Ectopic Pregnancy: Does the Mother Have to Die for Nothing? - A Cautionary Tale For Catholic Parents!
The Mother should die!
I've heard these words uttered with conviction on two separate occasions by Traditional Catholics. The context, ectopic pregnancy.
In both cases, it was obvious that they were making an assumption that this was equivalent to abortion.
Welcome to one of the difficult issues of Catholic Moral Theology.
My first exposure to this was a trial by fire as we had an ectopic pregnancy. My wife thought she was having a miscarriage, like our previous pregnancy. To be certain we went in and discovered that my wife was in grave danger of dying, if something wasn't done to prevent the rupture. As noted by the Doctor, this is leading cause of pregnancy deaths in the developed world. A woman may not know she's expecting, experience a ruptured Fallopian tube, go into shock due to bleeding and die.
This resulted in deepening my understanding of St. Thomas' principle of double effect see Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7) (Stanford link and Catholic Encyclopedia Summa link). Simply put, an action can have more than one effect or result. Provided that the act is not morally evil, if the remaining conditions are met, then it is not immoral to proceed.
While there is some discussion about the use of the principle in modern times (see Stanford link above), I am obviously not concerned about academic debates. The fact is that the Catholic Church pre-council and even today consider it a valid principle moral theology to be used to chart our way in more difficult questions.
Two providential events helps us to navigate the pressures applied by the hospital First, a couple had experienced this situation a few years earlier. Secondly the SSPX priest was able to come help us at the hospital.
The hospital staff and pastoral care person were advising the use of a pharmacological (drug) intervention. Basically, a drug that would inhibit angiogenesis - the formation of new blood vessels. This would have cut off the blood supply to our twins, killing them directly and from what Father had told us would not be a correct application of the principle. The second option was the surgical removal of the affected part of the Fallopian tube with the intention of preventing its rupture and the death of the Mother and enabled the baptism of the babies.
The conversation lasted about 4hr's and finally we were able to put it in a language that the staff understood. The phase that finally got them to stop arguing was that "we were concerned with the mental anguish that it would cause to have taken a direct action against the life of the babies and were not concerned with saving the Fallopian tube".
With that barrier surmounted, we then asked the Doctor if he knew how to perform an ectopic baptism. It turns out he did, having interned in Ireland with a Catholic doctor who performed ectopic baptism for all of ectopic pregnanceis - whether he was asked or not.
So my wife went into surgery, had the affected part of the tube containing our twins removed and they were baptised immediately. The twins are in Heave, having died shortly after being baptised and my wife didn't have to die for nothing.
When my wife was in the recovery room the Doctor noted that the tube had begun to rupture. Meaning that even if we had thought the drug approach had been moral, she still would have ruptured and been in danger of dying from shock.
So if confronted with an ectopic pregnancy, the Mother does not have to die and it is possible to ensure that your baby sees the face of God by proceeding with surgery followed by ectopic baptism.
P^3
From McHugh and Callun 1958:
Article 1848. Destruction of the Unborn.--(b) Indirect and unintentional killing, or rather permission of death, is not unlawful in such a case, when there is a proportionately grave reason, such as the life of the mother. Thus, it is permissible to give the mother a remedy necessary to cure a mortal disease (e.g., medicinal drugs, baths, injections, or operations on the uterus), even though this will bring on abortion or the death of the fetus; for the mother is not obliged to prefer the temporal life of the child to her own life. But the baptism of the child must be attended to, for its salvation depends on the Sacrament, and the eternal life of the child is to be preferred to the temporal life of the mother, if the conditions of 1166 are verified.
(c) Contemporary moral opinion considers that in tubal pregnancies (ectopic gestation) the tube itself is in a pathological condition long before rupture of the tube, as experts in obstetrics teach, and hence can be excised as a diseased organ of the human body. As such, the excision of such a tube would be in itself a morally indifferent act and, granting verification of the other conditions for the principle of double effect, could be licitly performed. (For a history of the moral question, medical testimony and full argumentation see Chapter X of _Medical Ethics_ by Charles J. McFadden, O.S.A.) Some theologians, however, believe that the tube cannot be removed unless it can be proved in each case that a pathological condition, placing the woman in danger of death, exists. [Tradical: With our modern ultrasound diagnostic technology this is easily discerned.] The first view is accepted as sufficiently safe to be followed in practice. (See Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R.,_Morals in Politics and Professions_, p. 118.)
Comments
Post a Comment