Ectopic pregnancies

[apaige]

What do people think about these? This happens when the fetus implants itself in the fallopian tube or abdomen, which eventually ruptures the organ...It sounds like the fetus will die anyway...is it ok to remove the fetus (thus killing it) before the organs rupture?

 

[LouTheWicked]

Yes.

 

[charityagape]

Yes, if a woman doesn't miscarry the fetus naturally it will threaten her life. And the fetus has no chance of survival when its in the fallopian tube.

 

[ScMay]

What do people think about these? This happens when the fetus implants itself in the fallopian tube or abdomen, which eventually ruptures the organ...It sounds like the fetus will die anyway...is it ok to remove the fetus (thus killing it) before the organs rupture?

You have two choices in this case:
#1 - Let both mother and child die
#2 - Kill child prematurely, mother survives.

There are no other choices, I'd chose the one causing the greater good. I can't think of any good reason not to do #2. Even many christians (in my experiece) who are against abortion think that abortion when the mothers life is in danger is ok (especially if the child will never be born anyway.)

 

[chilehed]

It is never morally licit to directly will and act against the life of the unborn child.

In this case the intent of the surgery would not be to end the life of the child, but rather to save the life of the mother by removing the affected section of the tube. The death of the child would be an undesired and unavoidable secondary effect, thus it would be morally licit to perform the surgery.

 

[MariaRegina]

There were two cases I heard about:

In one case the woman had an ectopic pregnancy where the child attached to her liver. Doctors advised her to abort the child, but the woman had no fallopian tubes (removed surgically) and desperately wanted this child to live.

So she carried it to term although she had to say in bed.

They delivered the child and both mother and child did very well.

This was in the news and I remember reading it with wonder.


Another case involved a woman who had an ectopic pregnancy but didn't realize it. The fraternal twin developed in the uterus but the other twin was in the fallopian tube and the doctors didn't realize this. At first the woman thought that she was miscarrying because of the blood loss. Then it stopped. Apparently the child's growth caused the fallopian tube to burst and it then attached to her bowels. Both children and the mother lived. A surgical procedure was done to remove the newborn infants safely and do the necessary repairs.

Yes, this is unusual.


Incidentally, women who use birth control pills and the IUD have a much higher incidence of ectopic pregnancies because these chemicals create an inhospitable environment in the womb.

 

[Locrian]

In this case the intent of the surgery would not be to end the life of the child, but rather to save the life of the mother by removing the affected section of the tube. The death of the child would be an undesired and unavoidable secondary effect, thus it would be morally licit to perform the surgery.

Hmm. That seems convenient. You could use the same logic to save the job of the mother, or the mental health of the mother, or just the mother's spare time. The baby's death would be an unavoidable secondary effect of each.

In my opinion your moral thinking here is flawed because you are trying to overlook the death of the baby, instead of simply admit that it has less value than the life of the mother.

Also, is this really a thread for the science forum? I'd think there would be another it would be better suited for.

 

[MariaRegina]

Ectopic pregnancy presents a medical emergency so it does fit in with Life Sciences.

However, not all ectopic pregnancies are terminated. Some women do carry their child to term, but it must be delivered surgically.



edited to add: Some women do carry their child to term

And a human fetus or embryo is a child, not a rabbit, fish, or monkey.

 

[chilehed]

Hmm. That seems convenient. You could use the same logic to save the job of the mother, or the mental health of the mother, or just the mother's spare time. The baby's death would be an unavoidable secondary effect of each.

In my opinion your moral thinking here is flawed because you are trying to overlook the death of the baby, instead of simply admit that it has less value than the life of the mother.

Also, is this really a thread for the science forum? I'd think there would be another it would be better suited for.

I don't have any formal training in moral theology, but it seems to me that there's an issue of proportionality here. The value of the mother's job, mental health or spare time is nothing compared to the value of the child, so no, you can't licitly use this reasoning in the manner you suggest.

And yes, there's a moral theology forum that would be a more appropriate place for this discussion.

 

[steen]

Given that this is a science forum, would perhaps scientific terminology be appropriate? Ectopic pregnancies are embryos (rarely make it to be fetuses), not children, f.ex.

It there is an ectopic pregnancy, then there isn't much to discuss unless a person shows incredible disregard for women. If she wants it gone, so be it. If she wants to carry it to term, then it needs intensive medical supervision. If it is clear that there is no hope of survival and the woman still insists, then it essentially is suicide, and should require an evaluation accordingly.

 

[Locrian]

The value of the mother's job, mental health or spare time is nothing compared to the value of the child,

That's exactly my point, which should be read against the post I quoted.

You have to make a comparison. You can't simply claim that you are trying to do something good, and if bad stuff happens, well, that's secondary.