Ship of Fools: Hospital administrator, a nun, excommunicated for consenting to abortion

Printer-friendly view

»	Ship of Fools » » Oblivion » Hospital administrator, a nun, excommunicated for consenting to abortion (Page 2)

Email this page to a friend or enemy.

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4

Source: (consider it)

Thread: Hospital administrator, a nun, excommunicated for consenting to abortion

Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Louise
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held? The previous posts seem to imply not. If not, why not?

The rector of my (Episcopal) church says that one of the first baptisms he performed was a stillborn child. The parents were devout Catholics, and the Catholic chaplain had told them, "We don't baptize the dead."

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

Posted

quote:
Hmm, but that completely undermines the RC position as espoused (probably correctly by K-Mann)

Evangeline, I agree with you, but then, I'm CofE, not RC.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008 | IP: Logged

Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

Posted

Some thoughts:

This is a complex case that can't be summed up in a few paragraphs.

Did the nun fully explain RC teachings to the ethics committee? Or did she fail to explain (or understand) the teachings?

Was this really a case of save the mother or they both die? Is that a valid medical opinion of a pro-life doctor, or the opinion of an activist trying to get the camel's head under the door?

Death is a joy in the RCC. But killing is reserved for God.

The other side is that patients are under a doctor's care. Not treating patients is gross neglect. The doctor could be considered a murderer of the mother.

Exceptions are made for grave sins due to duress. This is an extreme case, so fear for the mother could mitigate the sin from being mortal. On the other hand, the nun was an ethicist.

Finally, this is Arizona, where the brown shirts roam the streets. I was watching Cops and saw a sherif's deputy, who was arresting a boy for a broken taillight (in front of his own home), call the boy's father out of his house and arrest him for resisting arrest (He didn't resist).

I'm not boycotting Arizona for moral reasons like so many libs, I'm just terrified to set foot in the state.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007 | IP: Logged

Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Was this really a case of save the mother or they both die? Is that a valid medical opinion of a pro-life doctor, or the opinion of an activist trying to get the camel's head under the door?

It seems to be the case that it was a case of "save the mother or they both die" which was the scenario I'm addressing. In considering women in general to be "activists" and women religious in particular, the Vatican will quickly make activists of any thinking woman who didn't have any intention at all of being an "activist" in the first place. I think that they have certainly made activists in religious communities that never would have entertained the idea. Rather like the McCarthy witch-hunts.

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Death is a joy in the RCC. But killing is reserved for God.

It seems to me that the RC Church has made it very clear that in the case of pregnant women whose pregnancy endangers their own life and the baby's life, what the Church wants to see happen is that the baby's life always and in every case takes precedence over the mother's. And the action in this particular case is consistent with this thesis.

(At the risk of being a dead horse, I am against abortion except in scenarios like this one where a woman's life is genuinely in danger. And I'm appalled that the RC Church seems to view these scenarios not as complex moral issues but as a fairly simple case of "let a woman die".)

[ 17. May 2010, 16:39: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:

I'm not boycotting Arizona for moral reasons like so many libs, I'm just terrified to set foot in the state.

I'm tempted to steal this as my new tag line...

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008 | IP: Logged

pjkirk
Shipmate
# 10997

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Did the nun fully explain RC teachings to the ethics committee? Or did she fail to explain (or understand) the teachings?

Irrelevant, and it's beyond doubtful that a nun who was VP of the mission arm of the hospital, and on the ethics board, wouldn't be extremely well versed with the policies of the hospital and the RCC.

quote:
Was this really a case of save the mother or they both die? Is that a valid medical opinion of a pro-life doctor, or the opinion of an activist trying to get the camel's head under the door?

It was the expert opinion of *every* doctor and the ethics board. To impugn that their pro-life or pro-choice status had anything to do with their determination is repugnant.

quote:
Exceptions are made for grave sins due to duress. This is an extreme case, so fear for the mother could mitigate the sin from being mortal. On the other hand, the nun was an ethicist.

There was no sin here.

--------------------
Dear God, I would like to file a bug report -- Randall Munroe (http://xkcd.com/258/)

Posts: 1177 | From: Swinging on a hammock, chatting with Bokonon | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged

Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

Posted

No Seeker, this case is not consistent with your thesis. Since there was no chance the child would survive, it's not a case of putting the child's life first.

There will be a SCOTUS case in the next few years over whether RC doctors or hospitals can be required by law to perform abortions (part of the recent medical legislation? A new bill?). I suspect examples of RC hospitals performing abortions would go a long way toward convincing the court that they should be required. So, yes, I can see an abortionist trying to get an example of this. (BTW, the Church needs to do what's right, regardless of potential future legal consequences.)

If you think all women are abortionist activists, I'll pray for you. Or as they say in Dixie, "Bless your soul."

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007 | IP: Logged

coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held?

A funeral is available, but practically it doesn't often happen; as someone else has pointed out, the remains are often removed and destroyed by the medical authorities, and the option of a funeral may not even be considered at that stage.

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009 | IP: Logged

coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Louise
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held? The previous posts seem to imply not. If not, why not?
The rector of my (Episcopal) church says that one of the first baptisms he performed was a stillborn child. The parents were devout Catholics, and the Catholic chaplain had told them, "We don't baptize the dead."

I'm surprised that any church baptises the dead to be honest. (Even Mormon 'baptism *for* the dead' is actually baptism *of* living people, isn't it?)

The RCC certainly baptises (conditionally) where there is any possibility that life is not extinct, but after death, it is not for us to baptise; what would be its purpose?

There is, of course, one possible purpose: to meet the desire of parents for some ceremony to mark their loss - and as with any other loss there are ceremonies and anointings which are available and which do make sense, where baptism itself would not.

[ 17. May 2010, 17:38: Message edited by: coniunx ]

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009 | IP: Logged

Leaf
Shipmate
# 14169

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If you think all women are abortionist activists, I'll pray for you. Or as they say in Dixie, "Bless your soul."

Passive-aggressive use of prayer. Not recommended for spiritual growth. Toxic if inhaled.

Posts: 2786 | From: the electrical field | Registered: Oct 2008 | IP: Logged

Louise
Shipmate
# 30

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx:

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held?
A funeral is available, but practically it doesn't often happen; as someone else has pointed out, the remains are often removed and destroyed by the medical authorities, and the option of a funeral may not even be considered at that stage.

Can you tell me when the RC church started providing this sort of funeral? Also what's the earliest gestational age for which a normal funeral would be offered? I'm quite curious about how liturgy reflects or doesn't reflect the doctrine on this?

L.

--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.

Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Can you tell me when the RC church started providing this sort of funeral? Also what's the earliest gestational age for which a normal funeral would be offered? I'm quite curious about how liturgy reflects or doesn't reflect the doctrine on this?

I recall seeing a plot specifically for the unborn in a part of a Catholic cemetery somewhere in Europe with many graves evidently going back a long way; I've no idea whether it's always been done, though (I can find information that the 1917 Code of Canon Law made provision for it, but I have no access to any earlier Code - or indeed to the 1917 one in English).

As for the earliest age: Canon Law states no limit, and I wouldn't expect it to. Given that there is doctrine, practice really has no choice but to reflect it!

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009 | IP: Logged

Moo

Ship's tough old bird
# 107

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx
I recall seeing a plot specifically for the unborn in a part of a Catholic cemetery somewhere in Europe with many graves evidently going back a long way; I've no idea whether it's always been done, though (I can find information that the 1917 Code of Canon Law made provision for it, but I have no access to any earlier Code - or indeed to the 1917 one in English).

I would assume that this is the area for those who are assumed to be in Limbo. They are not buried with those who are baptized.

I believe the doctrine about Limbo has changed in recent years.

Getting back to the OP, on the question of the seriousness of the woman's physical condition, here is information about pulmonary hypertension. Since pregnancy puts extra stress on the heart, it appears that there was a very serious risk of the mother dying before the fetus was viable.

Moo

--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.

Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
No Seeker, this case is not consistent with your thesis. Since there was no chance the child would survive, it's not a case of putting the child's life first....
If you think all women are abortionist activists, I'll pray for you. Or as they say in Dixie, "Bless your soul."

Circumstantial evidence would suggest that the US arm of the RC church thinks that all women religious are "activists" since they are being investigated as such.

I would take your point about it being against my thesis if the RC church excommunicated people who killed in self-defense. A good example of a difficult moral decision where it might be necessary to take one life in order to preserve another.

In the case of abortion to save a mother's life, the RC church has elevated the best possible response - the saintly one of giving up one's own life even if the baby dies - to the only possible one that it will countenance. This is the only instance I know of where the church says one take the saintly path or be excommunicated.

--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)

Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

Max_Power
Shipmate
# 13547

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

And you have not answered the question. In what way has the Catholic Church kept the "Culture of Death" from being worse than it might be? What evidence can you present for this? Or is it just so much "what if" gas?

Hi Mousethief, sorry it took so long to get back to you.

OK, back to the discussion. How has the Catholic Church kept the 'Culture of Death' from being worse than it might be? Tangentially, I believe you asserted that the Church has no influence over life in America (USA). Well, the National Prayer Vigil for Life is at least one action which demonstrates that not only does the Church continue to be a bulwark against the Culture of Death, but that it also retains some influence over life in the USA today.

Now, I would ask that you answer my question. You stated that the Church's teaching on the question was 'blind', 'perverse' and 'entrenched'.

Entrenched I believe we can agree upon. 'Blind' and 'perverse' however I take issue with. Evnagelium vitae is a very measured, disciplined doctrine on the sanctity of life. John Paul II and his crew are/were a pretty sharp bunch, and I doubt that they just cooked this up over a few beers and burgers one night in the Papal Apartments. So how is a carefully measured document such as this to be described as 'blind'? Tangentially, why is the doctrine 'perverse'? Is it that life is not sacred? Is it that just some life is sacred? Why would you assert that the Church's teaching on the sanctity of life is 'blind' and 'perverse'?

Were you just blowing 'what if' gas?

Regards,

Posts: 58 | From: Aylmer, QC | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

It's perverse to allow 2 people to die when you could save one. And it's blind not to even consider this possibility.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

Posted

Mousethief, "allowing" two people to die assumes you can save one of them. It might be that one can be saved. But all surgeries have risk. So we are killing one innocent life for a chance at saving another.

Suppose a runaway roller coaster was going to crash into a couple strolling down the midway. The only way to stop it is to push a very large man in it's way. Would that be the right thing to do?

It's not a simple question, and I don't pretend to have the answers. But calling the answers the RCC came up with 'perverse' and 'blind' is perhaps 'simple minded'.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007 | IP: Logged

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Mousethief, "allowing" two people to die assumes you can save one of them. It might be that one can be saved. But all surgeries have risk. So we are killing one innocent life for a chance at saving another.

That is ever the case, that all we have is a probability. But the probability in this case was very very high that the mother would die without the operation, and much much lower that she would die with it. Yes maybe it's not 0% and 100% but if we wait for those odds we'll never make any moral decisions at all.

Indeed with those odds, is it even a decision?

quote:
Suppose a runaway roller coaster was going to crash into a couple strolling down the midway. The only way to stop it is to push a very large man in it's way. Would that be the right thing to do?

Not at all the same question -- the man who would die is not one of the two who would die otherwise.

quote:
It's not a simple question, and I don't pretend to have the answers. But calling the answers the RCC came up with 'perverse' and 'blind' is perhaps 'simple minded'.

Alfred North Whitehead purportedly told his friend Bertrand Russell, "Bertie, there are two kinds of people in the world. The muddle-headed, and the simple-minded. I am muddle-headed, and you, Bertie, are simple-minded." Not horrible company, either one.

[ 18. May 2010, 01:36: Message edited by: mousethief ]

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Max_Power
Shipmate
# 13547

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's perverse to allow 2 people to die when you could save one. And it's blind not to even consider this possibility.

Fair ball - in this specific case at least.

What I find troubling is where do we, as a civilisation, draw the line on questions of this nature? My genuine fear is that it's a very slippery slope, and that the West is deciding that life, like any consumer good, is disposable. I go back to my original premise that the Church, in setting out a hard position on the question of the sanctity of life is doing society as a whole a favour, if only insofar as discussions happen and questions are raised.

The very fact that we are having this discussion, right here, right now is proof that these issues need to be debated. How can that be a bad thing?

Posts: 58 | From: Aylmer, QC | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

No, I wouldn't say debating the issue is a bad thing.

Is the Grand Inquisitor right? Do we want the Church to make all our difficult decisions for us, because human freedom of conscience is too great a burden?

It reminds me of a post on another forum I frequent, referring to door-to-door evangelisation:

"Hello, we're from X Church. Would you like to be told what to do?"

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Max_Power
Shipmate
# 13547

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Is the Grand Inquisitor right? Do we want the Church to make all our difficult decisions for us, because human freedom of conscience is too great a burden?

No, not making decisions for us, after all, God gave us free will for a reason. Guiding us, and setting out right from wrong and studying the eternal questions, yes. There is a value to having somebody, anybody, draw a line in the sand. We already live in a society in which anything goes, shouldn't some limits be set? Canada doesn't even have an abortion law for crying out loud, and gave the murderer who managed to have it struck down its highest civilian honour! How's that for fu*ked up and lost moral compass?

BTW, who/what is the Grand Inquisitor?

Regards,

Posts: 58 | From: Aylmer, QC | Registered: Mar 2008 | IP: Logged

coniunx
Shipmate
# 15313

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by coniunx
I recall seeing a plot specifically for the unborn in a part of a Catholic cemetery somewhere in Europe with many graves evidently going back a long way; I've no idea whether it's always been done, though (I can find information that the 1917 Code of Canon Law made provision for it, but I have no access to any earlier Code - or indeed to the 1917 one in English).
I would assume that this is the area for those who are assumed to be in Limbo. They are not buried with those who are baptized.

I believe the doctrine about Limbo has changed in recent years.

There never was a doctrine about limbo: it was a speculative concept without any formal support (and indeed with a good deal of objection).

The fact that Canon Law didn't make any distinction relating to such cases does rather confirm that the Limbo concept was not actually accepted by the Church formally at that time, in doctrine or in correct practice.

--------------------
--
Coniunx

Posts: 250 | From: Nottingham | Registered: Nov 2009 | IP: Logged

multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

Posted

Dead right, Moo, re pulmonary hypertension.

I recall my cardiology tutor in final year med school (1978) commenting that there were almost no cardiac grounds for termination of a pregnancy and that that pulmonary hypertension with or without a septal defect was one. In that department, little has changed in the intervening years.

A pity the unfortunate woman had not applied to be sterilised before she conceived; that would have got through the ethics committee in a flash. I would not mind betting that she may have been advised against pregnancy before she conceived and I can tell you, her treating doctors would have moved Heaven and earth to let her carry her foetus to a viable state , were that possible.

Sad, but there you are. All this sententious talk about excommunication (whether by bell, book and candle or "self-excommunication" and yes, I know all about that) is so much hot air.

JP2 and his advisers worked from an a priori position that there was no leeway on the T (ermination)O(f)P(regnancy) position; as far as those guys were concerned, there was never going to be an OK position.

These decisions are best left to the medical experts and let the holiness brigade do what they are meant to do which is comfort the devastated ( and not just the unhappy mother in this case) .

No doubt the good Sister who had carried the can has accepted the hierarchical decision with due humility. If her faith is sufficient (and doubtless it is) she will deal with the short-sighted idiocy of whoever threw the book at her.

Let's hope that whoever threw the shit at the fan ( from a position of relative safely) is not sleeping well.

m

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

North East Quine

Curious beastie
# 13049

Posted

Originally posted by Louise:

quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by coniunx:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Louise:
This is something I'd really like to know more about. I too, wondered if RC funerals were done for 11 week fetuses. If someone miscarries at 11 weeks, is a funeral held?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A funeral is available, but practically it doesn't often happen; as someone else has pointed out, the remains are often removed and destroyed by the medical authorities, and the option of a funeral may not even be considered at that stage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Can you tell me when the RC church started providing this sort of funeral? Also what's the earliest gestational age for which a normal funeral would be offered? I'm quite curious about how liturgy reflects or doesn't reflect the doctrine on this?

L.

I can't comment on the RC, but, as someone who has miscarried at 11 and at 12 weeks, there may not be much to bury; especially if the loss occurred a few days before the actual miscarriage. I asked to see my 11 week baby and frankly, I couldn't work out what was "baby" and what was "general gory mess." And I was really trying hard to identify a foetus to grieve over.

My local maternity hospital sends all "products of conception" to the crematorium (or did at the time of my miscarriages.)

I know of one set of twins who died at well under 24 weeks gestation, weighing less than a pound between them. The parents wanted a funeral and got it.

FWIW, if the parents here (Aberdeen) want to have a funeral for a baby aborted for medical reasons, the Church of Scotland will provide a full funeral. (I don't know if all ministers would, but the hospital has a list of those who will.) I can think of two aborted babies who have had proper funerals.

(Hope I'm not straying into Dead Horses if I add a [Votive]

for miscarried and aborted babies)

Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007 | IP: Logged

Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451

Posted

There is indeed another decision that could have been made. The good Catholic ethics committee, and the Bishop could have told the pregnant lady, "You don't seem to be dying at the moment...and neither does your expected baby. We advise to let Almighty God and Nature take its course. God works in miraculous ways. Perhaps in his infinite wisdom, you'll be cured, somehow, and you'll be able to bear a healthy baby, and again, somehow, be able to tend to its needs and raise it. In the mean time, we (the hospital and doctors, etc) won't touch you with a ten foot pole! Have a nice day."

That takes the weight of the decision off the Ethics Committee, the nun, the Bishop, the physicians, the hospital staff, and the mother-to-be.

But,backing up a few months, the lady could/should have been counseled NOT to get pregnant in the first place, as it would be hazardous to her health. O well, too late now.

--------------------
Oinkster

"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)

Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006 | IP: Logged

Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405

Posted

Multipara: [Overused]

I am not RC, and this instance sharply illustrates one of the reasons why. The church's teaching concerning abortion sems to me to assume that women, be they mothers or nuns, are simply expendable tissue.

[ 18. May 2010, 13:20: Message edited by: Apocalypso ]

--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!

Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010 | IP: Logged

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I am not RC, and this instance sharply illustrates one of the reasons why. The church's teaching concerning abortion sems to me to assume that women, be they mothers or nuns, are simply expendable tissue.

So much as to say, "If you can't bring this baby to term, to Hell with you."

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Callan
Shipmate
# 525

Posted

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:
A mafia boss threatens (convincingly) that he will shoot both a mother and the baby in her arms. Unless that is if you smoother the baby with a pillow until it stops breathing, in which case he will let the mother go. You have no chance to overpower the mafia boss. Will you kill the baby, or not?

That's hardly an exact analogy.

Perhaps a better analogy would be the subject of the book and film 'Touching the Void' where, at one point Mr Simon Yates has the choice between cutting the rope supporting Mr Joe Simpson (who had broken his leg) or both men falling to an icy death. He cut the rope and, on the descent, having found the location where Mr Simpson had fallen was been unable to locate him, feared the worst and headed back. Meanwhile Mr Simpson, having survived through rather freaky good luck, managed through sheer bloody mindedness to make it back to base camp by alternately crawling and hopping on one leg. I gather relations between the two climbers are, unsurprisingly, a bit frosty (tish-boom!)but I have never heard a suggestion that Mr Yates behaved improperly. Perhaps the Pope can call for his prosecution when he hits these shores later this year.

I can't, morally, see a difference between the two cases beyond the fact that the Catholic hierarchy has a bug up its collective arse about abortion.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Pearl B4 Swine:
There is indeed another decision that could have been made. The good Catholic ethics committee, and the Bishop could have told the pregnant lady, "You don't seem to be dying at the moment...and neither does your expected baby. We advise to let Almighty God and Nature take its course. God works in miraculous ways. Perhaps in his infinite wisdom, you'll be cured, somehow, and you'll be able to bear a healthy baby, and again, somehow, be able to tend to its needs and raise it. In the mean time, we (the hospital and doctors, etc) won't touch you with a ten foot pole! Have a nice day."

That takes the weight of the decision off the Ethics Committee, the nun, the Bishop, the physicians, the hospital staff, and the mother-to-be.

I'm not sure how taking the "you could die at any moment without this procedure, so we're chucking out untreated to maintain our philosophical purity" is consistent with any sort of medical ethics.

And isn't the whole "let's just wait for a miracle" thing more Christian Scientist than Roman Catholic? Though I suppose if it were considered a valid medical treatment it would really go a long way towards keeping down hospital costs.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451

Posted

It seems to me that a hospital should keep medical ethics as its highest priority, and The Church ought to keep Roman Catholic religious ethics as its business. When the two blend, there's going to be conflict.

Pardon my hazyness about the details of this, but I heard an interview with a sister from a RC convent, which has had its support withdrawn by the Bishop of that area. The sisters had openly given support to the Congressional Health Care Bill, and is being disciplined for that support.

Of course the stickingpoint is the erroneous idea of gov't money paying for abortions. The sister laughed and said that the publicity the little shrinking convent got through this trouble more than made up for the punishment by the Bishop.

--------------------
Oinkster

"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)

Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006 | IP: Logged

Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

Posted

But,backing up a few months, the lady could/should have been counseled NOT to get pregnant in the first place, as it would be hazardous to her health. O well, too late now.

But then, might not she or her husband have been tempted to prefer over abstinence the use of an engine of iniquity?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008 | IP: Logged

Pearl B4 Swine
Ship's Oyster-Shucker
# 11451

Posted

I don't know...that's their own personal business.

--------------------
Oinkster

"I do a good job and I know how to do this stuff" D. Trump (speaking of the POTUS job)

Posts: 3622 | From: The Keystone State | Registered: May 2006 | IP: Logged

Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by multipara:
A pity the unfortunate woman had not applied to be sterilised before she conceived; that would have got through the ethics committee in a flash.

It wasn't the Ethics Committee that was a problem. Given that the Catholic Church's position on sterilization is the same as its position on abortion [don't], it's very likely that we'd be in the same place we are now with regard to excommunication.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

Posted

Multipara, I'm a little unclear. Was this a case of pulmonary hypertension?

With an untreated survival rate of two to three years, this is a serious condition. Depending on the causes, even with treatment and no pregnancy the long term odds aren't good.

While this is sad, it does change the ethics question slightly. Killing the fetus may add a few months to the mothers life, but isn't really going to "save" her.

Hypothetically, it might be possible to keep the mother alive on life support while the baby develops. This would depend on technical particulars. It would also likely break a doctor's oath since it would harm his patient for the benefit of the baby.

OTOH, the mother will likely die soon anyway and the baby might be healthy.

Hypothetically, is this an ethical solution? "Should" the mother sacrifice by spending her last few months in intensive care so her baby can live? Or are we killing one to save the other again?

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007 | IP: Logged

Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Multipara, I'm a little unclear. Was this a case of pulmonary hypertension?

With an untreated survival rate of two to three years, this is a serious condition. Depending on the causes, even with treatment and no pregnancy the long term odds aren't good.

While this is sad, it does change the ethics question slightly. Killing the fetus may add a few months to the mothers life, but isn't really going to "save" her.

Why are you making the assumption that her pulmonary hypertension would go untreated? And if you're not making that assumption, why is the untreated survival rate relevant? From Wiki (yeah, I know):

quote:
The NIH IPAH registry from the 1980s showed an untreated median survival of 2–3 years from time of diagnosis, with the cause of death usually being right ventricular failure (cor pulmonale). Although this figure is widely quoted, it is probably irrelevant today. Outcomes have changed dramatically over the last two decades. This may be because of newer drug therapy, better overall care, and earlier diagnosis (lead time bias). A recent outcome study of those patients who had started treatment with bosentan (Tracleer) showed that 89% patients were alive at 2 years.[12] With multiple agents now available, combination therapy is increasingly used. Impact of these agents on survival is not known, since many of them have been developed only recently. It would not be unreasonable to expect median survival to extend past 10 years in the near future.[13]

Levels of mortality are very high in pregnant women with severe pulmonary hypertension.[14] Pregnancy is sometimes described as contraindicated in these women.

I think DJ has illustrated the problems inherent in medical non-professionals prescribing a potentially life-ending course of action for patients better than any hypothetical I could come up with. Perhaps you should try giving the patient a little more credit for deciding on her course of treatment instead of opting for the whole incubation slave thing.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Max_Power:
BTW, who/what is the Grand Inquisitor?

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner.

The Grand Inquisitor scene from The Brothers Karamazov is the heart of Dostoyevsky's Christian existentialism. The freedom of man is his (D's) core value; the grand inquisitor his chief enemy. I'm not sure Ivan's equation of the G.I. with the RCC is necessarily D's POV, or meant to reflect a certain type of 19th century Russian intellectual; no doubt gallons of ink have been spilt on that subject and a PhD thesis or two are still to be wrung out of it. But it does seem strangely resonant with the case this thread is discussing.

PS if you decide to read BK, read it in the Volokhonsky-Pevear translation.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

Posted

Jeff, I dunno whether this woman had pulmonary hypertension or what she had. You could look up the details of the case yourself; I admit I am not interested.

The only curative treatment for pulmonary hypertension is heart-lung transplant, and a lot of people die while waiting for this last resort.

As regards the viability of the foetus in this situation, not a hope. Pregnant women with this problem get into trouble ( severe cardiac compromise) early i.e beginning of the 2nd trimester. They don't make it anywhere near term. In the bad old days they died undelivered, and probably still do in places where there is inadequate care for them.

Whatever the primary pathology this case would not have come up for discussion if there had been the remotest chance that the pregnancy could have proceeded to (theoretical) foetal viability.

A sad tale indeed.

m

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

Posted

Given that the Catholic Church's position on sterilization is the same as its position on abortion [don't]

Is sterilisation classed as a permanent engine of iniquity?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008 | IP: Logged

multipara
Shipmate
# 2918

Posted

Dunno and don't care.

And that is coming from a a Roman who had an elective tubal ligation 24 years ago . I remarked to the obstetrician who did the deed 4 months after the birth of my 3rd child that (at age 34) I was approaching amniocentesis age and was not interested in prenatal diagnosis of potential chromosomal nasties, so elected to bail out while ahead.

No doubt some RC apologist will be along to comment on the niceties of that decision but what the heck.

m

Posts: 4985 | From: new south wales | Registered: Jun 2002 | IP: Logged

Boadicea Trott
Shipmate
# 9621

Posted

Between 1991 and 2004, there were 22 maternal deaths in the UK from pulmonary vascular disease. UKOSS prospective study.

It can most definitely be a death sentence to become pregnant with this type of problem; however, one study claims that the risk of pulmonary hypertension is "up to 50%" . Thorne et al

This is a far cry from almost certain death......though still pretty scary and appalling odds.

[ 19. May 2010, 11:33: Message edited by: Boadicea Trott ]

--------------------
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett

Posts: 563 | From: Roaming the World in my imagination..... | Registered: Jun 2005 | IP: Logged

Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

Posted

Croesos, some forms are more treatable than others. Thus the caveat, "Depending on causes".

OTOH, I'm not a doctor. I was presenting hypothetical ethics dilemmas in an effort to show how complex this sort of decision is. Since it's so complex, I'm reluctant to second guess the bishop. Instead I will pray for all involved.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007 | IP: Logged

Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
OTOH, I'm not a doctor. I was presenting hypothetical ethics dilemmas in an effort to show how complex this sort of decision is. Since it's so complex, I'm reluctant to second guess the bishop. Instead I will pray for all involved.

Really? I'd be more reluctant to second guess the doctor and patient involved rather than endorsing someone else's second guessing of their decision, even if they're highly placed clergy. (Especially if they're highly placed clergy.)

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Erin
Meaner than Godzilla
# 2

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, some forms are more treatable than others. Thus the caveat, "Depending on causes".

OTOH, I'm not a doctor. I was presenting hypothetical ethics dilemmas in an effort to show how complex this sort of decision is. Since it's so complex, I'm reluctant to second guess the bishop. Instead I will pray for all involved.

But, as Croesos pointed out, you're more than happy to second guess the medical people whose responsibility is to treat the conditions. Nice.

--------------------
Commandment number one: shut the hell up.

Posts: 17140 | From: 330 miles north of paradise | Registered: Mar 2001 | IP: Logged

Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
A mafia boss threatens (convincingly) that he will shoot both a mother and the baby in her arms. Unless that is if you smoother the baby with a pillow until it stops breathing, in which case he will let the mother go. You have no chance to overpower the mafia boss. Will you kill the baby, or not?

I'm sorry. That is not what is going on at all.

What has happened is that the mafia boss has already shot one of a pair of siamese twins through the heart. As they were bleeding out an ambulance brought them straight to the operating theatre. If the surgeon tries to save both, the heart won't support them and there isn't a spare. Leaving the surgeon a choice of which to save. But if the surgeon doesn't save the one with a working heart then the heart will stop working and they will both die.

The choice is tragic. And clear. Two deaths or one.

And then you get an idiot flapping around in robes trying to get in the surgeon's way and insisting that he must ensure the death of both for his stupid religious purity. In short the believer in a so-called culture of life is trying to in a very literal way commit human sacrifice.

And, knowing the consequences, the nun was a hero.

(And I note that the only medical opinion offered by the RCC was that of the bishop's incredulity).

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged

Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

Posted

The bishop hopefully knew the people involved. Ideally he has the Holy Spirit guiding him and the best interest of all involved.

If this were a strictly medical decision, an ethical reason could be found. For example, in a case of pulmonary hypertension, the abortion was intended to reduce the stress on the heart, not kill the baby.

All the news articles go on about how unjust this decision was, but none try to explain it. They make the bishop out to be some sort of evil Nazi who follows rules even when they make no sense.

Well, I've known bishops and I've known reporters. When a reporter skimps on facts, it's my experience she has an axe to grind. When a bishop remains silent on pastoral matters, he's often protecting the privacy of the people for whom he's being attacked.

I don't trust reporters, I do trust bishops. That's just my experience, your milage may vary.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007 | IP: Logged

mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
All the news articles go on about how unjust this decision was, but none try to explain it. They make the bishop out to be some sort of evil Nazi who follows rules even when they make no sense.

I don't see how you can spin the facts of this case to come to any other conclusion.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
If this were a strictly medical decision, an ethical reason could be found. For example, in a case of pulmonary hypertension, the abortion was intended to reduce the stress on the heart, not kill the baby.

Not according to your good friend, Bishop Olmstead. From his statement on the matter:

quote:
An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother's life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.

In short, according to Bishop Olmstead no ethical reason can ever be found for deliberately aborting a pregnancy.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Dumpling Jeff
Shipmate
# 12766

Posted

Croesos, it's my understanding that a direct killing is one where the intent is to kill. If the intent was to kill the baby, then it was wrong. If the intent (and procedure) was to aid the mother, then it can be justified.

Thus, restricting the blood flow to non-essential organs will have an unintended effect of killing the baby. This is not a direct abortion. Since a direct abortion took place (according to the bishop anyway) this isn't what happened.

The ethics panel disagrees. They claim the abortion was "necessary to save the mother's life".

To me this indicates a dispute of the medical and social facts of the case. The bishop seems to be indicating this was either an unnecessary procedure approved by an activist nun, or the ethicist didn't know enough about ethics to justify the procedure, in which case she shouldn't be sitting on an ethics board.

Even though this happened in the land of the brown shirts, I still have to side with the bishop - until more facts come in. Loyalty is way underrated these days.

--------------------
"There merely seems to be something rather glib in defending the police without question one moment and calling the Crusades-- or war in general-- bad the next. The second may be an extension of the first." - Alogon

Posts: 2572 | From: Nomad | Registered: Jun 2007 | IP: Logged

Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
The ethics panel disagrees. They claim the abortion was "necessary to save the mother's life".

To me this indicates a dispute of the medical and social facts of the case. The bishop seems to be indicating this was either an unnecessary procedure approved by an activist nun, or the ethicist didn't know enough about ethics to justify the procedure, in which case she shouldn't be sitting on an ethics board.

I can't find Bishop Olmstead disagreeing with the medical facts of the case, so it's really only the the "social facts" (is that synonymous with 'ethics'?) which are in dipute. The main disagreement can essentially be boiled down to the hospital's position that steps should be taken to save the mother's life and Olmstead's opinion that the proper thing to do was nothing, even if doing nothing was a certain death sentence for all involved.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357

Posted

quote:
Originally posted by Dumpling Jeff:
Croesos, it's my understanding that a direct killing is one where the intent is to kill. If the intent was to kill the baby, then it was wrong. If the intent (and procedure) was to aid the mother, then it can be justified.

Thus, restricting the blood flow to non-essential organs will have an unintended effect of killing the baby. This is not a direct abortion. Since a direct abortion took place (according to the bishop anyway) this isn't what happened.

The ethics panel disagrees. They claim the abortion was "necessary to save the mother's life".

To me this indicates a dispute of the medical and social facts of the case. The bishop seems to be indicating this was either an unnecessary procedure approved by an activist nun, or the ethicist didn't know enough about ethics to justify the procedure, in which case she shouldn't be sitting on an ethics board.

Even though this happened in the land of the brown shirts, I still have to side with the bishop - until more facts come in. Loyalty is way underrated these days.

So. There is a medical dispute about whether a tragic procedure was necessary.

On one side you have the medical professionals responsible for treatment of the patient, with an intimate knowledge of the problems of the patient. On the same side you have the consensus of all the people on the medical board with full access to the patients medical records.

On the other side you have the Bishop, who almost certainly for confidentiality reasons did not know the patient, and was not in posession of either complete and up to date medical training or case notes.

You're welcome to side with the bishop here. I'll side with the people who have the best knowledge of the case - i.e. the doctors, and with the medical ethics group. Especially as the Bishop was apparently disagreeing with the principle rather than the detail of the case.

--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.

Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.

Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003 | IP: Logged

Pages in this thread: 1 2 3 4

Printer-friendly view

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0

sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website