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.”
I didn’t put a timeline on it, Mark. I’m simply pointing out the dangerous obstacles that would have to be overcome to make it successful. It may be something that we, as humans, will have to accept as an unfortunately reality. As much as we’d like to try to fix things that go wrong, that’s not always possible now or later.
Regardless, we won’t find out if we don’t try and we won’t try if the ethical framework within which we work tells us that losing the baby is an ethically acceptable outcome (as opposed to an unacceptable, but unavoidable, side effect).
OK. I had trouble understanding the italics, and I assumed you were the commentary portion. It’s seems, though, that the commentary after the Catholic position was from an article that was copy-pasted. Is that correct, or do I still have it wrong?
This was not a potentially critically ill patient. This wasn't a patient who was facing a possible future complication. This was a patient who was already critically ill.
As far as insults and name calling, YOU were the one who dismissed pro-lifers as "rabid".
That is absolutely untrue. As an admitted pro-lifer myself, that makes no sense. My point to the other poster is that before my own medical situation, I used to be one of those rabid pro-lifers who couldn't imagine ANY situation where I'd ever choose my life over my baby's or that there would always be a better choice than abortion. I was wrong and so are those that think that way. Life isn't always so neat and tidy, as I have learned. You may apologize at any time for your assumption. rofl
But I would point out one thing. While you are focusing on preventing the death of the baby in this case, keep in mind that we've already come a long way in that just a generation ago, both baby and mother were doomed. Saving one life in this scenario is significant.
No argument.
Yet you've already acknowledged that you don't know the details. Since Catholic hospitals DO allow these procedures to save the mother's life, don't you think that there might be a few more details that the Bishop is aware of and the MSM is withholding?
My point to the other poster is that before my own medical situation, I used to be one of those rabid pro-lifers who couldn't imagine ANY situation where I'd ever choose my life over my baby's or that there would always be a better choice than abortion.
Actually, that's NOT what you wrote earlier:
Unlike most miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies don't always resolve themselves on their own and require medical intervention. The act of surgically removing the baby and therefore terminating the pregnancy is an abortion, it's just NOT an elective one. And that's where people who are rabidly pro-life run into problems.
Who are they people who are "rabidly" pro-life?
I was wrong and so are those that think that way. Life isn't always so neat and tidy, as I have learned.
What you seem to be doing is declaring that there are people in the pro-life movement who hold this position, but you haven't demonstrated that anyone actually believes this.
You may apologize at any time for your assumption.
What have I "assumed"? You have declared this abortion to be necessary, but haven't shown that it was. You have denounced segments of the pro-life movement as "rabid", but cannot identify any groups that don't believe in saving the life of the mother.
That is not ALL that I wrote on that subject and for whatever reason, you are choosing to ignore it. It explains who I am talking about and why.
What you seem to be doing is declaring that there are people in the pro-life movement who hold this position, but you haven't demonstrated that anyone actually believes this. Are you suggesting that they don't exist? What about the Catholic church's stance that a woman's life can only be saved IF the death of the unborn baby is a side effect of other treatment used to save a woman's life? A woman could radiate the heck out of her uterus to treat cancer...causing the baby to die...and that's ok because the baby's death was secondary. But if the woman is stroking out and her organs are failing due to pregnancy induced high blood pressure...ending the pregnancy to reduce the hypertension is immoral because the baby's death was more direct. I guess if the woman died, then the side effect would also be a dead baby, but at least she wouldn't be excommunicated from the church because the baby's death was secondary to the mother's. That is the position this church and bishop is taking. It's ok to kill an unborn child so long as it's a side effect of another treatment. But if the pregnancy is the cause that is threatening the woman's life, she's screwed and we can only hope she doesn't die. I don't find that kind of thinking to be reasonable and I would characterize it as rabid.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I find the bolded rather disturbing. Sounds like something you'd hear from one of those Middle Eastern Islamic clerics, don't you think?
I'm familiar with it because I HAD IT. At no time did I want to be "cured," only treated until my children could survive. since pregnancy is self-limiting. I'm not going to turn myself inside out for you, as my earlier concern for your feelings is not reciprocated. (I'm sorry, wagglebee!)
Those who find risky pregnancy unacceptable are those who require a guarantee for life, and there is none. Those who find a less than perfect outcome unacceptable are the kind who will kill a Down's syndrome child. I think I'm overly concerned for someone who will kill a child if something other than perfection obtains. My mistake.
Humans are not perfect. We don't get to kill children because everything doesn't go perfectly. We don't even get to be depressed about it -- God says rejoice in His Gifts! We all die, after all. My fourth child is the light of my life, a young mother of three herself in a happy marriage to a man who was ADOPTED. The fact that I nearly died during her birth is inconsequential 30+ years later. At least I am not grieving over killing an unborn child.
Am i RABIDLY pro-life? According to you, I guess I am. My only concern is, according to God, am I? Pregnancy related hypertension is treatable, survivable, and we are to trust in Him and have no fear.
The punishment in store for those who commit such acts will be harsh.
************************
I believe it is possible. It is also possible that this case may have been used to advance an agenda.
At the risk of sounding petty, let us not forget that there was apparently time for a committee to meet and come to an agreement regarding the moral correctness of this decision. Which does not mean that this was a situation that was not of grave concern, but it does indicate that there was at least some time in which to reflect. We know this because the mother survived.
I am fairly certain that this case was used to advance an agenda. Necessary procedures to save a mother’s life have been permitted for decades in Catholic hospitals.
The fact that the bishop is talking about this one indicates that he probably believes that the abortion WAS NOT necessary. That is not to say that the woman’s condition might not have worsened and made it necessary at a later date, but he obviously didn’t consider it a life and death matter right now.
Agreed. The committee met, the doctors met with the committee and one presumes the family, the family met, the patient met with everyone, then the decision was made.
Hardly an emergency procedure.
I can ASSURE you that the committee is not required to meet if the doctor believes death is imminent, otherwise it would be impossible for the hospital to obtain insurance.
Exactly!
*********************
That makes sense. What doesn't make sense is this story as it has been reported. As a number of posters have stated, there must be more to this event than we know now.
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.