicians, in my simplistic mind, need to do all they can do to save all the lives involved, not simply to rate one over the other.
In prayers this weekend, I heard the priest state, “May our President and politicians put aside selfish ambition and do what is right for the citizens.” I thought that was well put.
Unfortunately, you are correct. CURRENTLY the ONLY medical procedures for ectopic pregnancy involve killing the baby and doing nothing WILL KILL THE MOTHER AND THE BABY.
Until a surgeon comes up with a way to relocate the fetus (and I’m not aware that any are even attempting this), the most moral approach involves terminating the pregnancy and saving the woman’s life.
Hate to sound picky, but, how about: "...removing the fallopian tube, which saves the mother's life. Unfortunately, there is no way to save the baby."
I know it sounds like splitting hairs...but the distinction is actually important.
I don’t think that the fallopian tubes necessarily have to be removed. Women can conceive and have children after an ectopic pregnancy.
“I don’t think that the fallopian tubes necessarily have to be removed. Women can conceive and have children after an ectopic pregnancy.”
I understand they use RU-486 for that purpose. But I can’t see how that would be licit from a moral theology point of view. (because that would mean killing the baby would be the prime objective, not a side effect)
I’ve know a couple women who had ectopic pregnancies. One in particular almost died from septic shock due to internal bleeding and required major surgery (she had no idea that she was even pregnant at the time and the baby was already dead before it was discovered). She did not have her fallopian tubes removed and has since had two children (both by C-section).
*************************
Absolutely agree!
Imho, in some ways this issue is very simple, in other ways it is very complicated, but as mark said in his previous post, it is our intent that is crucial to our making a morally correct decision regarding mother and child. The fallopian tube is not the womb; it is essentially a hostile environment for the baby. It cannot sustain life. There will surely be a way in the future to address the ectopic pregnancy. At the moment, the will to do so is not evident.
ONLY if some in the medical community decide it's worth doing.
Exactly right.
And please don't try that fake "I'm offended" as you throw your own insults and name-calling. As I pointed out earlier, it's stupid to have two dead patients rather than one. I am very much pro life in spite of our disagreement. I see no reason why this woman should have to die, too.
A case like this during the 11th week of pregnancy is just tragic. I propose that it would have been medical malpractice to continue with the pregnancy with both lives at stake.
No, she was in the early stages of a high risk pregnancy which would require additional precautions. The only people who declared it "life or death" were those were determined to kill her baby.
And please don't try that fake "I'm offended" as you throw your own insults and name-calling.
Let me be perfectly clear, I AM OFFENDED by those who support abortion. As far as insults and name calling, YOU were the one who dismissed pro-lifers as "rabid".
I am very much pro life in spite of our disagreement.
Oh? Earlier you acknowledged that you don't know the exact circumstances of this woman's condition.
I see no reason why this woman should have to die, too.
Since the bishop DOES know more details than we do and since Catholic hospitals DO ALLOW pregnancies to be terminated if it is absolutely necessary to save the mother's life, isn't it entirely possible that this woman was not in real danger of dying>
What seems like an obvious solution may never be feasible.
Well, if you'll note the timeline I put on it, I am not saying tomorrow, next week, or even next decade.
But if physicians are given the option to abort as an ethically acceptable option (vice a horrible, but unavoidable side-effect), they will never have the motivation to even try.
Physicians are typically an arrogant lot (particularly surgeons). That, combined with a utilitarian outlook on life (such as the one we have where abortion and euthanasia are fully acceptable alternatives), makes for the possibility for some really crummy ethical outcomes.
This is correct. An ectopic pregnancy can attach anywhere but it’s usually in the F.tube. If it’s in the tube, depending on the amount of damage that’s been done to the tube, the surgeon may just cut out the damaged area. But even if the tube has to be removed, there’s the “spare.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.