Phoenix hospital that performed abortion no longer Catholic

LifeSiteNews ^ | 12/21/10 | Kathleen Gilbert

[Mrs. Don-o]

Here's some links to documents from the Catholic Ethics people which lay out the moral criteria under which pre-term induction of labor (not PRE-TERM SLAUGHTER OF BABY) can be justified --- in the extremely small number of cases in which continuation of the pregnancy would otherwise be imminently lethal:

http://www.ncpd.org/webinars/prenatal

Hope this helps.

I have taken a close interest in this, because it seems to me that the hospital people have misused the principle of double effect, and Bishop Olmstead --- though he's right --- hasn't done very well in explaining this to conscientious Catholic health professionals, let alone the press or the public at large.

If anybody wants to get back to me on this with questions, I will attempt to assemble the information I have.

I find it appalling that Catholic Health West, the consortium that owns and operates the hospital in question, couldn't come to a meeting of the minds with Bishop Olmstead about this. Even well-intentioned people are very confused about this because of dreadfully inept communication. It bodes very poorly for the future of many, many Catholic hospitals.

[verga]

[EternalVigilance]

Personhood BUMP.

[kara37]

I'm not Catholic, so I am not familiar with Catholic Ethics. I also don't know if there was another option besides DNC or induction.

However, I do know that if they induced labor on a woman that was suffering from pulmonary hypertension, it would almost certainly amount to a death sentence. I couldn't imagine that it also wouldn't be considered malpractice.

[Melas]

I’ve been following this story, and to be honest I’m very surprised. I would have thought a bishop would have more actual power over the situation than he actually possesses. Apparently, he’s unable to do anything beyond the most symbolic of gestures.

He has no control over the hospital’s policies or operations whatsoever. He can’t even keep St. Joeseph’s from calling itself a Catholic hospital to the public. He can only refuse to recognize it as a Catholic hospital.

I thought the church owned these things. Is this not the case?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Dear Kara37, you wrote: "..if they induced labor on a woman that was suffering from pulmonary hypertension, it would almost certainly amount to a death sentence. I couldn't imagine that it also wouldn't be considered malpractice."

I would like to ask someone with professional training or clinical experience, e.g. high-risk obstetrician, about that.

Just guessing, it would seem to me that in the case of a pregnant patient with pulmonary hypertension,

• inducing labor or
• doing a C-section or
• doing a hysterectomy or
• doing a D&E

might be comparably stressful.

I'm not sure that any of the first three would permit the delivery of a baby that would live even for a few moments; all of these 4 procedues would terminate the pregnancy and prevent the mother's death (hopefully, but even this is not certain); only the last one would do so by intentionally attacking the child. And in this case, even prescinding from the ethical question of dismembering a patient to cause death, there would be the additional stress (to the mother) that she knows they are intentionally mutilating her baby to facilitate compete evacuation.

It would help, in an extreme situation like this where any course of action entails grim risks, if a knowledgeable and ethically well-trained person (LadyDoc?) would supply more accurate information, as well as some idea of other options? What's out there on the management-of-high-risk-pregnancy frontiers?