Ectopic Pregnancies

[Slappo]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='26 April 2010 - 08:08 PM' timestamp='1272337724' post='2100753']
In all respect, why would some of those be morally acceptable but the others would not? All of them kill the child and safe the mother? Also, who determines if they are morally acceptable?

I am not trying to argue, honestly curious.
[/quote]

The first and third are directly causing the death of the child and are using the death of the child as the means of saving the mothers life. It is only possibly a direct cause in the 3rd as the means is possibly the breaking down of the embryo's lining, but it is possibly the breaking down of the mothers lining around the embryo.

The 2nd indirectly causes the death of the child. The direct means of saving the mothers life is the removal of the fallopian tube (which of course indirectly causes the death of the child).


Let me know if this doesn't make sense or if you'd like further explanation as I'd be happy to give it. One of my professors my freshmen year was handling an ectopic pregnancy with his wife and it was a great opportunity for me to learn.

[N/A Gone]

I think that is just semantics. The 2nd one is clearly ending the life of the child just as much as the 2nd or 3rd one are. None of them are "preferred" and we would pray that it is a situation we never have to be in but they all have the same result. I do not see why one would be "allowed" and the other are "wrong".

I understand sin as a failure to love. In this situation all 3 examples are painful expressions of the fact that you need to save your wife at the sacrifice of the child. I do not see how the method makes any difference.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='26 April 2010 - 10:22 PM' timestamp='1272338526' post='2100762']
I think that is just semantics. The 2nd one is clearly ending the life of the child just as much as the 2nd or 3rd one are. None of them are "preferred" and we would pray that it is a situation we never have to be in but they all have the same result. I do not see why one would be "allowed" and the other are "wrong".

I understand sin as a failure to love. In this situation all 3 examples are painful expressions of the fact that you need to save your wife at the sacrifice of the child. I do not see how the method makes any difference.
[/quote]
That's where we get into the principle of double effect, if I'm not mistaken. Direct and intended, versus indirect and unintended.

[N/A Gone]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='26 April 2010 - 11:33 PM' timestamp='1272339226' post='2100770']
That's where we get into the principle of double effect, if I'm not mistaken. Direct and intended, versus indirect and unintended.
[/quote]

I kind of figured this would be the direction we would go.

What I do not get is how the #2 would not be in the same "direct" as the others? (removing the tube clearly kills the child just as the other 2) My perspective would be that none of them are "direct" because the motivation is the protection of the Mother and you do not have a possible way to save the Child in any of the 3. Your desire is not to kill the child, but it is the sad inevitable outcome.

I am just not sure how we can give the moral "ok" stamp to one of them and not the 2 when the difference is the medical technique. The outcomes are the same, the pain that the family deals with is the same, and the death of the child is the same.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='26 April 2010 - 10:41 PM' timestamp='1272339671' post='2100778']
I kind of figured this would be the direction we would go.

What I do not get is how the #2 would not be in the same "direct" as the others? (removing the tube clearly kills the child just as the other 2) My perspective would be that none of them are "direct" because the motivation is the protection of the Mother and you do not have a possible way to save the Child in any of the 3. Your desire is not to kill the child, but it is the sad inevitable outcome.

I am just not sure how we can give the moral "ok" stamp to one of them and not the 2 when the difference is the medical technique. The outcomes are the same, the pain that the family deals with is the same, and the death of the child is the same.
[/quote]
In the second option, you don't remove the baby itself, nor do you intend its death. If you're actually removing the embryo, then that's directly leading to its death. The death has to be intended by such actions. Unless we can find a way to remove and re-implant the embryo, of course.

In any case, I'm way out of my philosophical league with such questions, when they get this in depth, so I need to leave it to smarter people before I start saying wrong things.

[N/A Gone]

maybe I am dead wrong, but I thought removing the entire tube assumed the baby removed also?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='26 April 2010 - 11:07 PM' timestamp='1272341267' post='2100801']
maybe I am dead wrong, but I thought removing the entire tube assumed the baby removed also?
[/quote]
I've always been told that it is not morally equivalent.
Like I said, we need someone more educated than me.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='26 April 2010 - 08:41 PM' timestamp='1272339671' post='2100778']
I kind of figured this would be the direction we would go.

What I do not get is how the #2 would not be in the same "direct" as the others? (removing the tube clearly kills the child just as the other 2) My perspective would be that none of them are "direct" because the motivation is the protection of the Mother and you do not have a possible way to save the Child in any of the 3. Your desire is not to kill the child, but it is the sad inevitable outcome.

I am just not sure how we can give the moral "ok" stamp to one of them and not the 2 when the difference is the medical technique. The outcomes are the same, the pain that the family deals with is the same, and the death of the child is the same.
[/quote]

Double effect doesn't have to do solely with intent but also with action. One of the action uses the means of killing the baby for the end of saving the mother's life. Another action uses the means of removing the fallopian tube (which is the mother's tissue) for the end of saving the mother's life. The indirect consequence of the fallopian tube is the death of the baby, but it is not the intended effect nor is it the means to the end.


I will add that some find all three acts to be morally illicit, but I don't know any moral theologians that find all three to be permissable.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='26 April 2010 - 09:07 PM' timestamp='1272341267' post='2100801']
maybe I am dead wrong, but I thought removing the entire tube assumed the baby removed also?
[/quote]

The baby is only removed indirectly though. You have left the baby in it's normal environment (the fallopian tube).

[N/A Gone]

That just seems weird. The child is clearly in the tube. How is that any different. "Indirectly" does not make it any different then the other actions.

[N/A Gone]

The "desired goal" of all 3 of them are the same. The end result is the same. The "natural environment" only would make sense if the goal was not the removal of the baby. (Like they had appendix surgery and the baby died. That is indirect)

[Slappo]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='26 April 2010 - 09:21 PM' timestamp='1272342064' post='2100811']
The "desired goal" of all 3 of them are the same. The end result is the same. The "natural environment" only would make sense if the goal was not the removal of the baby. (Like they had appendix surgery and the baby died. That is indirect)
[/quote]

The desired goal, the end result, even if the natural environment thing wasn't the case, the [b]means[/b], which is vital, is not the same.

I'll try to think of another example that might make it more clear, but the easiest example is of course ectopic pregnancies.

[N/A Gone]

I appreciate it.


This type of morality tends to bother me.

[Slappo]

Ahah, perfect example, that didn't take long.

The example is this: organ donation.

Is it morally permissible to give an organ donation of the heart of someone who is still alive at the time but is 100% sure to die (the patient is bleeding out and is sure to die in a matter of minutes)? Medical fact: it is healthier to transplant a heart of a still living patient as the heart dies 6(?) minutes after the death of the patient. Even a matter of seconds can make a huge difference in how successful a heart transplant is (no source but this is what I learned in one of my classes and for purposes of this exercise we'll presume it is factual).

Goal: Save the life of another patient through organ transplant
end result: saving the life of the patient, and the death of the organ donor
Environment: Doesn't matter for this scenario, so throw it out.
Means: Removing the heart of a still living patient, or removing the heart of the patient as soon as the patient is proclaimed dead.

The donor will die no matter what and it is only a matter of minutes that is different, but removing the [b]vital[/b] organs of a still living person is not morally licit. Kidneys and such are different as is obvious (the donor can still live).


In this situation (although not exactly identical), the goal and end result is the same. We're presuming that the death of the baby is inevitable in the ectopic pregnancy.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='26 April 2010 - 09:30 PM' timestamp='1272342629' post='2100816']
This type of morality tends to bother me.
[/quote]

That's definitely understandable. If you really want an experts opinion I suggest e-mailing Dr. Lee at FUS (Bioethics chair).

I think he also has a new book out that might include this.