Ectopic V Regular Pregnancy Complications, Letting Fetus Die, Morality

[dairygirl4u2c]

so catholics say it's morally licit to remove the fetus in an ectopic pregnancy, where it is implanted in the fallopian tubes and a risk to the mother. they use the principle of double effect per the "ends does not justify the means" argument.

 

they say ectopics can also occur in ovaries, cervix, abdomen. id suppose the principle could extend there, too.

could this argument be extended in cases where a regular pregnancy caused complications to the mother, and the mother simply removed her uterus to not die? or perhaps even a step further, removing the baby itself and letting it die outside the mother?

really, though, if the fetus could be removed and the body parts remain intact, why require the mother to be damaged etc? morally, i am a proportionalist instead of a deontologist.... but there must be compelling reasons to go against deontology. isn't it silly to allow a mother to lose her uterus ovaries cervix abdomen fallopian tubes or wahtever, just so it can be said to be done "legit".? the end result is the same in the babies death, why require damage to the mom if it doesn't ahve to be done?
i really question whether this is what God would want, all that damage to the mother.... and might venture it's more insuting to God dignity etc to think you have to do so much damage.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i saw one person on the internet saying the fallopian tube has to be damaged an posing a threat to allow it to be removed an double effect to come into play. but then that idea was quickly dismissed as not necessary to fulfuill the criteria of double effect.

 

it ac tually would make things mroe morally consistent. less slippery anyways.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

The question in this particular situation comes from the fact that the baby would die anyway. But, killing the baby and allowing the baby to die are two radically different things.

 

For example: My sister has cancer. If she is told she has two months to live and I shoot her, I am still committing murder.

Now, for another kind of case, intention does matter. If, for example, a mother has a ectopic (tubal) pregnancy, we know the child will eventually die and the mother's life is also at risk, so something must be done or both will die. But, we still cannot kill either of them. Yet, we can allow nature to run it's course and allow the baby to die naturally, that is, we cannot actively do anything that would kill the child (e.g., abortion).

 

What is the difference? In this situation the difference is in intention and action. The action would differ in that instead of actually killing the child and then removing the child from the fallopian tube, the doctor would remove the section of the tube that the baby was in and then allow it to die. But, the intent is not to kill the child, but rather to save the woman. The side-effect here is unintentional - the baby's death.

This is a distinction that cannot be lost on us in the "tough cases". The ectopic pregnancy is a classic case of using the principle of double effect, which can help in situations like these. Here is a link to an article about it if you would like to know more.

Continuing on, the Catechism goes further:

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being. Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual.... It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."

So, even though this situation is difficult, it in no way lessens the right of the baby to live, however short or difficult the life may be outside of the mother's womb. The dignity of each human demands that we protect it. Our convenience or subjective idea of "quality of life" should not dictate the right of another to live. Without the right to life, no other rights make sense.

[dairygirl4u2c]

you explained how and why principe of double effect works in fallopian tubes.

b

ut i expanded it and asked... if the mother's life were at risk, why coudln't she jsut remove her uterus with teh baby in it? isn't it teh same idea?

y

ou also didn't specifically address the proportionalism point. you said you can't intend the death, but it'd seem if the end result is the same, we shouldn't expect so much damage to the mother.

 

id be content if you jsut addressed the removing the uterus point though, the main point of the thread.

[let_go_let_God]

I'm not quite certain what exactly you are asking with the removal of the uterus. If a baby has reached the uterus there is no condition like an ectopic pregnancy that can occur.

 

However in cases, such as pregnant cancer patients, there are two choices. One would be to start chemo or another treatment which would potentially harm or kill the unborn child or to not have the treatment until the child is born.

 

Removing a woman's uterus would do nothing to solve the problem unless it were a form of cancer that would harm the reproductive organs.

 

Women I know who have been in this situation have waited on treatment until the birth of their child. Ultimately though they would forgo the ability to breastfeed because their bodies will have the drugs in them. If the cancer is spreading too rapidly there would also be a chance to wait until healthy viability, 26 weeks, and then have an emergency c section. Although this would pose risk to both child and mother, it would give the child the chance to live while helping the mother receive treatment in a more timely fashion.

 

There are also cases where the mother is taking a medication and does not know that she is pregnant. There are many drugs that will end pregnancies if taken during any stage of pregnancy. Usually doctors will take women off them if it is found that they are pregnant. However, should this occur there is no fault on the mother. Her taking her prescribed medication, not including HBC intended to prevent pregnancy, results in a tragic accident resulting in the loss of her child.

 

Taking HBC, to prevent pregnancy still remains a conscious decision to prevent and end pregnancies which are "not wanted". The argument that there are other conditions that HBC can treat can be nullified as there are also other drugs that can be used to facilitate a healthy solution to those medical conditions.

 

God bless-

LGLG

[thessalonian]

The most pursuasive argument I have heard on these matters is that the intent of the procedure cannot be an abortion.  The consequence may be but not the intent.  Thus if the intent is to save the life of the mother and has the unintended consequence of the loss of life of the child it  is moral.

[Nihil Obstat]

The most pursuasive argument I have heard on these matters is that the intent of the procedure cannot be an abortion.  The consequence may be but not the intent.  Thus if the intent is to save the life of the mother and has the unintended consequence of the loss of life of the child it  is moral.

While this is technically true, we have to be very careful not to reduce the question simply to intent. We have to look at intent, moral object, and circumstances. The moral object is also especially critical in ectopic pregnancy questions. If the moral object is intrinsically evil, then intent is irrelevant.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so if intent is what matters, and you dont intend the abortion per se.... couldnt a mother remove her uterus, if the pregnancy is posing a risk to her life etc? how is it different than removing the tubes in ectopic pregnancies?

it would be just a loop around actual abortions, that are done to save the mother, sure. but isnt it the same idea?

it also highlights what to me is the silly nature of it all when trying to follow the ends means argument.... the mother should just take all that damage to her body, when the end result of the baby's death is the same either way?

[Nihil Obstat]

We consider intent only after we have determined that the moral object is not inherently evil. If the moral object is evil, intent is irrelevant.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so how is the moral objective okay when it's removing the fallopian tube, but not okay when removing the uterus?

[Nihil Obstat]

I have not really studied that aspect of the topic in depth, so I may be incorrect in some of my conclusions, but:

 

I think removal of the uterus is not an inherently evil act. Therefore we move to evaluating intent and circumstances. If the intent is abortive, i.e. the intent is actually to kill the fetus, then the act is evil. If the intent is to treat some disease, the act is not necessarily evil.

 

That being said there are some caveats. Firstly I am not familiar with the medical issues involved, so I do not know what cases would make a hysterectomy during pregnancy a reasonable treatment. Secondly, even if a hysterectomy were potentially licit, it would most probably remain highly praiseworthy for the mother to risk her own health in order to bring the child to term. C.f. Gianna Molla. Certainly there would be a moral obligation to exhaust all other reasonable alternatives.

 

Basically, I am not sure there is a substantial difference between potentially removing a fallopian tube, and potentially removing all or part of the uterus.

 

If I am mistaken about some fact or any of my conclusions, I hope someone will point it out quickly so I can do further research.

Edited April 10, 2013 by Nihil Obstat

[dairygirl4u2c]

so it sounds like you are basically agreeing with me. taking out the uterus would be basically the same thing as taking out the tube.

 

which would lead one to wonder why they couldnt just remove the baby altogether and skip out on the tube and the uterus? i can see being against a direct killing, but how is taking the baby out instead of all the damage really any different than taking the tubes and uterus out? 

i almost sense a psychological point that a person has to accept pain etc for it to be moral. 

 

(and i still dont see much difference in an abortion altogether if you can just remove the baby and let it die, or remove the tubes/uterus

[Nihil Obstat]

so it sounds like you are basically agreeing with me. taking out the uterus would be basically the same thing as taking out the tube.

 

which would lead one to wonder why they couldnt just remove the baby altogether and skip out on the tube and the uterus? i can see being against a direct killing, but how is taking the baby out instead of all the damage really any different than taking the tubes and uterus out? 

i almost sense a psychological point that a person has to accept pain etc for it to be moral. 

 

(and i still dont see much difference in an abortion altogether if you can just remove the baby and let it die, or remove the tubes/uterus

I rarely read your posts, so I would not know one way or the other.

 

As to the rest, the answer is simple. You just do not understand the meaning of the moral object. Catholic morality does, thank God, which is why we are not consequentialists or 'intent-ists', whatever you want to call that.

[dairygirl4u2c]

if the answer is simple, then please explain the detail. how is it different to just take the baby or fetus out of the mother, instead of removing the baby inside a uterus, or the fallopian tube?

this would be basically removing it and letting it die, instead of direct abortion.

Edited April 10, 2013 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

if the answer is simple, then please explain the detail. how is it different to just take the baby or fetus out of the mother, instead of removing the baby inside a uterus, or the fallopian tube?

this would be basically removing it and letting it die, instead of direct abortion.

Because the moral object is different. A hysterectomy is the removal of all or part of the uterus. An abortion is the direct killing of an unborn person. They are not the same action.