Emergency abortion denials by Catholic hospitals put woman in danger, after her water broke at 17 weeks, lawsuit claims

[MarkSB]

Can cause! A rupture of the amniotic membrane does not always proceed to an infection and may heal allowing the pregnancy to continue. If infected, and even before signs of infection, antibiotics can be administered to prevent infection.

If the infection of the amniotic membrane does in fact occur and fulminates, Catholic hospitals bioethics do allow the administration of drugs to induce contractions of the mother's uterus in order to expel the infected membranes. Therapeutic interventions on the mother's body to save the mother's life are good. The death of the premature child is bad but tolerated under the principles of the Double Effect.

This is an interesting point. Apparently, there are cases where the mother can try to continue the pregnancy until it becomes viable, and then do an early (very early) delivery. However, in addition to the risks to the mother which were already stated (infection and death), it sounds like the fetus/child is also at risk for long term lung issues and facial deformities, among other things I imagine. I did a Google search and there is actually a story on Reddit of a mother that this happened to. She managed to carry the baby to the point of viability, the baby spent a very long time in the NICU, and was now 5 years old with (if memory serves me correctly) some minor breathing issues.

The problem with this, however, is that when faced with those circumstances, I hope that we would all agree that it should be the mother's choice. (Made in consensus with the father, one would hope). In the absence of laws which say the emergency medical facility must provide that care, the mother is left to travel from hospital to hospital to see who will provide the care. This delay in care puts the mother at greater risk - not only for infection/hemorrhaging and other health consequences, but her future ability to bear children as well. And, all on the likely very slim chance that the child would survive.

I wouldn't ever want to have to make that choice, and I imagine none of us would. But I still think that is a decision which should be in the hands of the mother. I doubt that anyone really wants to force the hand of a doctor in such circumstances (I know that I don't), but unfortunately I think that is something that you need to take into account before you enter certain fields (gynecology, EMT) within the profession. Either that, or allow there to be specific medical facilities where it is well known that emergency care is not provided in such circumstances. AND I would propose that those facilities should then be required to be completely independent from government funding. Those are my initial thoughts, at least.

 

[o_mlly]

This is an interesting point. Apparently, there are cases where the mother can try to continue the pregnancy until it becomes viable, and then do an early (very early) delivery. However, in addition to the risks to the mother which were already stated (infection and death), it sounds like the fetus/child is also at risk for long term lung issues and facial deformities, among other things I imagine. I did a Google search and there is actually a story on Reddit of a mother that this happened to. She managed to carry the baby to the point of viability, the baby spent a very long time in the NICU, and was now 5 years old with (if memory serves me correctly) some minor breathing issues.

The problem with this, however, is that when faced with those circumstances, I hope that we would all agree that it should be the mother's choice. (Made in consensus with the father, one would hope). In the absence of laws which say the emergency medical facility must provide that care, the mother is left to travel from hospital to hospital to see who will provide the care. This delay in care puts the mother at greater risk - not only for infection/hemorrhaging and other health consequences, but her future ability to bear children as well. And, all on the likely very slim chance that the child would survive.

I wouldn't ever want to have to make that choice, and I imagine none of us would. But I still think that is a decision which should be in the hands of the mother. I doubt that anyone really wants to force the hand of a doctor in such circumstances (I know that I don't), but unfortunately I think that is something that you need to take into account before you enter certain fields (gynecology, EMT) within the profession. Either that, or allow there to be specific medical facilities where it is well known that emergency care is not provided in such circumstances. AND I would propose that those facilities should then be required to be completely independent from government funding. Those are my initial thoughts, at least.

Yes, the mother decides and she may choose to not allow managed care -- bed rest, monitoring for infection, and prophylactic antibody treatment.

If the Catholic hospital refused any kind of care to the mother and child then the hospital did not follow the Catholic prescribed bioethics guidelines in emergency pregnancy cases. We may have to wait for a trial (if the case goes to trial) to get the salient facts.

 

[johansen]

If the Catholic hospital refused any kind of care to the mother and child then the hospital did not follow the Catholic prescribed bioethics guidelines in emergency pregnancy cases. We may have to wait for a trial (if the case goes to trial) to get the salient facts.

Very likely to settle out of court and we will never know.

I suspect it will take dozens of dead moms before the state requires catholic hospitals to manage care properly.

 

[o_mlly]

I suspect it will take dozens of dead moms before the state requires catholic hospitals to manage care properly.

Are you an emergency room physician? If not then I don't think you are qualified to prescribe what is the proper care for pregnant women in need of emergency care.