Nun Automatically Excommunicated For Approving Abortion

[BAFRIEND]

you are in serious error Jim...

​

 

[Davidnic]

The poster was not there at the hospital to evaluate the patient's condition to be able to make such a statement.


Jim

And neither were you Jim, to say it was not. The bottom line is no one here on this, or any, message board knows the fully facts. So it comes down to who you trust.

Do you trust the ethics committee or the Bishop.

The ethics committee has the advantage of being there when it happened with access to all private data. But they have the disadvantage that it can be argued that those committees play percentages on behalf of insurance companies and cost and call situations emergencies based on that and not on human dignity. And there are many cases that back that argument.

The Bishop has the advantage of nearly a year or so of review of this case before this statement and the knowledge to apply Church doctrine to the situation. But he has the disadvantage of not having all the private medical data.

So a persons perspective comes down to...who do you trust the Ethics Committee or the Bishop.


Now personally.

I do not give the ethics committee the benefit of the doubt for a second. From all the research I have done on multiple topics, there are massive flaws with how they interact as a concept in our medical system with placing insurance costs and low percentage risks above saving people.

So when the Bishop says an aboriton took place I do not think of the medical definition that includes miscarriage. I think of the Church definition that is the willful killing by human intervention of an innocent unborn life. And when he says it does not meet double effect then I am assuming that it failed to meet the parameters we have discussed where other measures should have been taken. He has access to the nun and the committee in the investigation since 2009 and I give that the benefit of the doubt over what I know of ethics committees.

 

[BAFRIEND]

The poster was not there at the hospital to evaluate the patient's condition to be able to make such a statement.


Jim

i was not there when Jesus was crucified either

fortunately our God is a God of forgiveness and love if one is open to it

 

[benedictaoo]

Davidnic, where Jim errs, is believing that if the Church understood that the babies could never ever survive and doing other treatment will just kill the mother.. they would approve of abortions in these cases...but no, the Church will never approve of directly killing a baby as a way of saving a mother.

 

[Davidnic]

The fact is many doctors will agree that there are almost no situations where abortion is the only means of saving the mothers life.

In fact in 1992 a group of the top gynecologists in Ireland said:

"We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child."
-John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times 1 April 1992
​

There are other statements as well. That as well as many other factors is why I do not give the benefit of the doubt to the Ethics Committee.

 

[Davidnic]

For those interested in the details of the basic medical situation that was involved:

Source: RealChoice Blog

Primary pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy; a role for novel vasodilators

Primary pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy

Pulmonary hypertension and pregnancy

Pregnant Patient with Primary Pulmonary Hypertension: General Anesthesia and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support for Termination of Pregnancy

Case 6--Pulmonary Hypertension in a Pregnant Woman

Severe Pulmonary Hypertension during Pregnancy: Mode of Delivery and Anesthetic Management of 15 Consecutive Cases

Pulmonary Hypertension.

Pulmonary Hypertension and Pregnancy: Why Women Die

Pulmonary Hypertension in Pregnancy: Treatment With Pulmonary Vasodilators


​

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Davidnic;

And neither were you Jim, to say it was not. The bottom line is no one here on this, or any, message board knows the fully facts. So it comes down to who you trust.

Do you trust the ethics committee or the Bishop.

Well lets look at this. The ethics committee is a team of medical experts, who have seen the mother and the condition she is in.

The Bishop? Not an expert, and probably never met the mother, much less evaluate her medical condition.

So, based on this, I'm leaning a little more in favor of the hospital ethics committee.

The ethics committee has the advantage of being there when it happened with access to all private data. But they have the disadvantage that it can be argued that those committees play percentages on behalf of insurance companies and cost and call situations emergencies based on that and not on human dignity. And there are many cases that back that argument.

But here you begin to judge the integrity of the members of this hospital's ethics committee. You're speculating that they put cost before the life of the mother.

The Bishop has the advantage of nearly a year or so of review of this case before this statement and the knowledge to apply Church doctrine to the situation. But he has the disadvantage of not having all the private medical data.

Right, so he's making a decision not having all the information. Nice going.

I do not give the ethics committee the benefit of the doubt for a second. From all the research I have done on multiple topics, there are massive flaws with how they interact as a concept in our medical system with placing insurance costs and low percentage risks above saving people.

Well keep in mind that the situation was brought before the ethics committee by the woman's doctor. They not making a decision blindly, as the Bishop appears to have done. They have all the information, he doesn't. He's only using Aquinas's four conditions on double effect, which in today's modern medical world, can be flawed.

So when the Bishop says an aboriton took place I do not think of the medical definition that includes miscarriage. I think of the Church definition that is the willful killing by human intervention of an innocent unborn life. And when he says it does not meet double effect then I am assuming that it failed to meet the parameters we have discussed where other measures should have been taken. He has access to the nun and the committee in the investigation since 2009 and I give that the benefit of the doubt over what I know of ethics committees.

Oh I don't doubt an abortion took place, neither does the Hospital or the nun. The issue is whether it was an abortion done out of necessity to save the mother's life. The hospital ethics committee says yes, absolutely.

The Bishop says, according to Church teaching the mother's life is secondary.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

For those interested in the details of the basic medical situation that was involved:

Source: RealChoice Blog

Primary pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy; a role for novel vasodilators

Primary pulmonary hypertension in pregnancy

Pulmonary hypertension and pregnancy

Pregnant Patient with Primary Pulmonary Hypertension: General Anesthesia and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support for Termination of Pregnancy

Case 6--Pulmonary Hypertension in a Pregnant Woman

Severe Pulmonary Hypertension during Pregnancy: Mode of Delivery and Anesthetic Management of 15 Consecutive Cases

Pulmonary Hypertension.

Pulmonary Hypertension and Pregnancy: Why Women Die

Pulmonary Hypertension in Pregnancy: Treatment With Pulmonary Vasodilators


​

David please, there are different degrees of Pulmonary Hypertension and each case requires its own evaluation by trained professionals, not participants in a Catholic web forum.


Jim

 

[Lady Bug]

Jim- we can not kill a baby so we may live.


We can treat ourselves so we can try to live and if that means the treatment we choose indirectly kills the baby, that's one thing.

But to kill the baby as the solution, as treatment is not allowed.

We can't kill ppl JIm...

that's what I thought too. I thought that even in most cases concerning life of the mother, abortion is still not permitted.
(sorry, I have not read the whole thread, I could be out of context)

 

[Davidnic]

David please, there are different degrees of Pulmonary Hypertension and each case requires its own evaluation by trained professionals, not participants in a Catholic web forum.


Jim

And I said that Jim, remember a few posts ago: The bottom line is no one here on this, or any, message board knows the full facts.

That is why in the post you quote I mention it as the basic medical situation not the specific one in this case.

 

[Davidnic]

But here you begin to judge the integrity of the members of this hospital's ethics committee. You're speculating that they put cost before the life of the mother.

Yes, I am. And given what I have seen in the past someone would need to prove to me otherwise. Normally I am pretty open to giving the benefit of the doubt but the culture of hospital ethics boards disgust me.

Right, so he's making a decision not having all the information. Nice going.

He has more than you or I. Depends if you believe that he had enough info or not.

Well keep in mind that the situation was brought before the ethics committee by the woman's doctor. They not making a decision blindly, as the Bishop appears to have done.

Now you are questioning the integrity of the Bishop. I doubt he is acting blind.

They have all the information, he doesn't. He's only using Aquinas's four conditions on double effect, which in today's modern medical world, can be flawed.

He has an investigation since this happened in 2009 plus access and discussion with the nun and committee. Plus Double Effect Reasoning goes far beyond it's foundation in Aquinas and considers things he did not as far as levels of cooperation and the rest of Moral Theology that is very relevant to todays medical reality.

Oh I don't doubt an abortion took place, neither does the Hospital or the nun. The issue is whether it was an abortion done out of necessity to save the mother's life. The hospital ethics committee says yes, absolutely.

The Bishop says, according to Church teaching the mother's life is secondary.

Jim

No he does not say that. He says in the full statement that the doctors need to remember there were two patients with an equal right to life and he believed based on the investigation that that was not considered. He does not, nor does the Church hold the mothers life as secondary. It is held as of equal value.

 

[Davidnic]

It also needs to be noted that the Catholic Physicians Guild has issued a letter and statement in support of the Bishop in this decision, so he is not acting without medical consult or support in the investigation.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Davidnic

Yes, I am. And given what I have seen in the past someone would need to prove to me otherwise. Normally I am pretty open to giving the benefit of the doubt but the culture of hospital ethics boards disgust me.

But you would be wrong to base all judgements equally here. You don't know what their motive was.

He has more than you or I. Depends if you believe that he had enough info or not.

But you yourself said, he didn't have all the information.

Now you are questioning the integrity of the Bishop. I doubt he is acting blind.

Again, you said he didn't have access to all of the information.

He has an investigation since this happened in 2009 plus access and discussion with the nun and committee. Plus Double Effect Reasoning goes far beyond it's foundation in Aquinas and considers things he did not as far as levels of cooperation and the rest of Moral Theology that is very relevant to todays medical reality.

Under the DE principle, the doctors could treat a woman for uterine cancer, knowing it will kill the fetus, but deliberately killing the fetus would not be permissible.

There is little difference here and its a tap dance around the reality of what they're dealing with in this case.

They knew that the fetus was not going to live, because it was killing the woman. So, to do nothing would mean allowing both to die.

You can almost be assured, they would've been charged with manslaughter of the woman, had they taken this course of action.

No he does not say that. He says in the full statement that the doctors need to remember there were two patients with an equal right to life and he believed based on the investigation that that was not considered. He does not, nor does the Church hold the mothers life as secondary. It is held as of equal value.

He said that the doctors treated the fetus like it was a disease, which in nonsense. The pregnancy was killing the woman, not the fetus. Allowing the pregnancy to continue would ultimately kill the woman, so the treatment was to terminate the pregnancy. They didn't intend to kill the fetus, but the medical condition was that the fetus was going to die along with the mother if they had not taken the action they did.

Reading about the background of this nun, and all the good work she has done over her career in serving the poor, the action by the Bishop seems cruel and extreme.

However, I'll stand correct if information shows otherwise.

Jim

 

[benedictaoo]

Jim, the bottom line you are glossing over is simply this; we can not and the Church does not, justify abortion in order to save a mother.

I can't directly, intentionality abort a baby because I'm at risk, no matter how great a risk I'm at.

I can tell the doctors to do what they can to save me that does not involve DIRECTLY killing the baby. But I can not say, kill the baby in order to save me.

I can understand that ppl are faced with this choice and it's hard, and it sucks, however that does not a Church teaching make.

The Catholic Church does not teach us that we can abort babies to save our lives. We can never do that. Never. I realize ppl may, but it's not morally right.

and the Church's lack of allowing this is not because it's behind on the medical times either.

You have no place to say, if they were to realize that there is no saving the mother but to abort... they would then agree.

That is where you err and what I take the most issue with, in what you say.

 

[benedictaoo]

He said that the doctors treated the fetus like it was a disease, which in nonsense. The pregnancy was killing the woman, not the fetus. Allowing the pregnancy to continue would ultimately kill the woman, so the treatment was to terminate the pregnancy. They didn't intend to kill the fetus, but the medical condition was that the fetus was going to die along with the mother if they had not taken the action they did.

Reading about the background of this nun, and all the good work she has done over her career in serving the poor, the action by the Bishop seems cruel and extreme.

However, I'll stand correct if information shows otherwise.

Jim

It wasn't a pregnancy Jim.. it was a human life... what you describe is abortion, plain and simply abortion to save the mother.

It's not allowable, to kill another person so you may live. It may be legal and "medical" but it's not Christian and moral.

 

[MKJ]

That is not an aboriton then...unless the method used, such as prostaglandin , causes the fetus to be destroyed in the expulsion. As long as the removal is done in an manner than attempts to keep the fetus alive and intact it is an attempted delivery. I believe in the case we are discussing it was a vacuum.



Depends on several factors...how long did they wait ro attain viability. What other factors were tried and how it was done with the best chances to insure the life of both.



In this case the removal would need to be done surgically and not with drugs that expel. Although in this case there is almost no chance...less than 1% that the embryo can be saved that chance needs to be taken in a manner that considers proportional safety for the mother. There is actually work being done on fetus removal after human in vitro that allows for slim hope here.

So would it be fair to say that if in this case, they had waited as long as they dared after looking seriously at whatever treatments might help, and then induced labour, even knowing there was no chance for an 11 week old baby, they would be ok? And even if the induction didn't go well and they had to deliver surgically? That is what it sounds like you are suggesting to me.

 

[Davidnic]

So would it be fair to say that if in this case, they had waited as long as they dared after looking seriously at whatever treatments might help, and then induced labour, even knowing there was no chance for an 11 week old baby, they would be ok? And even if the induction didn't go well and they had to deliver surgically? That is what it sounds like you are suggesting to me.

Basically, without knowing the specifics covered by privacy. It is possible that they fetus could have been carried to the edge of viability with treatments that were not tried.

 

[Davidnic]

Again, you said he didn't have access to all of the information.

But you mistake that for meaning that he did not have enough information to make the correct application of Church teaching. He did.

 

[Davidnic]

So would it be fair to say that if in this case, they had waited as long as they dared after looking seriously at whatever treatments might help, and then induced labour, even knowing there was no chance for an 11 week old baby, they would be ok? And even if the induction didn't go well and they had to deliver surgically? That is what it sounds like you are suggesting to me.

Basically apply the reasoning of this hypothetical:

Let’s begin with a hypothetical: You are a doctor. Your patient is a woman who is not pregnant. She has aggressive uterine cancer, and the only way to treat the cancer is to surgically remove her diseased uterus.

The action of removing her uterus has two effects; one is desired and the other is not. The desired effect is to save her life. The undesired effect is to render her permanently sterile. This, in and of itself, goes against the proper ordering of the woman’s reproductive functions. Are you, the doctor, morally culpable for this wrong? The answer is no. The principle of double effect means that sometimes one must perform an action that is in itself morally good but may also have an unintended ill effect for which the person is not morally culpable.

Intention, Causality, and Gravity

Three questions determine whether an action with a double effect is moral or immoral.

1. The first is the question of intention. One can never intend the evil effect (CCC 1752). One’s intention must be only for the good effect. The evil effect must be a regrettable byproduct.

2. The second is the question of causality. St. Thomas Aquinas articulated the principle that "the end does not justify the means" (CCC 1759). One may never do evil hoping that good may come of it. A bad effect may be the consequence of a morally good act, or it may occur simultaneously along with it, but the anticipated good must never be a result of evil actions. Such acts are never morally licit (CCC 1756).

3. The third question is of comparable gravity. Is the good being done proportional to the evil consequences of the action? In order to justify taking the action, it must be. When an action has both a good and an evil outcome, the gravity of the two must be weighed against each other. Although "circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil." Still, they can and do "contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts" (CCC 1754).

With these principles in mind, let’s revisit our hypothetical situation. (1) Your intention, as the doctor, is to save the life of your patient. Your primary goal is to protect her health. (2) You are not doing evil in order to achieve a good; on the contrary, you are doing a good—removing a diseased organ that is threatening her life. The evil of rendering her sterile occurs simultaneously with that good but does not cause it. (3) Lastly, the good of saving her life greatly outweighs the evil of her being sterilized. Thus, it is a morally good action.

A Tragic—but Moral—Choice

But what if the hypothetical patient is pregnant? Her pregnancy is only a few weeks along, but her uterine cancer is extremely progressed. She needs to be treated as soon as possible if she is to have any chance of survival.

As the doctor, you now have two patients—the mother and her unborn child. Your duty and desire is to preserve the life and health of each of them. What do you do? If you do not remove the mother’s cancer, she will die very soon. At this stage in the baby’s development, it is entirely dependent upon the mother for life. If the mother is not treated and dies, the baby will die, too. You will lose both patients. But the only way to save her life is to remove her uterus, home to a developing person who will die as a result of the operation.

This is a tragic situation to which a moral solution must be found. If the doctor believes that the mother can survive long enough to carry the baby until it is viable—that is, until it can live on its own outside the womb with medical assistance—then the mother may choose to risk her own life to save the life of her child. Even though it may mean decreasing her chances of survival, she may choose to postpone treatment of her cancer.

If the progression of the cancer will not allow for that option, and the mother needs surgery immediately if she is going to live, you, as her doctor, have only two choices: You can allow both patients to die or you can save one and lose the other. The moral choice is to save the mother.

The principle of double effect applies: (1) Your intention is to perform a good—to save the mother’s life by removing her cancerous uterus. The evil effect of causing the death of the baby is not desired. It is a very sad and unfortunate result of the good act. (2) The evil effect does not cause the good result. You are removing a diseased organ that is killing the mother, not performing an abortion. The baby will die during or shortly after the operation, but the purpose of the operation is not to kill the child. (3) Two very grave matters must be weighed against each other. Saving one person is better than allowing both to die through inaction, even though it means the death of one.​

Source and Complete article

 

[Davidnic]

And Jim, I am putting much of my trust in the studies by many doctors (like the Irish ones from 1992 in the study already cited) and former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop:

In my thirty-six years of pediatric surgery I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life.
-Moody Monthly, May 1980​

And this is echoed by many others. So why...in the last ten years do we have Ethics Committees saying there are so many emergencies like this. With the advances in medical technology doctors and studies point out again and again that there are always other options.

The reason is because the other options are risky and costly and other interests do not want them considered. But our medical technology has increasingly improved so...yes, I believe the Bishop had enough info and I do not trust the ethics committee when their statements fly so much in the face of what other experts and studies say. There are always other options to attempt to save both...no matter how slim that hope. There is always a way to balance proportional risk to both.