It is preposterous to declare that if I’m not Catholic, I’m not allowed to discuss medical ethics as they pertain to Catholic hospitals. I regularly describe and defend those ethics to the secular and pro-abort. I practice in a Catholic hospital, in fact.
More than that, I voluntarily spend much of my own time and money in order to fight for ethics in medicine, in law and in “Bioethics.” Too often, our “ethics” are redefined to “bioethics” and become what I call the “formal study of who we can kill,” just as our laws become the formalized infringement of freedom.
This is not just an exercise in theoretical or classroom ethics - this case appears to be one of the “hard cases.”
It is never right to kill — In truth, the command is “Do not murder.”
Each person has the right to life, including the right to actively defend that life. It is always acceptable to defend one person’s life from the direct threat caused by another, even if that means shooting first at someone who is threatening the life of the first. The intent or competency of the one causing the danger does not matter. By the same right to self defense, it is ethical to wield a surgical instrument to remove the child from his mother’s uterus when there is an emergency situation caused by the pregnancy and which can’t be solved any other way.
This is from the hospital’s statement:
“At St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, our highly-skilled clinical professionals face life and death decisions every day. Those decisions are guided by our values of dignity, justice and respect, and the belief that all life is sacred.
“We have always adhered to the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services as we carry out our healing ministry and we continue to abide by them. As the preamble to the Directives notes, ‘While providing standards and guidance, the Directives do not cover in detail all the complex issues that confront Catholic health care today.’
“In those instances where the Directives do not explicitly address a clinical situation - such as when a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life - an Ethics Committee is convened to help our caregivers and their patients make the most life-affirming decision.
“In this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy. This decision was made after consultation with the patient, her family, her physicians, and in consultation with the Ethics Committee, of which Sr. Margaret McBride is a member.”
I agree, when did I ever make such a suggestion?
This is post #47:
“To: xzins
The problem is that nobody seems to be saying conclusively that the mother’s life was at risk. Certainly something needs to be done about ectopic pregnancy, but I don’t think any sort of relocation procedure exists at this time. It is my understanding that most ectopic fetuses are already dead by the time it’s discovered.
47 posted on May 18, 2010 12:44:43 PM EDT by wagglebee (”A political party cannot be all things to all people.” — Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies | Report A”
It was not directed to you, nor was it about you. I’m confused.
Not to mention that a huge chunk of "Catholic" hospitals' budgets come from various taxpayer-funded programs. They must answer to all parties that they take money from, and that includes the US taxpayers, the majority of whom are not Catholic. And telling a patient "Sorry, we're just going to have to let you die, because we're Catholic" is NOT acceptable. In reality, I think there are very few Catholics who would not choose abortion if they found themselves in the situation this woman was in (though there are plenty who *say* they would, as long as it's not their own or their spouse's life that's actually on the line).
What is your response to post 80?